Thursday, December 19, 2013

VTV Files a Bogus DMCA against my YouTube Poop of Him [SENT COUNTER CLAIM] [VTV RESPONDS]

1 comment:
People like James Kush, the Anon2AllOfUs people, MarioBrotha..etc. have a problem revealing their identity and never pursued Neil on his bogus DMCA stunts. It seems like he sees himself as bullet proof when it comes to this and decided to go after me. Like I did with Peter Joseph, I have no problem volunteering my information to these jokers and their frivolous legal shenaniganry.

This this afternoon I recieved this when I opened up my YouTube page on my phone.
Neil Kiernan sent a false DMCA on my YouTubePoop of him. For those who don't know what YouTube poops are, take this example. This is a YouTubePoop I made of a YouTube user CardinalVirtues (who's new channel is UnseenPerfidy. Good stuff, go sub.) His videos are heavily researched, often political videos. He's an atheist, skeptic, fiscal conservative democrat and he liked the video I made. 

Let's say good ol' Rob took offence instead. He does own the copyright to most of the content I used in the video. Could he, if he wanted to, file a DMCA over it and take it down? The answer is no.

DMCA and the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 accounts for "fair use" pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

There's 4 factors determining Fair Use:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from his or her original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.
So under Rob's theoretical DMCA claim, he would be not able to file a takedown legally.

When filing a DMCA, you are signing a legally binding document, under penalty of perjury, that you understand DMCA and U.S. Copyright Law and it clearly is an infringement of your copyright. Title 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512(f)

(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section —
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

And knowingly is important, but it can't be used as a defense in YouTube's policy. When filing a DMCA Takedown on YouTube there's three checkboxes you must tick to file it:
By checking the following boxes, I state that:
∗   I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
∗   This notification is accurate; and
∗   UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
∗   I acknowledge that under Section 512(f) of the DMCA any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages.
∗   I understand that abuse of this tool will result in termination of my YouTube account. 
(Emphasis mine.
So legally, such a defense will not hold up in court.

So what happens next? I notified VTV he had 24 hours to repeal his takedown or I will file a counterclaim. This clock ends December 20, 2013 at 14:00 PST. Within 10 days of the filing 4 things will happen:

My information will be provided to Neil.
My video will be reinstated
The strike against my channel will be lifted
VTV's YouTube account(s) may suffer termination.

In order for the video to be removed thereafter, he would have to file a lawsuit against me and risk reimbursing my legal fees or lost monetary damages I might suffer (days lost from work, traveling...etc.) I'll also file an injuction preventing him from filing further DMCAs against myself.

Now I'm no fan of censorship. Having his channel terminated I don't like, but it's my only option to fight this blatant form of censorship against me. VTV did not like the YouTubePoop I made, which is in full compliance of U.S. copyright law and abused the legal framework to remove it. I can't stand idle while people abuse this system and so I will be following through. So I have my hands tied. Sorry VTV. You can still stop this. Stop being a bitch, and be a man. Repeal the takedown.

Here's a link to the video that was taken down. Once this has been resolved it will be viewable again.

UPDATE: Because I was a little drowsy from donating blood (because I'm a greedy capitalist who only cares about money and not ever helping anyone) I couldn't stay up until 2:00 PM, so I filed my counter claim at around 6:00PM when I woke up.

UPDATE: VTV responds.

Monday, December 16, 2013

Here's What You Have to do to Promote Communism in 21st Century America

No comments:
1. Avoid calling it communism or Marxism.

2. If anyone still calls it communism, ascribe positions to communism communists don't hold and say you don't subscribe to those positions.

3. Barrow legitimacy from science and technology. People can disagree with your ideology but not science. So just pretend that you wanting to use science in your prescription is the same as it being scientific.

4. Everything else isn't a TRUE Scotsman like yours is. If there's place that has tried your idea already and failed, just say it didn't have the technology to do it yet. Because the whole world was banging rocks until you figured out your ideology so it didn't count. Nevermind that they had a successful space program or the ability to mass produce things, it can't be good enough unless it went smoothly.

5. Nevermind the details, you got pretty pictures. Why bother with explaining how it will work right this time, we'll figure it out later with science magic. Now, shut up and look at these pretty city designs.

6. Only politicians and for-profit firms are subject to corruption. Once you wear a lab coat instead of a suit and tie, you're unable to corrupt anything. Science is magical, it can do no wrong.

7. Convert idiots with cheap gimmicks and internet videos. Why try and get real scientists to support you when you can solicit the help of idiots on YouTube? Also do some Mr. Wizard tricks like showing how memory wire works and say it can do things it can't like make a self repairing car out of it.

8. If someone is attempting to debunk your ideology, just remember to define your rigid ideology in the most vaguest way possible. Sure he can show why it won't work to just remove money, so don't bother. Just say you're just a "sustainability advocacy group" and there only thing you want is to address "social concerns."

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Dr. Zeitgeist or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Robot.

No comments:
Responding to Peter Joseph's Economic Calculation Problem Lecture.

I initially had no plans to make this for 4 reasons:

1. Peter Joseph Merola, the leader (yes, he is the leader) of The Zeitgeist Movement is an incoherent, ignorant, megalomaniacal prick. He's not too shy to send me bogus legal threats and he did (probably still does) think I'm James Kush because Jim is short for James and we both oppose TZM. When he's not out trying to knuckle anti-TZM websites out of existence, he's constructing an epic tower of fail at the word salad bar.

2. TZM is a 'dead' 'movement.' Though it was hardly alive in it's heyday in 2009-2010, it was so fringe even then it made anarcho-capitalists seems like a viable political outfit. Attendance at their events like Z-Day and The Zeitgeist Media Festival since have been steadily declining after the split with TVP. The views and subscriptions to TZM's Culture in Decline series have been pretty dismal too if you discount the obvious view bot activity that happened around April of this year.

3. I don't subscribe to the ECP anymore but there's a few things you must consider about the argument that stands well. While it doesn't show that socialism is impossible, it does point out the importance of the price system, trade, and private ownership has in an economy. It's the only reason I keep that video and blog post up. Even if the conclusion is faulty, the reasoning does illustrate how money and trade works. Needless to say, the socialist responses to ECP have always been terribly bad, factually inaccurate, and logically inconsistent. It has always amused me how much mental gymnastics a collectivist can do to disprove an incorrect theory.

4. The idea that having to work in a market economy to make a living is comparable to chattel slavery is beyond the pale. I'm sorry your McBoss is a jerk, but he doesn't beat you, kill you, and rape your female family members. The wage slave argument, as I've illustrated before, is intellectually bankrupt. I take it less seriously than Marx's Labor Theory of Value or Reverend Moon's claim of divinity. When I heard him make this direct comparison, I turned the video off in disgust. He's devaluing the horrors of chattel slavery to serve his ideological position. It's disgusting when PETA does it, it's no less disgusting when Merola does it.

However curiosity got the better of me and I jumped to Part 3 of the video where he tries to address the ECP. Before that I did take some notes from what I did see of Part 1.

He talks about resource consumption and reproduction. Shows a study that said if we keep business as usual we'll overshoot this balance and start running out of resources.

Problem is it ignores the price mechanic. Supply goes down, prices go up making it more advantageous to extract in harder to extract locations, develop new methods of creating said resource, or seek and develop alternatives. The world was sure we couldn't sustain wale oil to light everyone's home until kerosene came along. Now we don't even use kerosene, we use tungsten, neon gas, and LEDs. So "business as usual" wouldn't happen because of the price mechanic because both consumers and producers would be restrained financially to do so.

"Abundance, sustainability, and efficiency are the enemies of profit" 

On the contrary. Take for example bluefin tuna. As the Chinese people are moving away from poverty they are developing a taste for sushi. Tuna, being one of the most popular fish used for sushi, are becoming threatened by this new demand. It's driving entrepreneurs to find sustainable fishing and farming methods to fulfill this demand including more efficient ways to feed them that would alleviate the threat on overpopulation in their eco-systems. Now tuna was pretty abundant when this all started to become noticeable and these alternatives were being explored. Entrepreneurs on a market want to create abundance to serve the demand, sustainability to preserve their business model, and efficiency to keep costs of production and price of final goods down. The only business that would be OK with holding back good from the market are those with a state-protected monopoly because if you know you can have competition you can't survive hiding back goods for higher prices. It's not just tuna, not just farming in general either, it applies across the board. If you go into any market. Let's say milk. How long do you think your business survive if you decide to only sell 300 gallons a month for 20 bucks a gallon (SPOILER: One month)

" capitalism is, indeed, empirically socially destabilizing" 

This is factually and empirically false. If you look at the data from the whole world from the dawn of man to today, you will see a decline in violence. Wars are fought less frequently, less brutally, and with less deaths. There's less violent crimes. The reasons for this are a system of law, women's suffrage, cosmopolitanism, education, and (get ready for this) commerce.

So on to part 3.

Market Capitalism's structural goal is growth and maintaining rates of consumption high enough to keep people employed at any given time; employment requires a culture of real or perceived inefficiency and that essentially means the preservation of scarcity in one form or another.
...and good luck getting a market economist to admit that.

Zeitgeisters want to have a huge robot army that will bash people over the head with a recyclable aluminum T-ball bat to anyone who asks for something even remotely luxurious as an iPad because there's not enough to go around. Good luck getting A Zeitgeister to admit this.

See how smarmy this is? No, that's not how a market works. It's not even possible in a market economy because of the possibility of competition that makes such a business model unsustainable without explicit state-sanction monopolization of an industry.

The RBE, RBEM, NLRBE, or whatever the new buzz word is this year for technocratic communism is not a centrally planned system because, according to Merola, it's a "Collaborative Design System" that allows for public feedback into a open source system. I hate to burst your bubble, Dear Leader, but that's not what TZM has been advocating all this time. TZM, when it was still partnered with TVP, has said there will be scientists and engineers from the world's nations and universities who will come together and construct a new state and cities and transition into a totally cybernetic system. You concurred. You concurred for long after the split. Only now you want to change it because you don't like the term "central planning." If you didn't have a problem with that term, you would have never bothered working in the CDS in your movement.

This all sounds fine and dandy when you're going to be implementing software to run an encyclopedia or operating systems for geeks who know what's going on, but not for running an economy. When you talk about having a system that allocates literally all of the world's resources, this becomes a target for sociopaths. If a line in Wikipedia about JFK going to the moon and getting punched by Buzz Aldrin is on Wikipedia for a day, a few people chuckle and it gets fixed. No harm done. If this happens for something like all the world's conflict metals, everyone is fucked for a long time. Sure you could have people monitoring the system and try and correct, but if you get an attack by a group like LulzSec... God, I don't even want to think about it.

Look, open source is great. I love it. I use Linux off and on. I prefer to use free community maintained software as much as the next nerd. To think that just making something open source makes it better and near-perfect is not even remotely accurate. Take the open source Second Life viewer. It's a total piece of shit, all of them. They all run like crap on virtually every computer I've ever used it on. Sure you can point to something like BitCoin which if hacked or exploited, the system can just revert the money back to the rightful owner by a software fix which wouldn't be possible if you just ordered the destruction of a good amount of the world's lithium.

Either way, it's not exactly horizontal planning system as we'll see later on. If the computer network (though decentralized in structure) comprises of a centralized AI system that decides what can be made and what may not be made. Wikipedia without the moody administrators.

Or like TZM's moody global coordinators and moderators too? Didn't think so.

Price, property [sic] and money translate subjective demand preferences into semi-objective exchange values. 
Sigh. No. Prices translate production costs too. This is important, you can't leave this out. You also just can't say, objectively, that because you don't think something has much value than you think it should for technical reasons that it's just some cultural bugaboo. Dude, you're using a Mac. Technically, it's overpriced hardware with a closed source OS. You could, technically speaking, have a much faster, more reliable PC laptop with an open source OS like any of the Linux distros. Cheaper too!  But who am I to say it doesn't have more value to you than it does me? I guess I don't understand the value of being a hipster. :/

...prices embrace, very crudely, relates to resource scarcity and labor energy.

No, no. No. No, no, no. No, no. No. Prices communicate resource scarcity, production costs, and value. There's more to production than just "labor energy." You have capital goods, supporting infrastructure, research and development, logistics, advertisement...etc. Prices also reflect, and this is really, really, really, really, important, perceived value.

Let's say that collectively, we all agree that a pile of iron ore, some buckets rubber sap, a barrel of crude oil, and some copper water is worth 100 utils. That means that we agree that the utility of this stuff to us is worth "100" as they are. Now let's say we whip it up into a car and we spent 200 utils doing so. Buying tools, paying people..etc. total price to build 300 utils. But a car has more utility as a car than the raw resources, and we are willing to pay 900 utils. That means they we created 600 units of utility. Now let's say we whipped up the same stuff into a shit moped that just sits there and looks ugly because the crappy eco-friendly recyclable engine sucks 200 utils. Now people will only want to pay 50 utils for it. Now we just wasted 250 utils and we're all poorer. Now without the units of utils we won't know, according to ECP, that we've created value or wasted resources.

Do you see how Merola has no idea what the fuck he's talking about now?

Now we get a scientific sounding formula:
Design Efficiency > Production Efficiency > Distribution Efficiency > Recycling Efficiency = Utopia.

But no comment on it yet. ...ok.

Merola throwing this "steady state" economic idea around without understanding what it means ever since the ECP was becoming a thorn in his side. This was because Mises himself described an scenario where the ECP wouldn't apply. The Steady State Economy. Which is the bogus idea that everyone would just make the exact same economic decisions at steady and predictable times. Imagine eating the same thing, using the same technology every day, and doing the exact same thing for leisure every day for the rest of your life. That's the steady state economy. It was an absurdity that Merola picked up on without even bothering to think about.

He then goes into the needs versus wants shit. Let me be clear; there's no such thing as objective human needs. There's concepts of what humans require to stay alive and healthy both mentally and physically, but there's no "needs." People willingly commit suicide (and no, it's not mostly about money they do this.) People actively join services like the military, police force, snow crab fishing..etc which they know their lives could end. Living is a sliding scale desire. Some desire it more than others for a plethora of different reasons. Food, is a basket of goods. You can have tasteless gruel that can be mass produced, or you could have French truffles and wild Russian caviar which can not. Shelter is the same. You can have a bunk on a rotating bed or a small studio apartment or you could have a mansion made of marble. So again with all these sliding scales of desires, there will have to be subjective decisions on what to make. They have to be subjective whims because they're subjective values. Given the hundreds of trillions of different ways to manage all the resources involved in producing them into food and shelter, You'll need all the information that prices provide (more on that later) to forecast those decisions, and you'll need a measuring stick to see if you're creating value or destroying it.

The idea that capital goods are going to be consumer goods is just absurd. What will the 3D printer 'ink' come from? Another 3D printer? No, it will have to be extracted. By a 3D printer? No, by producer capital goods. There's going to be a need for a quarry to get rock and lime to make your cement, iron ore and refinery tools and machines for the metal, and oil and refineries for the plastics.

Again, Merola doesn't know what he's talking about.

He says we can get rid of waste by printing things where we need it instead of shipping it. Only you'll need to ship the "ink" to the printer. What of you have a Montana situation were like a handful people live in the whole state over a large spread? Or a situation like New York which can't sustain it's own local resources for production?

Now we get a scientific sounding formula again:
Design Efficiency > Production Efficiency > Distribution Efficiency > Recycling Efficiency = Utopia.

But no comment on it yet. ...OK.

More stupid nonsense about capitalism. Your only choice is what corporations give you. Ignoring the fact there is open source options and the ability to design your own an compete. The people who know how to design phones most efficiently work for said companies. Us vs. Them nonsense. *yawn*

The military is not totally socialist nor are they efficient. They outsource most of their production and R&D to contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Beechcraft, ..etc. and they do compete for contracts. They also buy up Hummers, tanks, ships, and aircraft that are gas guzzlers at over inflated prices. Only in Merolaville is the military efficient.

Now for the Design Efficiency, there's no need for a lot of this stuff. For one, if we're going to recycle it, why do we need modular systems? Just recycle it and get a new one with the features you want? Why make it durable when the recycling process will break it down anyway? You're giving it a head start. Why would you have both totally custom 3D printed goods and standardization? Why not have trade-offs?

Now what I've said totally undermines his new NLRBEMCSDEOC ...thing. but here's where I'll make this clear:

Heterogeneous Value Assessment can not work. Why? 3 Reasons:

1. It assumes resources are resources for certain things based on what we know now and how much we have of it. Sure we can know the conductivity of something like copper back in the 50's for making telephone wire, now we use sand which isn't even conductive. Now we mostly use radio waves. Tomorrow who knows what we'll use. A resource is only a resource once we know how to use it and it's only viable once we know if it creates value rather than destroys it. While price will give you a real-time reflection of these production costs and values, the system would need new software upgrades to account for the emergent demand and the recycling of the old. Which, typically comes with development time and some bugs.

Bugs are fine and all if you're going to run a website, but to manage all of the earth's resources... I'm going to pass on that.

2. This new system does not calculate all production costs (costs not in money, but of capital goods extending generations back.) To have plastic, you must have crude oil, which needs to be extracted, refined and shipped all by various machines which is made of a host of other raw resources which were made of other machines made of various resources, which were made from other machines and so on and so on. Prices give you all of that information. 'Heterogeneous Value Assessment' makes no mention of this.

3. A network (even with various local or 'genre' nodes) still will have problems with mètis knowledge. That is (in case you forgot) knowledge that can not be communicated or understood to people not entrenched in it.

Mètis, with the premium it places on practical knowledge, experience, and stochastic reasoning, is of course not merely the now-superseded precursor of scientific knowledge. It is the mode of reasoning most appropriate to complex material and social tasks where the uncertainties are so daunting that we must trust our (experienced) intuition and feel our way. Albert Howard's description of water management in Japan offers an instructive example: "Erosion control in Japan is like a game of chess. The forest engineer, after studying his eroding valley, makes his first move, locating and building one or more check dams. He waits to see what Nature's response is. This determines the forest engineer's next move, which may be another dam or two, an increase in the former dam, or the construction of side retaining walls. Another pause for observation, the next move is made, and so on, until erosion is checkmated. The operations of natural forces, such as sedimentation and re-vegetation, are guided and used to the best advantage to keep down costs and to obtain practical results. No more is attempted than Nature has already done in the region." The engineer in Howard's account recognizes implicitly that he is dealing with "an art of one valley." Each prudent, small step, based on prior experience, yields new and not completely predictable effects that become the point of departure for the next step. Virtually any complex task involving many variables whose values and interactions cannot be accurately forecast belongs to this genre: building a house, repairing a car, perfecting a new jet engine, surgically repairing a knee, or farming a plot of land. Where the interactions involve not just the material environment but social interaction as well-building and peopling new villages or cities, organizing a revolutionary seizure of power, or collectivizing agriculture-the mind boggles at the multitude of interactions and uncertainties (as distinct from calculable risks)

 - Professor James C. Scott - Seeing Like A State. 1998. 0-300-07016-0 
Merola, if you're reading this (and you probably are as you're typing up another bogus legal threat to me) learn what the fuck you're talking about before you comment on it. I don't even adhere to the ECP anymore and the whole time I could help but caress my forehead as you make some of the most eloquent but blatantly retarded statements. Sure, this will pacify your fans who are clueless about the ECP but you won't win any of the people who adhere to the ECP argument, because to them; you're just an ignorant fool who speaks before they listen.

I rest my case. 

Sunday, October 20, 2013

On The Division of Slavery.

No comments:
Wage slavery is an intellectually bankrupt concept that if pinned down squirms into a whole different slithery animal. Before I explain why, let me tell you a story.

A group of survivors of a plane crash wash up on a deserted island. They all come together and assign chores for everyone to make sure they all survived until help came. John was a redneck back home, so he decided to handle fishing because he was better at it than the others. Trey was a carpenter back home, so he was in charge of building shelter because he was better at it than the others. Josephine was retired and a homemaker who spent a lot of time gardening back home, so she was in charge of farming food because she was better at it than the others. Tom was a bodybuilder and an athlete back home, so he decides to climb the trees for fruit and gather and carry miscellaneous supplies because he was better at it than the others. 
One day Trey gets mad that he has to work to get access to essential living supplies and decided to stop working. The other people in the village decide that Trey would no longer get the fruit of their labor and would have to get his own while the others decided how to reallocate the work load. "This is resource slavery!" said Trey "I have to work, give up the majority of my work, and if I don't I starve." The others rolled their eyes and got back to work while Trey had to go forage for all of his stuff alone. 

So what did we learn? Everyone in the society had a job. The labor was decided according to what they were better suited for.  The reason they did this is because if everyone had to do everything for themselves, they would fail at most areas and succeed in a few. Josephine, being a retiree, would have difficulty in more laborious work, she did have a green thumb so she would had poor housing, poor access to protein, but a nice garden. The other members would have had similar problems. However, the division of labor lets everyone in the group do what they do best, better than the others alone combined, and trade for it.

Was John an evil man for expecting Trey to contribute to the group for access to his surplus of fish? Was Josephine being a greedy bitch for excepting a house in return for access to her garden? Is mother nature a brutal tyrannical instituter of slavery and structural violence? Of course not.

Now expand this out to a far larger and advanced society. People all specialize in even smaller tasks they are best at and trade. Having a neurosurgeon fish for his own crab would be silly, instead he trades his expertise in surgery for the crab fisherman's expertise indirectly though currency. In civilized society, people do what they do best for society for access to the fruit of other's labor and it makes society wealthy.

A person who claims that "the system" is evil because it promotes wage slavery, is being no different than Trey. He expects others to labor for him because of a myopic understanding his role in the division of labor.

"Ah ha! But if he doesn't work for a capitalist for a wage, then he will starve!" Not necessarily. Trey, if he was back home or on the island would still have options. He could decline to participate in this division of labor or forgo the benefits and be a jack of all trades and become self sufficient. Of course, he will not want to do this, because it's too much work for him. He would have to forgo his share of the sum total of all the fruits of the society's labor in exchange for his own "freedom from wage slavery" and expend even more labor for all of his needs. Outside of the island, he has even more choices. He could start his own company and have greater reward. He would no longer be a "slave to the punch clock" and if he has issue with putting others though that, he can form a co-op with other like minded people. This is not out of the ordinary, as there are communal groups who do this like the Twin Oaks commune. Even still, Twin Oaks would probably not allow for Trey to come in and benefit from the other people's labor and not contribute himself. Thus he would probably claim Twin Oaks are wage slave owners.

The whole concept of wage slavery is a joke. People who will tell you with a straight face that "If you don't work in capitalism, you'll starve" will back-peddle when you remind them of the bevy of social programs and charities aimed at people who are less fortunate. "It was an obvious exaggeration" one told me. If it is an exaggeration that not working in a liberalized economic system means you will die of starvation, then the whole idea of wage slavery falls flat because one can abstain from work and still survive. Not only survive, but probably have a better life than left to his own devices in the wild.

For me I chose a life of 'wage slavery' because the alternatives are dire and bleak. My master offers me wages and opportunities to grow in his plantation, become a part owner of the plantation or even leave to let me fine another plantation or even form my own plantation. You can see how silly the slavery language is if used consistently which the left will never do because it undermines their theory.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Just to make things clear...

No comments:
I don't know why people still claim that I am an "Austrian economist."
  1. I'm not an economist. I've never worked as an economist. I've never written any kind of economics journal entries or treatises. Just because I have an interest in economics and I talk about economics does not make me an economist.
  2. I'm not an Austrian. I haven't been an Austrian for about 2 years. I'm more of the public choice types of Chicago School of thought (i.e. Bryan Caplan, David D. Freidman..etc.) . The differences are very small, but they are exactly at the points of many of the claims made against the Austrian School that are applied to me.
If you see things saying I'm an Austrian economist, please disregard. If they can't even get their facts right about that, who knows what else they are fucking up.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Uncle Milty's AgitProp Blues

No comments:
AlterNet was an internet publication I used to read back when I was a liberal and it was the reason I stayed on the far left for a couple years of reading it. It's easy to be that far left when you're so woefully uninformed and AlterNet did it's job well.

As of late, because of the large revival of libertarian thought as social conservatism is seeing it's golden years, the left has been targeting libertarians disproportionately. Self described libertarians are a vast minority, but if you read the left blogosphere you'd swear they're lible to get elected president next election cycle.

On the 6th, AlterNet posted an article "The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda" making the erroneous and outrageously stupid claim that American libertarianism has it's roots in the mid-20th century with Milton Friedman. If you think I'm exaggerating:

This background is important in the Milton Friedman story because Friedman is a founding father of libertarianism, and because the corrupt lobbying deal he was busted playing a part in was arranged through the Foundation for Economic Education.
 Now I can't attest to Freidman's dealings as a lobbyist, it's kind of hard looking it up (especially considering the article is totally unsourced aside from an obscure 1951 book.) The article has 2 major failings and this really does illustrate the readership of AlterNet. Milton could have very well been guilty of because a giant cockball lobbyist in the 50's, but that doesn't negate his contributions to economic theory in the 60's and onward. Even if Milton was a " business lobby shill, a propagandist who would say whatever he was paid to say" it doesn't explain away his contributions nor does it put into question the sincerity of his convictions which was verified by his family repeatedly.

Secondly, Friedman is as much the founding father to libertarianism as Julia Child was the founding mother of French cuisine. Just because you had a popular TV show on a subject doesn't make you Thomas Jefferson of the topic. Libertarianism has been around long before the United States was ever founded. "Liberals" were not the left you see today, they more closely resembled modern day libertarians than they do Democrats. It had it's roots in the 17th Century Scottish Enlightenment with John Locke and Adam Smith. Hell, Mises was teaching economics in Vinenna, Austria in the 20's and up to the Nazi invasion of Austria and when ol' Milty was still in short pants.

Going after Milt and Ayn Rand is a good way to get your fellow leftards a boner because they did so well talking shit on the left and had a good following behind them. It's also laughable when the left, AlterNet too, tries to make the false insinuation that *all* libertarians idolize Rand and Freidman which they do not. Not by a long shot. It's like saying everyone on the left worships Al Gore. Fucking stupid.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

9/11 Twoofer for Congress.

I'm probably wasting my time here, but apparently someone who contacted me a while ago is making a 'serious' bid for congress. I don't know if his bid has any traction, even within his own third party groups. Green Party candidate for Congress in 2014 in South Carolina's 1st district Larry Carter Center and I had an exchange before he ran for congress and he was talking about how 9/11 conspiracies and that corporations killed JFK were "undeniable." I never thought much of it until I saw his congressional bid Facebook page and I thought it should be public knowledge before the Greens decide to actually run this guy.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

VTV is a Liar and Snoop Dog Smokes Weed.

No comments:
Now I knew he put a blog up saying he just found a job back in January of this year and was unemployed previously but.... he deleted it.

Thank goodness we have The Wayback Machine.

Here's a link to his podcast dated January 5th, 2013 wherein he stated he just got a job.
"Eviction stopped. Read update."


Monday, June 24, 2013

It Was Never The Zeitgeist.

People ask me why I would disregard and ignore members of The Zeitgeist Movement and/or The Venus Project. I think the better question is, why did I ever bother in the first place?

TZM and TVP are not relevant, nor were they ever. They might of been relevant for 5 minutes in their whole existence when Zeitgeist: Addendum was released and there was an initial interest but it soon tapered off. Here I will prove, once and for all, that no one gives a rat's ass about TZM, TVP or their religious stance on the Resource Based Economy.

Here is the Google Trend data for search results relating to TZM/TVP. You can see it's always been on a steady decline with a bump and correction around the release of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (the third and final installment of the film series)

Here I took the highest yielding results and compared them to the main proponents (Fresco and Merola) to see if the results would be any higher. They were not so we'll just ignore those and use 'Venus Project' and 'Zeitgeist Movement' as our baseline. 

Let's compare that to 'libertarian' which is a relatively obscure/fringe political position.  

How does a fringe crank like Alex Jones compare to TZM/TVP? Let's just say this dude is Michael Jackson in the 80's by comparison. 

When was the last time anyone cared about Tom Green? When 4Chan was raiding his internet show no one watched? The dude is a total rock star in comparison. 

What about a website that's synonymous with woo, quackery, and pseudoscience?

I couldn't help but laugh at the fact that more people care about a 'comedian' who hasn't have a viable career in over 20 years and was responsible for one of the worst films of all time: BioDome.

So yea, next time A Zeitard tells me TZM is relevant because they were on The Young Turks (as if anyone gives a fuck,) just tell them more people today care about Tom Green and Pauly Shore. So I'll make a deal with you Zeitgeisters. The day people care more about you than Pauly Shore is the day I'll give you the time of day.


Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Bits and PVCs: My Thoughts on The "Great" Analog vs. Digital Debate.

1 comment:
I've taken a liking to vinyl records again. They've always had a spot in my love of music, but it really wasn't until recently I got back in to buying albums on wax. (Wax is a slang term for vinyl records, for the uninitiated)

But there's a lot of myths and half truths regarding vinyl vs. CD, but mostly analog vs. digital on both sides that I think needs to be addressed.

For full disclosure, I will say when it comes to the battle between the 2 formats I'm on the side of analog/vinyl. Mostly my bias is purely based on aesthetics. When I get an album on vinyl, I like getting the whole package. The large album album artworks, the look of the vinyl record itself (colored vinyl, 180/200 gram weights, picture discs...etc.,) sometimes bonuses like additional artwork, linear notes, lyric sheets. posters, and just the feel of having something more loving than just a brittle jewel case with a puny little booklet. I do end up getting a digital copy (some times included) of the album for on the go listening. I do enjoy the more dynamic and the "warmth" of the sound, and the feeling of accomplishment of getting a great sound out of a almost obsolete format.

However, with that said, there's a lot of bunk in the debate I feel needs to be addressed.

Digital proponents have said that analog, vinyl particularly, does not sound good. It's crackly and poppy, low quality, comes with 'hiss', and very inconvenient.

Crackles and pops come when the vinyl disc is dirty or has sustained damage by mishandling. If good care and proper cleaning has been applied to the record, you an get a beautiful sound out of them, very compatible, and sometimes better than the digital copy (I'll explain why later.) I do have some old beat up records in my collection I still play, but the newer ones I have bought are nearly pristine in sound because I make sure not to play them when dirty and take good care of them. If I'm tired or just feel like I don't want to go though the motions, I'll play my digital copy instead.

Hiss is always a factor in analog. Vinyl to a less degree if the record has been well taken care of. Tape hiss on reel to reel is there and present, but technologies have eliminated that issue altogether.

As far as inconvenient, they got us there. To put on a record, I have to make sure the table is clean, the needle is clean, and the vinyl itself is also clean, having to flip it over once in the middle and/or put on disc two and repeat the process to hear the second half of the album. Many albums have 2 discs, so having to mess with it 4 times to hear the whole thing can be a bit much. Like I've said earlier, there's a bit of fun in that as well if all goes well. Opposed to CD or MP3, just plug and play. While this is great because you don't have to think about it, it can also be it's downfall. When I take the time to play a vinyl, I'm more attentive to what I'm listening to because I worked to get it that way, where as CD/MP3 there was no thought applied and thus can be turned into background ambiance with less worry. However, that can be simply overcome by having a love for the music and forcing yourself to be more attentive. Also CDs can have distorted or skipping playback if the CD is dirty or scratched, but you already knew that.

Here is where we get into dangerous waters. By combating digital fan's perceptions of analog is no big deal, combating analog fan's perceptions can be an uphill battle. Analog proponents are vicious and unforgiving. They will tear you apart an leave you for dead if you so much question their grigris. However, their positions are that digital is not up for the task as far as true quality of sound, the warmth of the sound is directly due to the "real" sound being recorded instead of 1's and 0's, digital lacks dynamic sound, and that digital is killing music though piracy.

Now this is where I get hate mail. A digital copy's quality is not any worse than an analog copy. Let me repeat that:


Analog proponents will say a sound wave being compressed into a digital format will lose fidelity. A wave form is smooth  and digital makes a computer representation that is lossy. As shown, the sound wave (red line) and the digital representation (grey blocky thing) isn't the true wave form. While this is true, human ears are incapable of differentiating difference between the two. It's kind of like having a printer that can print 20 million different colors when the eye can only distinguish only 10 million. It's simply irrelevant. There has been double blind tests of this and it's pretty conclusive that no one can differentiate the two.¹

An mp3 will sound worse than a vinyl copy, even even a CD because of the format's "compression." For a lossless CD quality digital file on an average song, the file size is about 30-40 megs. Studio quality can be even bigger. An MP3 "compresses" the sound file into a 3-4 meg file. With that comes audio quality loss.

When it comes to "dynamic" sound, the analog people win out. Music, particularly in the rock based genres, have been having a "loudness war" in the studios. Major studios have been putting an emphasis on loud mastering for digital media. 3 albums that have been panned for having loud and over compressed (we're talking about audio dynamic compression now, not sound file compression like MP3s) were Metallica's Death Magnetic, Black Sabbath's 13, and the Remastered edition of The Offspring's Smash. Particularly Death Magnetic was focused on in this issue because they issued 2 versions of some tracks for the CD and one for the Guitar Hero franchise which didn't have the loud compression. When this happens, it gives a more distorted, and less realistic sound.

Vinyl seemed to be immune to this practice, even in remastered editions because vinyl has to be mastered differently than digital versions so they're locked into a method that gives more dynamic sound.

However the "warmth" that comes from vinyl is just that; it's an artifact of vinyl. I recently get a copy of Dr. Dre's The Chronic on wax that was digitally remastered. One of the things I was really hoping to see is if the myth of analog warmth was a result of real sound or just an artifact of vinyl. After listening I can say the warmth is all there even though it's a digital master on a vinyl album. I'd of been happy either way because I do like this album and I've only ever heard it on CD/MP3.

Now we all know that the piracy argument is bullshit and I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it because it's way dumber of a fight than the analog v. digital debate. The internet has done nothing but propagate music to people who would of never heard about it before. People are still making music and making money from it even more than ever before.

No matter what, people will still take sides for irrational reasons. People will still propagate myths on both sides, and people will be unwavering in their decisions. If you like vinyl, fantastic! If you think CDs are better, great! Do what makes you happy. After all, that's why you listen to music in the first place.


Wednesday, May 22, 2013

VTV is a Liar & The Beatles Played Music.

1 comment:
Well, it's nice to see Brittney Smith come out from obscurity, I thought I might give her and "Liz" something else to collaborate on for a blog no one ever reads. My friends did enjoy reading the Scientology hit pieces against me and "Brittney's" articles are no different. 

Monday, April 15, 2013

Australian Chapter of The Zeitgeist Movement's Article Debunking The Venus Project.

1 comment:
The Australian Chapter of TZM has posted an article titled "Debunking The Venus Project." Peter Joseph Merola has told them to take it down or they will lose their official chapter status. I'm posting a link to it here as well as a back up if they do end up taking it down.

PDF available here:

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

1 Year Later; Still on the BitCoin Fence

No comments:
A year ago I was very critical of BitCoin, though I have since toned it down. The objection I initially raised what that aside from scarcity digital currency only had value in currency. The BitCoin itself (or rather the 1s and 0s existing on a magnetic drive) has no application outside of being a currency. Commodity currencies had uses outside of currency and would have a demand. Fiat monies, as bad as they are, had legal tender laws enforcing its value as a currency. I also had questions about the security of the BitCoin technology and since then I've come to see that such an endeavor would be futile.

Now that BitCoin is growing some roots and LiteCoin has started to grow as well, I'm back on the fence I originally was on at the time I initially heard of BitCoins.

I'm no stranger to digital currency. Those who remember me from the last decade remember when I had a full time job in SecondLife which also had it's own virtual currency. Though that money is constantly inflated and mostly floats with the US dollar around 250-270 "Linden Dollars" per 1 USD. which is what it still is today. The idea of a monopoly firm controlling every aspect of the currency isn't very flattering but it's fine considering it's mostly used to purchase digital land, pixel penises, and animal avatars. Just like BitCoin, you can buy drugs, but unlike BitCoin they will only get your video game dude high.

When people think BitCoin, they only think about SilkRoad (an anonymous site which is like an e-Bay for illicit drugs and other black market goods) which seems to get a good portion of the BitCoin economic activity. There's things like website and podcast hosting that takes these digital currencies as well as a cornucopia of other goods from electronics, books, even tobacco.

The reason I'm not fully on board is the volatility of the market. Like it's human counterpart, it's young, dumb and full of cum (or LSD to be more literal.) In the last month we saw it rocket from $23 to $235 (which is what it trades at the time of this post.) I think this is another bubble and it will pop. I can't understand how this could be sustainable.

I have set up 2 wallets. One for BitCoin and one for LiteCoin. I'll take them if you want to throw me a few space duckets, but for me holding my breath as a viable alternative currency I shall wait until it matures and make a final call.

If you want to donate a few:
LiteCoin: LMfcVjvNJBdU4NbyLebgYjrmwvNgUCwuy1

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Yes, Douglas Mallette is Still A Nutjob.

I know a lot of people think Douglas Mallette isn't crazy conspiracy nut, just a bit deluded on his ideology and commercial adventures. Well according to Douglas Mallette, GMO foods were designed by scientists to for the soul reason of giving you cancer. I can't make this shit up.
FF to 32:45

"Some technologies aren't very good. Some technologies don't serve a proper purpose and they might not even be relevant as we move forward. What's the technological benefit of of creating some crazy-ass frankenfood that is going to give you cancer later on just because some scientists were paid to do so in a lab? I mean, what's the scientific relevance of that? ...And this is coming from a science geek." - Douglas Mallette

Yea, that would be a bad technology, Doug. That's why it doesn't exist. There's no evidence commercially available GMO foods are harmful. The reason GMOs are made is not to give you cancer (if it was, the scientists failed miserably) but to increase yield, resist parasites, resist molds, and to create vitamins and minerals that are lacking in a region's diet like golden rice.

This all goes back to Doug and his conspiracy theory mindset everyone wants to pretend doesn't exist. He's a loon, always has been and still is. This is the difference between a science geek and someone who follows the science. I think Maddox sums up the kind of science geek Doug is, and you can take a gander at his Facebook wall to confirm. Unlike most "I fucking love science" types, he thinks ZOMG THEY ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL WITH TOMATOES!!!!

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

A letter from Fresco(?) To lengthyounarther


This was a letter sent by YouTube user JacqueFresco to lengthyounarther:

In this response I clarify the role of innovators, correct your claim of a "State", address anarchism in both a free enterprise and an RBE, and replace the price mechanism with new methods.


The concept of ownership is not only tricky, it is unjustifiable. No argument can demonstrate the validity of the concept. Even if the validity could be demonstrated, it has no authority. This is because human life is not governed by intellect, by which concepts are validated. Human life, and all life, operates *ESSENTIALLY.* -Meaning that everything occurs necessarily. To say, "I own this," or, "This is my property!" really has no basis in the reality of human life. Without a single governmental sovereign state and its laws, "property" and "ownership" has no means of persisting. In the free-for-all enterprise system, property becomes what Hobbes described. Property is anything and everything that one can wield power over, even the bodies of others. Indeed, at some point, it could become essential, i.e. necessary, to own the "property" of another person, as well as the person, regardless of whether it is voluntary or not. No intellectual agreement will change this. If it becomes necessary, it will happen. To believe that anarchism is possible in a free enterprise is not only a dangerous thought, it is overloaded with a dumptruck of problems, and with burden of explanation for the contrary of this claim.

The scientific perspective reveals that property and ownership do not exist, but instead exist within the delusions of human imagination. "Ownership" and "Property" are the products of humans attempting to conceptualize phenomena in the world they experience. The closest description of the same phenomena, in scientific terms, is to describe the movement of material by the behavior of the human organism, often referred to as power or control. If property and ownership is rooted merely in power and control, then the basis of property and ownership is war and victory, NOT consent and contract.
And if it is war and victory, then no one "earns" their property. The concept of "Earn" is again a delusion of the human imagination, and does not actually exist in a world that operates *essentially". Anything "earned" is subject to the encroaching power and control of someone else.

The result is: no one has any "right" to anything whatsoever, OR the alternative is: every person has every right to everything. Ownership is inapplicable to an RBE. Instead, "Usership" exists as a purely natural and demonstrable concept. Usership occurs at all levels of nature, whereas ownership does not. All resources are not the property of a "central authority" as you say. What is the central authority you speak of? The authority is the algorithms built into the computer systems with which humans have an interface for input and feedback. The flow of information is the government. The global technological complex facilitates this flow. Money is no longer necessary as an information processing technology. All processing occurs in a different technology, and in the terms of new metrics of accounting - no longer by Price.

Regarding the projects of innovators, When you say, "the ideas it approves", what do you mean by "it"? There is no "IT". The approval of projects comes from the degree to which a project satisfies criteria. This criteria is predicated upon principles upon which all people will likely agree, one being: minimum expenditure : maximum gain. See Fuller's concept of Ephemeralization. This is the formula for abundance. Expenditure and gain is measured only in scientific units (the only means by which one can be sure to yield practical results). And if an innovator cannot fashion his project in these terms, then how the hell is he going to succeed? and what the hell is he trying to produce? In a free market, projects are not defined in terms of units that measure the project's contribution to the social system. This is why I say it is haphazard. Instead, they are measured in financial terms used only for individual self-preservation, not system gain and system preservation. As you said, "Entrepreneurs do not need the assent of the world state to act. They can act whenever they manage to voluntarily exchange for goods." However, the projects of these entrepreneurs have unaccounted costs that they do not pay for. Therefore, they essentially steal from other people without anyone realizing it, usually not until much later. Fortunately, in an RBE, these costs are accounted for by calculating the total gains and losses for the total system, according to the information available at that time.

In "vetoing" ideas/projects, innovation is not stifled. This is due to our estimations of how people will behave when their basic needs are satiated. If our estimations of human nature are correct, then under proper conditions people will become innovative, creative, and productive. A population of self-actualized people will give rise to projects with a wide range of variations, just as it occurs in a free market. These projects will have varying performance ratios. Those at the top (those with min. expenditure and max. gain) will be granted execution. Just as in a free enterprise where projects with minimum expenditure and maximum gain (for both producer and consumer) ultimately prevail over other projects.

The very fact that a person's proposal is rejected gives them incentive to improve it! Bolster their intellectual capital (for which all information is free!) so that their project can once again be proposed with improved performance ratios.

If an accepted project failed, then it was a waste indeed. (In fact, the accounting system considers all projects as waste until the projects succeed). But it can't be any more wasteful than a free enterprise where so much information is monopolized and secretive. In an RBE, all information is shared. Therefore, waste from failed projects will be far less often and the decision systems are far less likely to be in error. There also won't be duplicated projects.

In a free enterprise, where an entrepreneurs project fails, not all of his capital is reallocated. Indeed, much (not all) of the material, human, and financial capital is reallocated. However, so much of it loses value. And sometimes the material capital has no utility and hence destroyed. In addition, much of the information capital is not reallocated. Research information is often destroyed.

When an entrepreneur does succeed, society is not always better off. I'm not sure society is better off by an entrepreneur successfully selling toys and candy (or fastfood, alcohol, tobacco, etc. anything adverse to health). They succeed at this because they have situated themselves to answer demand. However, there are tremendous costs unaccounted for in this affair. Regardless of such costs, society is not improved by these industries. These industries are essentially parasitic. They prey on irrational demand. Though such demand is perfectly natural, it does not contribute to the health of the social system.

Meanwhile, in an RBE, though there is likely also irrational demand, there is no incentive to answer it! This is because there is no exclusive individual profit that benefits self-preservation. No one's life is secured or maximized by developing a project to produce lollipops; not the creator nor the consumer. Therefore, there arises a tendency to only answer rational demand, in which the innovator satisfies his complex needs by seeing his project come to fruition, and consumers satisfy a need by the utility of the product. Feel free to give me an example in which an innovator will have incentive to produce a product objectively detrimental to people or the environment.

An innovator has incentive to improve inter-continental transportation simply because his needs are satisfied by conquering the problem, or because he simply wants improved transportation for his own utility. Execution of this project benefits both himself and anyone else wherever it is utilized. The innovator does not need to "own the fruits of his labor" because his self-preservation does not depend on it. His existence is assured and secure by the providence of abundance and the innovators that manage to conceive of production and distribution systems with superior performance ratios. The only vested interest an innovator might have is the imperative of having his own complex needs satisfied. Therefore, such vested interest might lead him to sabotaging the project of another innovator who's project proves superior due to his enormous intellectual capital. However, the innovator, seeking to sabotage the other, will sabotage his own existence, because he loses out on the benefits the other innovator could have provided via his superior project. However, even if this did happen, a similar project with second best performance ratio falls next in line for execution. And the sabotaging innovator may be no closer to having his project executed than before. Therefore, the more prudent answer is simply to improve his own design. The likelihood of sabotage is up to you to judge.

Furthermore, the only differential advantage that might exist arises from an innovator's intellectual capital. This is because he accumulates nothing else, and therefore cannot harness anything else other than his own sheer intellectual competence against anyone else. Lastly, there is simply no more self-preservation orientation. Instead, people become oriented toward self-actualization/cultivation. All interest turns toward that when basic needs are satiated.

There is no "appeal" to the "state." A project is granted execution if it succeeds in maximizing its performance ratio above others. Submission of the specifications of the project and its performance ratios activates sequences in the technological complex that initiate the development of the project. Ripples flow through the entire global technological complex as the innovator inerfaces with the consultation system, and the project nears its completion. Availability of the innovation is announced. Utilization can thus commence. Coordination, synchronicity, interactivity, only possible by instant information and automated processing systems.


Regarding the calculation problem. There are several methods proposed for overcoming the problem. One has been to obligate a consumer to work in proportion to the sumtotal of their consumption of resources. Essentially, they are billed in terms of work hours. They could be assigned to general management of data processing centers, or more ideally, assigned to problem solving, i.e. reversing the scarcity of those resources they consume. Thus, the degree to which they value their free time and the degree to which they value consuming a particular item will determine how much they consume. Due to great abundance and low cost, work hours would still be very little. Perhaps 4 hours a week. Items priced in Milliseconds of work time, the amount depending upon their absolute scarcity. With this method, corruption is much less possible, because there is no currency that is traded. The only problems might be one person stealing items from another person who has been billed for those items, so that the other person can avoid going to work. BUT, because all items for individual consumption are produced on demand, therefore reducing people's tendency to stockup, the chances of a person having the opportunity to steal another person's items is quite low, because a person will demand the item and use it soon after.

Another proposal has been to implement an artificial daily, weekly, or monthly point system, in which points symbolically represent a person's consumption, waste, reuse, and generation of resources. This is similar to the Technocracy system in which energy credits are proposed. In this case, a person is given a set amount of points, and as production capacity and efficiency increases, everyone's purchasing power (points) increase in proportion. Eventually, it is believed that the abundance of resources used to satiate basic needs will be so great, that the points a person is given would far exceed what they would ever practically consume. With such a point system, consumption rates can be calculated against the supply of resources. Some items may still have high cost, due to inefficiencies of production or scarce resources, and people would indeed be limited by the point/credit limit. However, it is precisely this high cost that motivates innovators to submit their projects for execution, if they believe they can reduce the costs by powerful innovations. Such innovation projects do not subtract from the individual innovator's point allowance. Instead, the project is taken on by the system, in a separate domain of valuation and criteria. Resources used for projects are more likely to be less abundant and more vulnerable to exhaustion. The resources withdrawn for Projects are calculated by a difference system of appraisal. Therefore, the individual point system no longer applies. This method is better, but efficacious only if resources are as abundant as estimated. However evidence today suggests that even the presently existing production capacity is sufficient to satiate the basic needs of people. Therefore, thanks to Captialism, we can now satiate people's basic needs all over the world, and now reorganize our social system so that it may anarchistically rests in the hands of the higher levels of human nature, in which new needs, tendencies, and behavior eclipses the historical self-preservation that once interfered with social cooperation and individual cultivation. We believe Capitalism has produced sufficient security for the reorganization we propose.

Lastly, another proposal answers the calculation problem, and could incorporate the point system mentioned above, though not necessarily. In this case, supply is tracked in two ways. One way is to seek to always maintain a supply always above a fixed threshold. For instance, maintaining a secure supply iron would consist of measuring the total supply of iron against the average of all withdrawal. The availability of a resource can then be accounted and conveyed in various ways. One way would be to tag every item/resource with a availability expectancy. For example, perhaps, given the rates of consumption for a shower head, and given the consumption rate of all other items that draw from the same raw and recycled resources, a shower head might have an availability expectancy of 5 years before the supply begins to fall below the secure threshold. By that time a new innovation will be needed to render unnecessary the materials used in the shower head by either obsoleting such a technology or developing substitute materials. As a supply is threatened and approaching the secure threshold, this becomes an issue of public alarm. Such indications prompt the projects of innovators, which are completely voluntary. A shower head is perhaps a poor example, because its necessity is disputable. In a voluntary system, rescuing shower heads may be no one's priority. Therefore, my next point is indicated. In such a system, not only is rational demand answered, the innovations that emerge will most likely be oriented toward necessities. Innovators would more likely feel prompted to find substitute material for food automation systems rather than a shower head, because their own existence is threatened by neglecting the food problem, and because the projects of those innovations are more likely to be favored in the cost-benefit analysis criteria.

Furthermore, merely indicating estimated/projected availability expectancy is not enough. A concrete measurement of an item's burden on total supply must be measured and indicated, much like a Price does. If our premise is accurate, then it should be possible to account for all resources on the planet by conducting a survey of global conditions. If an inventory can really be composed, then measuring the resources withdrawn in producing an item should be possible to measure by means of deduction. Therefore, the aforementioned shower head will have an additional tag that indicates the percentage of resources withdrawn from the total supply. This would be expressed in a numerical sequence dependent upon the composition of the shower head, as well as the scientific understanding of the time. The best expression is still something to be debated, but can be worked out just as all other scientific standards have been. I'm sure you can theoretically conceive of a chart that communicates the composition of the shower head and the individual percentages that it withdraws from the respective resources of the global supply. But because a chart would be inconvenient, all of the percentages can be unified as one single numerical expression by *weighting* the quantities withdrawn to the relative quantities in the total global supply for each resource. Therefore, a cumulative weighted percentage can be given to every single item produced, as long as we can account for all production input and account for the total quantities of all resources. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, innovators will be prompted to propose projects that reduce the resource withdrawal percentages if such percentages begin to rise above safe thresholds. As long as sufficient information and feedback can be supplied, Innovators become the immune system protecting against scarcity.

Though items will be tagged with other calculated information, only those mentioned above are among the proposals intended to replace the functions of prices.

Lastly, items that depend upon scarce resources are less likely to be consumed on the individual level, not only because there would likely be a social stigma against doing so, but because of time factors. The excavation and recovery of scarce resources is often more difficult. Production of goods requiring such scarce resources will also utilize recycling systems as much as possible. Therefore, the production process for items using scarce resources will be of longer duration than items that use abundant resources. Therefore, because much of an RBE is a computerized "que economy," consumers will be dissuaded from ordering such goods by their OWN decision! This is because, TIME is finite. Time comparisons become a new, important metric of valuation. If a consumer places an order for a item that uses scarce resources, and the wait time is announced as 3 days, then they will most likely find an alternative, or perhaps, if they foresee themselves needing to order the item often, even going to work on eliminating that problem by submitting designs for a similar item that uses less scarce resources, if they happen to be motivated to do so. However, again, the use of scarce resources in innovation projects is a different scenario than in the scenario of individual consumption. If gains are great enough, lengthy production times might be tolerated by the innovators who have been granted execution of their project.


Though a free market may not have artificial scarcity, it does restrain the levy of abundance for all people by keeping profit exclusive and keeping the control of resources diffuse This is not to mention it guarantees social turbulence due to its darwinistic imperatives of self-preservation, and many other problems about which economists know nothing. Knowing how to solve such problems is the only way to design a social system to operate without dysfunction, and absence of consideration for these problems is the weakness of a free enterprise. Cumulatively, an RBE solves more total system problems than a free enterprise because an RBE's considerations are broader in scope. Thus its sumtotal gains are greater. Such is broader and greater because we look at all phenomena of the earth as precisely a system. This is unlike economists who look at only isolated phenomena. When the earth is viewed as a system, new priorities emerge and new methods for social management become necessary. Economists are unscientific because they fail to look at all aspects of the earth as a total system.


There is no state. An RBE is anarchistic. It is an anarchy of innovators whose individual power resides only in their competence and intellectual capital. These innovators are emergent just like capitalists. The difference is that innovators are far more transitory because they develop no individual state (b/c they have no property, no self-preservation, and no material differential advantage). Their inventions, their ideas, their proposals, their discoveries are quickly superseded by other innovators pursuing their own project driven by the most resilient and powerful motive: passion onset by complex needs. On the other hand, in a free enterprise, there exists a multiplicity of capitalist states. Though indeed they are superseded by others, their static presence exists far longer than the the projects of innovators in an RBE. The longer the static presence of a single capitalist's state, the greater the detriment to a society. It is a detriment for the same reason national/political states are a detriment. The multiplicity of capitalist states function analogously to the current situation of political states. The only difference is that capitalist states war economically (though political states are learning to do this too). (And I wouldn't doubt capitalist states would war militaristically if left to themselves after political states were abolished). Nevertheless, any static existence is detrimental to the social system. The only thing that must remain static is the mechanism that assures everything else will remain emergent and changing. And that is the foundation of an RBE. An RBE exalts the mechanism that assures no formation of static entities. To assure this mechanism rules, human operation has to be reorganized along the lines drawn by TVP.

That which you have referred to as a "state" is really not an entity. If anything, it is a mode of operation in human relations, a social algorithm, that is supported by a global infrastructure of technology. In other words, the infrastructure becomes the "laws of physics" of society, so to speak. And as all people have access to information, and as all have access to the infrastructure (much like open-source phenomena of today), the infrastructure is never vulnerable to monopoly of use, manipulation, or corruption.

The foregoing has been a description of aspects of a conservative RBE.

I would like to move to criticism of a free enterprise at some point. Weaknesses of a free enterprise are far numerous than an RBE, and I'm curious to hear your defense.