I thought this was pretty funny. Peter Joseph [ Official ]s complaints about the current state of the world do seem to be rooted in statism. I believe that the nature of human beings isnt to be good or bad to each other. It is simply self-preservation. In the recognition of this, if the average human being has direct consequences for his/her actions (good or bad), then he/she is inclined to do more good things and disincentivized to do more bad things. If there are little to no negative consequences for bad actions or even positive consequences for bad actions and little to no positive consequences for good actions, then where is the incentive to do good and not do bad? Which leads me to anarchism. Peter Joseph seems to think this human behavior of self-preservation, what I take as natural, is a learned behavior and encouraged by statism and capitalism. Whereas, I view capitalism as a result of human behavior, not an implemented system. I could be incorrect interpreting his statements, so please correct me if so. I have little exposure to Peter Joseph. Ive seen the first two Zeitgeist movies and a debate with Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux (dont care about your opinion of him). I couldnt finish the second Zeitgeist documentary because once someone misdiagnoses a symptom (which is a premise of their following argument) due to a lack of understanding of money and its origin as a natural and spontaneous market phenomenon, I just cant take the rest of their argument seriously. Thoughts?
Posted on: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 21:49:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015