Response to "Zeitgeist: Addendum"

My brother sent me a link on facebook to watch a documentary called "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and wondered what my thoughts where, I spent a lot of time on this response so I thought I might as well post it as a blog.

Here are my thoughts.  The movie had some good things about it and a lot of things that made me want to rip my hair out. I enjoyed the very beginning where it talks about the federal reserve, and I was willing to look over some of the economic illiteracies that I saw such as the term "wage slave" that we libertarians have debated endlessly against when talking to socialists. And calling money "debt" I suppose could be a technical truth but its a fairly manipulative way of putting it.

However as soon as it started to claim that wal-mart destroys small business and machines take the jobs of assembly workers it is clear that they don't even have a basic economic understanding or they are purposely avoiding obvious facts. Wal-mart greatly improves the quality of life in the towns that it goes to. To suggest that "mom and pop" shops have a right to exist is to claim that they have a right to exist at the expense of everyone's interest. This is usually why we condemn monopolies. Also claiming that new technology takes away from other peoples jobs is absurd. New technology has only created more jobs, and improved the quality of life. Also this attack on "monetary-ism" is silly. A medium of exchange is extremely useful and the only way to have an effective economy, perhaps it can even be said that a medium of exchange is a kind of technology.

But even if we ignore that, economic principles are still in effect without a median of exchange. For example, if you lived on an island by your self and you lived by picking berries everyday, you would still be subject to the laws of supply and demand. You would have to pick more berries then you consume or else you would die. Lets say there were two of you on the island. You pick berries and Tim hunts. At first you could simply exchange berries for meat, how ever the more complex your economy gets the less effective this will become, eventually you will need a medium of exchange. This way you can simply BUY the meat from Tim and he can BUY the berries from you.

The best medium of exchange we have ever used in history is gold. Gold is durable, and limited creating a very stable medium of exchange. To call "monetary" the root of all evil is fairly radicals. It is simply a matter of economic law that makes exchange more fluent. They can call it "wage slavery" if they want, in which case I would welcome them to live in middle of no where, with child mortality rates of 75% and see if how much more free they are. Even then they are subject the the laws of supply and demand as I pointed out before. They would simply have a less efficient economy. Period. Just like there are certain ways to be healthy there is certain way to live prosperously. To call living healthy "lack-of-fast-food-slavery" is silliness.

Now to the issue of scarcity. The argument from scarcity is out dated and full of half truths. Some industries are subject to scarcity and prophet from it.  Some do not.  Volvo makes its profits from a lack of scarcity, Ford arguably does not. Also something that cannot be avoided is that scarcity is a fact of nature, not of economics (I mean economics in the sense of an advanced market, not picking berries this time). If Scarcity was not a state of nature then there would be no need for hunting or farming. There are certain ways to optimize our resources around us, and nothing to date has done this better then capitalism, competition, and rational self interest.

True, technology is very useful when making resources more abundant ("monetary-ism" being one of these technologies) but what did technology come from?  It is not some kind of independent entity. It came from competition, capitalism, and self interest which the movie repeatedly condemns.  It did not come from "brotherly love" and I don't really care if it did.  Is the motivation so important?

The movies greatest flaw is that it says technology is great and liberating and free trade is not.  Money and free trade ARE a technology that helps minimize the issue of scarcity. If you don't believe me then simply look at the issue of scarcity under feudalism as compared to capitalism. However I am perfectly open to the possibility that capitalism may become an out dated technology some day.

Many of the issues posed as problems of capitalism and money are not problems of free trade and economics but of a mixed economy. but considering how long this has gone perhaps we can get into that another time.  But in short it is not "money" and "greed" that is the root of all evil, but the legitimization of violence.  Once violence (in the form of government usually) is introduced into the free market it is no longer an extension of human beings and their interests, but the representation of some humans interests taking priority over others.

Attraction as Expression

What is a person with no sense of self? A vague and broken creature. A pushover  that has nothing to offer, nothing to give, and nothing to be loved. Sincerity is the result of a self actualized individual. Someone who simply does what they are told is not capable of sincerity.

Think of how this relates to love and relationships with others in general. Are we in love with a cultural standard or an individual? Do we find confidence or submission attractive? These are vital question to be asked because what we are attracted to shows a great deal about ourselves.

Most of my readers are from Utah, and can probably relate to the mentality of many girls around here of "I will only marry a returned missionary" (men in the church at the age of 19 go on "missions" for two years to "preach" the "gospel" to put it simply).  Think about how interesting that is. The girl is not setting up a standard that has anything to do with personality, but culture.  In other words, they are in love with the cultural standard, not the individual.

This is just one clear example but there are many other ways that we tend to become attracted to social standards rather then individuals.  If you will only date a "hot" girl then clearly you are in love with the cultural standard of "hotness" not the individual. However this is not the point of this blog and I have written about it before in 'Concerning Stereotypes of Women'.

The point I am trying to make can probably best be put in the form of a question: Are we attracted to an individual person, who has great qualities and strives to be something more? Or are we attracted to something else?

I am sure most of us think that we are attracted to people with great qualities but I would ask you to reexamine that belief.

A personal example that I can give is that in my teens my first dating experiences were with people who lacked any self confidence or self respect. The interesting question to ask, but one that  rarely is, would be, why did I date people who didn't have anything to offer me? I believe the answer was because I had very little self respect also, and being with someone who did have self respect would have been uncomfortable.

There were many reason for this I am sure, but we won't get into all of that just now. The main point is that what we are attracted to shows a lot about who we are. I am sure we have all heard it before "girls only like jerks" "nice guys finish last" or "guys only like air heads". We complain about this but never really think about what it means. Why does a certain girl only like jerks?  Why does a certain guy only like air heads? But the most useful question I believe that we can ask is, why am I attracted to X? Is X something I truly admire? Is X truly a good thing for me? I would suggest thinking about the people that you have dated or been involved with.  See any patterns? Do you like these patterns? I think these are very important things to ask yourself.

Perhaps something even more interesting to ask, is "why am I NOT attracted to X, even though X is something I truly admire".

I am sure we can all relate "so and so is a great person, but..." Maybe there is a valid reason why you are not a attracted to a certain person, but is an interesting thing to think about. That if there is certain things you truly admire about someone, but you date/get involved with people who don't meet up to the standards of what you think a good person is then I think you are saying something about yourself.

What is it that we are attracted to? And why? Individuality or conformity? Confidence or low self esteem? Intelligence or the lack there of? 

It is truly a sad thing if we believe that what we love and what we believe we have to do are two different things... Understanding yourself is the only way to set yourself free.

To Libertarian Party Members

Due to my reading of Nietzsche and Dawkins most of my blogs have been about religion and god, so perhaps its time for a different topic.

Today I would like to talk to my fellow libertarians, mostly those of who (probably the vast majority) who still have faith in politics. Or in short, those of you who are minarchists instead of anarchists.

The man you see here is Bob Barr, candidate for the libertarian party.

Today I picked up the November issue of Reason Magazine (the most successful libertarian magazine around) which I still enjoy reading from time to time. In this issue they did an interview with Bob Barr. If you are considering voting for Bob Barr and call your self a libertarian I would highly suggest you read it. Perhaps you will get an idea of how politics is destroying the beautiful philosophy of libertarianism.

Perhaps what I found the most shocking and appalling. was this:

REASON: What is the harm of having people who came here from Ecuador or Mexico, without documentation, if they're not otherwise committing crimes?

BARR: It has to do with basic respect for the rule of law and respect for a country's sovereignty. If people do not have the respect for the law, and if people do not have that respect for our sovereignty, they have no business being here.

Sense when has being a libertarian involved "respect for the rule of law"? I cannot believe that someone can call themselves a libertarian and say that "If people do not have the respect for the law... they have no business being here."

Is this the best the LP (libertarian party) can do?

The term libertarian is starting to become just a name for a slightly more radical republican. We are letting ourselves become corrupted by politics.

It is my belief that this is all politics has to offer: corruption.

For those of you libertarians (or anyone for that matter) consider this.

• Governments always grow
• Small governments always grow the fastest
• Big governments always result in mass murder and oppression.

These are the only things history has to offer us. There is no excuse for being blind to the nature of government, yet we always cling to this failed experiment of the minimal government, or benevolent socialist government, or the "moderate" government. We all have our ideas of what the "perfect government" would be like, yet we ignore the fact that government always grows, always oppresses, and always kills.

In the last 7 years government spending has gone up by 40%. To be patriot 7 years ago and to be a patriot now are entirely different things. America is not anything like it was in the 18th century when it was formed. In fact this whole concept called "America" is nonsense. The people who were proud of their country 100 years ago and those who are proud of it now are proud of entirely different ideas and concepts. There is no constant called "America" there is no standard of "American". The constitution is used as toilet paper on a regular basis.

Despite all this we still waste so much intellectual and emotional time and energy on this joke. "If only we could just shrink the government back down" "if only we could get universal heath care" it is all a false and vain hope. It should now be clear that the nature of government and the nature of human beings are not parallel.

I suppose my cry to libertarians (and everyone else, it is simply libertarians who will be the most open to this message) to consider other possibilities, to consider alternatives to this thing called "government" this thing called "authority" that is clearly corrupt and clearly unfounded by any objective and consistent ethics.

I am not asking you to be an anarchist right away, but to please consider the fact that government is a failure, and an intellectual cancer upon human beings. Please do not simply dismiss this idea, but let us form a new kind of skepticism. The skepticism of the state, as an idea all together. What harm can some skepticism do?

Meaning of the "After Life"

Clearly the idea of an "after life" can be linked to simple wishful thinking. However I believe there is more behind this idea. After all I wish I could fly some times, I wish I could eat fast food every day and still be healthy, I wish about a lot of things, but I don't create some alternate reality where I can get everything I want. Yet this is what people do with the after life, it is wishful thinking that they assert to be a fact. What does this tell us about those who honestly believe in an after life (keep in mind there is a difference between some one who thinks it would be nice to have an after life and some one who honestly believes it)? I assure you they are making a clear statement.

To embrace the idea of superhuman, or supernatural is clearly meaning you believe that human beings and nature and worthless. To embrace an "after life" is to express your hatred for your current life.

These people need an after life. Why? because they are miserable in their current one. Consider the idea of resurrection. These people are acknowledging that they are currently NOT alive right now. That their life right now is meaningless and empty but after they die THEN they will be happy.

They clearly express their position and its relationship with reality. The best thing you can do with religious beliefs is die. Or in other words, religion and existence are not compatible.

But of course... even killing your self is a sin, despite the fact that god has made it clear how pathetic and what an inherently evil you are. No the meaning of life is live as miserably as possible then you can die and be happy.

What would religion and mystical beliefs be with out the afterlife? A miserable and empty life.

Considering that there is no afterlife, that is exactly what they get.

Why not live your life now? Why not "resurrect" your self in this life? All they have to offer is guilt and fear, in exchange for fantasy.

"Salvation"?

Perhaps in this blog we can get to the heart of what religion really is. understand when these people bring up the topic of "salvation" what they are truly implying.

You are guilty of being human, and I am the one that can save you.

Religion is the man that breaks into your house, and then tries to sell you a security system the next day. They create an artificial demand and then make their sell based on how vulnerable you feel.

You are guilty of being alive, you are guilty of being alive, you are guilty of being alive... and I can save you!

Saved from what? By what standard was I guilty to begin with?

Of course all this is founded on "god". The magic man in the sky who established these rules and you must obey them weather or not they have any relevance to your nature (often they are in direct opposition to your nature. Consider the Mormon scripture "the natural man is an enemy to god.."). If we replace the word "god" with anything else this idea would be ridicules. "Esmerelda the purple penguin says that everything I say is right, and you have to obey me.''

Though it is not the point of this blog, the vital question to ask is why do we take god more seriously then our friend Esmerelda? Any honest person will realize the only real difference is cultural influence.

However I suppose the point that I would like to make is that, when you consider religion you are putting your self worth as a human being up to debate. You are saying "maybe I am guilty of being alive, and I need a personal god to complete my short comings." or maybe this idea that you are guilty of being born is an evil notion that has the same roots as racism, sexism, and other just things that are based on placing value on how you were born.

These people honestly claim that you are born a flawed, low, and broken. Just as racists and sexists have claimed for years. Yet when religion does this and claim we "need to be saved" we don't get nearly as offended.

Honestly ask you self why that might be.