chomsky on free market myths

[marvenger]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

yeah but that's because you had a small group that had all the rights.

Don't get me wrong, if you've got land there's no way your going to give it up coz some other prick will just end up taking it. What Fresco is trying to do is use donations and mostly his own money to get such a system started to see if it can work.

[Scot]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

yep, what have you got to fear if no else owns any land either.

Starvation.

[Rajiv]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

The Venus project was discussed in this thread -- as I said there, that in the current world circumstances it cannot work .

[marvenger]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

Fresco has said the same thing. Its a capitalist sytem we're in so you need money to get it started, but you've got start somewhere and have an internally consistent view of where you want to head.

[Supercilious]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

yep, what have you got to fear if no else owns any land either.

Marvenger, I believe that would be a false solution. I believe the solution is a little bit more complex than that. Communism ended in disaster everywhere.

Here is a long read, but maybe it helps you see things different:

A Tale of Securitized Cod, Babylonian Finance and Simple Math. Part 1

A Tale of Securitized Cod, Babylonian Finance and Simple Math. Part 2

A Tale of Securitized Cod, Babylonian Finance and Simple Math. Part 3

[Supercilious]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

noticed that itulip for 10 years preached 1. it's crony capitalism and 2. it's bad because it leads to a crash and communism?

that's the whole friggin point of the site. get it???

Yup. I have to give credit where it is due. No contest to that.

[marvenger]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

It seems that by trying to look at these things without the lense of ideology, and just trying to have a look at something as objectively as possible in cause and effect terms, you get labeled as belonging to some kind of ideology. I'm not pushing a communist agenda here. I'm not asking everyone to sell their possessions and live on good vibes of mother earth. Just try to look at things more objectively and recognise contradictions and acknowledge them rather than ignoring for the sake of some other ideology.

[Supercilious]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

It seems that by trying to look at these things without the lense of ideology, and just trying to have a look at something as objectively as possible in cause and effect terms, you get labeled as belonging to some kind of ideology. I'm not pushing a communist agenda here. I'm not asking everyone to sell their possessions and live on good vibes of mother earth. Just try to look at things more objectively and recognise contradictions and acknowledge them rather than ignoring for the sake of some other ideology.

No. At least that is not valid in my case. I was not implying you were pushing the communist agenda. I was just trying to say that IMHO communism or any organization that denies the right to owing property is just a false solution as is the crony capitalism. If you want to look at things "without the lenses of ideology and as objectively as possible in cause and effect terms", please take some time and read the links in my previous posts. Even if you will not agree with the views expressed there, you may get a different understanding of the issues.

[marvenger]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

ok but I wasn't pushing for the denial of property rights either, I was just asking to have a look at the negative effects and contradictions as well, or to have a look at some possible positive effects if it was denied.

I'd only actually deny property rights if there was some guarantee of abundance under a system described in the zeitgeist movement for example. Then I think the positve benefits could prevail without any negative effects unless you're an ego freak.

I'll check out your links.

[Rajiv]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

some guarantee of abundance under a system described in the zeitgeist movement for example.

Think again on this key sentence in the context of 6-7 billion human inhabitants of this planet -- which is already straining at the limits -- is a transition to the world envisioned by the Venus project even feasible?

My contention is that in the current circumstances it is not. If the world population was an order of magnitude smaller, it may have been feasible. And I do not see any way to get to that population level and to have intact a sufficient knowledge and industrial base left to bring that vision to a reality.

[marvenger]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

the way we currently apply technology you are probably right, but watch the zeitgeist video particularly the technology section, they believe abundance wont be a problem in the near future if we get cracking.

[Sharky]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

the way we currently apply technology you are probably right, but watch the zeitgeist video particularly the technology section, they believe abundance wont be a problem in the near future if we get cracking.

Tell you what, why don't you get cracking. When you have it solved (or even before that), then give everything you have to me, because, after all, you don't need any property. And I have needs. Lots and lots of needs. My needs are more important than your property, so just give it all to me. It's your duty. You can't stop. Ever. You owe me. You promised.

[marvenger]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

chill bro, you haven't been listening, it's all about concepts being thrown around and if the concepts aren't to do with immediate needs most don't care to listen. Most have more needs than ever, and unfortunately you won't be getting my property. Well I'll still be giving some to charity and some to zeitgeist and it seems aussie tax money is going to a fair few kiwis as bonuses so who knows you might get a bit.

[sunskyfan]

Re: chomsky on free market myths

It depends on how the mill came into existence. If it was LockMart wich was built on government contract after government contract then immenent domain of the corporation goes to both "the people" and "the worker". If it was like the ma and pa burger joint down the street then ownership clearly goes to ma and pa. Once a company "goes public" for funding then ownership is to the shareholder with responsibility to the common good of all of us.