Skeptic Project

Watched TZMBigsteelguy response to RonaldoDeLosMuertos video called "The Zeitgeist Cult Plans MASS MURDER???". Watched the whole 10 minute video of TZMBigsteelguy and he hit ZERO of the issues RonaldoDeLosMuertos had presented.

TZMBigsteelguy then begins to say that the discussion that took place doesn't represent TZM, yet in the rules of TZM it clearly states that all people who use any TZM mediums must be a movement member. This is very clear as many people who use those mediums who have an opinion do get banned and are labeled "non supporter of the movement" for merely having an opposing opinion about something.

The Zeitgeist Movement's Forum, IRC and Voice Chat are made available, for free, for Members of The Movement to share ideas. The term Member is defined as: A person who supports a social group and shares common values and initiatives. Please understand that this is not an "open-forum" environment and that these communication mediums are not intended for the expressions of any persons other than those who support The Movement and communicate in the context of issues related.

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=rules&Itemid=100121&lang=en

On that matter TZMBigsteelguy is basically indirectly saying it's ok to talk about killing people and committing terrorism or better yet domestic terrorism in the name of Allah...excuse me, the Peter/TZM cult and its RBE.

TZMBigsteelguy makes up a story about how a RBE is somehow related to open source, as he calls a RBE a open source sharing economy, which is in his video around 5:58 mark. When that happens he jumps way off topic to advertise his terrorist cult. This is where I will begin to respond to what I call his complete derailment of response to RonaldoDeLosMuertos to promote his terrorist cult group called TZM.

I was kind of meaning to talk about open source for a bit so this is a perfect opportunity to talk about it since the person above mentions it. Open source is basically a commercial term developed as as a way to market software to companies. This concept of open source is created by Bruce Perens and in the wiki it says:

Perens poses Open Source as a means of marketing the free software philosophy of Richard Stallman to business people who are more concerned with profit than freedom, and states that open source and free software are only two ways of talking about the same phenomenon. This differs from Stallman[4][5] and Raymond. Perens postulates an economic theory for business use of Open Source in his paper The Emerging Economic Paradigm of Open Source and his speech Innovation Goes Public.[6] This differs from Raymond's theory in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, which having been written before there was much business involvement in open source, explains open source as a consequence of programmer motivation and leisure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Perens

Now Richard Stallman who is probably who this lunkhead is supporting in the first place actually objects to the term open source because

Stallman and others object to the term "open source software" because it does not make people think of the freedoms that the software in question gives users.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software

The debate between Stallman and Perens can be just a problem of ideological perception. To break it down from what I'm understanding Perens wants this to be more geared towards marketing towards business, as Stallman wants this more geared towards freedom, or as GNU website states "Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."".

So open source, or at least the term, is purely based on a marketing brand aimed towards businesses and also It's used as a buzz word for idiots to eat up. However, I do support open source since I have used and developed with it in the past for private and business use.

I really do not care how and why open source came about. What really is interesting is the fact that when a person like TZMBigsteelguy promotes open source, usually they have never developed or contributed to an open source community and therefore have ZERO experience in what they're promoting. They then make all sorts of crazy connections with open source and in this case a RBE. Like a truly clueless nut job, TZMBigsteelguy throws out the buzz word for retards, which of course is open source and connects that to a RBE, as if RBE is suppose to have a connection with open source.

How is open source connected with RBE? Are you suggesting a RBE is a marketing term buzzword to attract uneducated poor people? If so, you certainty hit the nail on the head (think about it). I think the worst part is that you are the biggest sucker because you don't even know what you're saying. You're just saying it because your research consists of youtube and google which specifically reinforces your dogma based belief system.

Are you attempting to point people away from the Venus project, that you used to say was proof that a RBE worked and is based on science? Are you pointing to another brand which is open source and saying "Since open source works therefore it's a RBE and therefore it's based on science."? You're misrepresenting open source all together and in the process makes you look like someone that bases his logic purely on dogma and dogma alone.

In short, TZMBigsteelguy is attempting to patch work the missing ideology of TZM's TVP by replacing it with open source ideology which I am familiar with (even more so with the group I use to work with). This open source fictional connection with a RBE probably gives the guy a sense that a RBE works somehow, I'm not sure how he gets that belief, since I'm pretty sure (not to be mean) he's never done anything with open source in his life beside shout the obvious marketing buzzword around at the top of his lungs. Just because you say RBE is open source or is a open source sharing economy doesn't mean it will make sense, add legitimacy, make you look smart, make it work or BE BASED ON SCIENCE.

Seriously, let's say a RBE or as you suggested a open source sharing economy made any sense. What exactly is so open source about a RBE? Tell me how this relates to open source. I'm not really sure how sharing resources can relate to things that are open source in a virtual environment. Are you saying, in a RBE, I could start a democracy with MONEY because all I need to do is edit the RBE source command on the central computer system controlling all the resources that are shared equally amongst the worlds inhabitants?

Even if you said that FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is a RBE it still wouldn't make sense. Richard Stallman has even stated himself that TZM is pretty far out there by saying.

The Zeitgeist Movement

I recently read the statement of principles of the Zeitgeist Movement.

The first half, which criticizes the current economic system, seems to be valid more or less (there are points I don't know enough to be certain of). However, the recommendations in the second half seem to have basic flaws.

It proposes that we should entrust a computer system to decide how much to make of every sort of product. Given a well-formulated problem, with a choice between a limited set of products, and a clear idea of what they are useful for and who wants what, it might be feasible for a program to calculate an optimal solution. But real life is far more complicated than that. It might be feasible to calculate how much resources to put into "growing chocolate", but how could any centralized system decide how much to produce of the thousands of different kinds of chocolate candies, chocolate pastries, chocolate puddings. Each person might like one of these more than another because of subtle differences in taste and texture, which that person would be hard put to describe.

The article also points out that societies can change values. That is true, but we don't know how to predict how they will change, let alone how to change them to order. Meanwhile, there are tremendous actual differences in values. Some value systems, such as the ones that motivate "honor killings", deserve to be morally condemned and rejected. But there are many other variations in values within the bounds of decency.

Also, I saw no solution for dealing with one aspect of human nature: the tendency to compete to for the admiration or envy of the neighbors. This drives competitive consumption, which is a major cause of waste. Wise people opt out of this, but if we want to lead everyone to opt out, I don't think exhortations to wisdom will suffice. We would need a method that works. I don't know of one, but I don't see that the Zeitgeist Movement does either.

copyright (c) 2009 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved.

http://stallman.org/articles/zeitgeist.html

So you're pretty way off on saying a RBE is open source. However feces would fit more in line with a RBE better. Japan has made it possible for a person to eat their own poop. They can now extract the proteins from poop to make a protein poop sandwich. It's really incredible technology. You not only can eat your own poop, but you can eat bear poop, dolphin poop, or whatever suits your fancy. You can even share your poop with others free of charge. Since you manufacture your own feces you can share it equally amongst the worlds population in a RBE.

http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2011/06/japanese-scientist-creates-edible-meat-fromhuman-poo.html

Pooping in the toilet is a RBE too, since the toilet requires no electricity to run and is based on a water pump system. It's an entirely off the grid self-sufficent system (not factoring in the electric pump that pumps the water in). So a toilet is a RBE as well. Whenever a person thinks of feces or takes a crap they should be thinking RBE.

[ Mod Edit: Picture of poop removed ]

I am not here writing this to poke fun at TZMBigsteelguy, as I know he's already a conspiracy nut job and he certainty isn't the first or last person to use the term open source in support of their own crazy ideology. I'm writing this to everybody who may not understand the term open source and therefore may see some retard shouting connections that a RBE is a open source sharing economy, and think 'gee, there must be something good here because I heard open source works, but what's the RBE appendage crap to it'. Little do these people know their is no connection between open source and RBE because RBE is complete science fiction garbage THAT IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE and HAS NO PROVEN WORKING MODEL.

To throw this in their, I hope you people enjoy the title of this thread which is "Open Source Text Response To TZMBigsteelguy Youtube Video". Just because it has open source or FOSS or some other buzzword in it does not make it legitimate or have any credibility.


The Zeitgeist Cult Plans MASS MURDER??? By RonaldoDeLosMuertos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnvFfuPjCXY

My Response to "Zeitgeist Cult plans Mass Murder?" by RonaldoDeLosMuertos By TZMBigsteelguy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTATxZis-iU

Many thanks to Wolfbird for editing this as well.

@Kaiser

You must've cried your wittle eyes out after seeing Two girls, one cup. xD

^ don't make me put this as my avatar!

Why are people using open source? It refers to when developers of a video game distribute their engine to everyone who wants it. Unless they're referring to the moving Source Code which I wouldn't understand either.

@emcada read the topic starter of this thread. In short TZMers are looking to replace their ideology which was TVP. They thought TVP was science therefore when someone asked where the science was they would point to TVP. Now that TVP does not allow TZM to pass around any TVP material they have had to latch upon a new ideology to promote. As TZM has lifted the concept of a RBE from TVP they still need a model to which they can claim is science, therefore the adoption of the term 'open source' has been used when people who are in TZM ask about a RBE or I guess what TZM is about and where the science is.

Open source in short originated as a commercial term which is to market and to be aimed towards businesses but inadvertently also is a term marketed by idiots. The term that TZMers should be saying is 'FOSS' which means free and open source solutions, but the maker of this term who is Richard Stallman thinks TZM is really out there and disagrees with the whole concept in the first place. If you want a more elaborate explanation read the topic starter.

@emcada a RBE is a resource based economy which the term originated in the Venus Project. Just so it's fair I'll copy/paste from TZM/TVP what a RBE is.

Here is a TZM definition of a RBE.

A Resource-Based Economy utilizes existing resources rather than money, and provides an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner for the entire population. It is a system in which all natural, man-made, machine-made, and synthetic resources would be available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of symbolic exchange. A Resource-Based Economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, and the means of production, such as physical equipment and industrial plants, to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources, conservation and the most advanced methods of science and technology, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all. To do this, we have to overcome our current, outdated, established practices. This is the purpose of The Zeitgeist Movement- to create a global awareness to thus transition into a new, sustainable direction for humanity as a whole.

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=52&lang=en

4.What are some of the central characteristics of the Resource-Based Economic Model?
(1) No money or market system.
(2) Automation to replace labor in every occupation possible.
(3) Technological Unification of the planet in a "systems" approach.
(4) No property - Universal Access.
(5) Self-contained/Sustainable/Streamlined City Systems.
(6) Science as the methodology for all social decisions, including the approach to problems regarding aberrant human behavior (or what we refer to today as"crime").
(1) We advocate no money or market system.

Market theory assumes a number of things which have proven to either be false or only marginally beneficial, while often ignoring many of the socially detrimental consequences inherent.

The central problems to consider are the following:

A) The need for infinite growth, which is mathematically unsustainable and ecologically detrimental. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet, but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and "economic growth". In order to keep people employed, people must constantly consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources.

B) A "Corruption Generating" Incentive System. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal if not more pronounced amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, slave labor and many other issues. Well over 90% of the people in prisons are there because of monetary related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary based crimes. Also, if one is to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others - it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain.
The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products.

C) A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe, than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US, bottled water from Fuji Japan, while western companies will go to the 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This is extreme inefficiency and only justifiable within the market system for the sake of "saving money".
In a RBE, the focus is maximum efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor, as compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the *best possible goods. (*see more below) In other words, the system is planned, to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.

D) A propensity for "Establishments". Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self perpetuation. If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a "competition" mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level- which is the competition against new advents which would make them obsolete, outright.
The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US Government and 'Big Oil' collusion to limit the expansion of the fully Electric Car (EV) in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car?". The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well being of those on the pay role, leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations ( IE- the perpetuation of "Hybrid" cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.) There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced progressive drugs which would void existing/profitable ones. In a RBE, there is nothing to hold back developmental/implementation of anything, once it has been tested thoroughly. It would immediately be implemented into society, with no monetary institution to thwart the change due to their self-preserving, monetary nature.

E) An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay "competitive" This little recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate each others items in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematic certainty that every good produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due the need to cut the initial cost basis of production and hence stay "competitive" against another company... which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free market adage where producers " create the best possible goods at the lower possible prices" is a needlessly wasteful reality and detrimentally misleading, for it is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the productions of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis. They very simply cannot make the "strategically best" physically - it is mathematically impossible. If they did, no one would buy it for it would be unaffordable due the values inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember - people buy what they can afford to. Every person on this planet has a built in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback loop of constant waste via inferior production, to meet inferior demand. In a RBE, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design, with recycling strategically accessed as well, limiting waste.
You will notice the term "strategic best" was used in a statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to state of affairs of the planetary resources, with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into acct all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retroactions and the like. ( see [3] below) In other words, we would not use TITANIUM for every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the empirically "strongest" materials for the job. That practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be accessed through analysis of, again, relevant attributes , such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, statical usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be access through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time.

F) A propensity for monopoly and cartel due to the basic motivation of growth and increased market share. This is a point that economic theorists will often deny, under the assumption that open competition is self regulating that that monopolies and cartels are extremely rare anomalies in a free-market system. This "invisible hand" assumption holds little validity historically, not to mention the outstanding legislation around the issue, which proves its infeasibility. In America, there have been numerous monopolies, such as Standard Oil and Microsoft. Cartels, which are essentially Monopolies by way of collusion between the largest competitors in an industry, are also persistent to this day, while less obvious to the casual observer. In any case, the "free market" itself does not resolve these issues - it always take the government to step in and break up the monopolies. This aside, the more important point is that in an economy based on "growth", it is only natural for a corporation to want to expand. After all, that is the basis of economic stability in the modern world - expansion. Expansion of any corporation, always gravitates toward monopoly or cartel, for, again, the basic drive of competition is to out do your competitor. In other words, monopoly and cartel are absolutely natural in the competitive system. In fact, it is inevitable, for again, the very basis is to seek dominance over market share. The true detriment of this reality goes back to point 4 above- the inherent propensity of an "Establishment" to preserve its institution. If a medical cartel is influencing the FDA, then new ideas which void that cartel's income will often be fought, regardless of the social benefits being thwarted.

G) The market system is driven, in part, by scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money that can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny production abundance. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. The Kimberly Diamond Mines in Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest to generate an abundance for the world's people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short term profits. Abundance, Efficiency and Sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (like a loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn't even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed. While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued and hence the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of "running out"--- the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short term reward which results from scarcity driven based prices, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never "run out" of oil, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporation who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money off of the scarcity, regardless of the long term social ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True preservation, which must be strategic, can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.

(2) We advocate automation to replace human labor in every social function possible.

As the trends of what appear to be an exponential increase in the evolution of information technology, robotics and computerization, it has become apparent that human labor is becoming more and more inefficient in regard to meeting the demands necessary for the global population. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have seen an increasing trend of "technological unemployment", which is the phenomenon where humans are replaced by machines in the work force. This trend, while debatable in regard to its ultimate long term effect on employment, creates a propensity to displace the worker and hence the consumer, slowing consumption.
That stated, this issue is actually overshadowed by a large social imperative: That the use of machine labor (mechanization) is provably more efficient than human performance in virtually all sectors. If one was to track, for example, the performance output of factory production such as within the steel industry in the US for the past 200 years, we find that not only do less than 5% of the workforce now work in such factories, the efficiency and output capacities have increased substantially. The trend, in fact, now shows that "Employment is Inverse to Productivity." The more mechanization that occurs, the more productive an industry becomes.
Today, there are repetitive occupations which simply do not need to exist given the state of automation and computerization (cybernation). Not only would mechanization in these areas reduce the mundane burden and allow more free time for people, it also would, more importantly, increase productivity. Machines do not need breaks, vacations, sleep, etc. In the future we see the use of mechanization as a means to create many forms of abundance on this planet, from food to physical goods. However to do this, the traditional labor system we have simply cannot exist. The reality is that our labor for income system is stifling progress in its requirement to "keep people working" for the sake of "economic stability". We are reaching a stage where the efficiency of automation is overriding and making obsolete the system of labor for income. This trend shows no sign of slowing, especially in regard to the now dominant Service Industry, which is increasingly being automated in the form of kiosks, robotics and other forms. Likewise, due to phenomena related to Moore's law and the growing in-expense of computers and machines, it is likely that it is simply a matter of time before corporations simply can not rationalize keeping human labor anymore, as the automation systems will become too cheap. Of course, this is a paradoxical market phenomenon, called by some theorists as "the contradiction of capitalism", for it is, in effect, removing the consumer (laborer) itself and hence reducing consumption.
Apart from those issues, it is important to also consider human labor contributions based on social relevance, not monetary gain. In a RBE, there would be no such occupations as Banking, Trading, Insurance, Cashiers, Brokers, Advertising... or anything related to the governance of money. All human actions in the form of institutional labor should have a social return. There is no logic in wasting resources and time on operations that do not have a direct and tangible function. This adjustment would remove millions of jobs, for the idea of "working for money" would no longer exist and hence all the poor demographic, shoddy goods, vanity items and culturally contrived creations designed to influence people for reasons of status, for the sole sake of profit, would also no longer exist, saving countless amounts of time and resources. We also will work to strategically create the "best", making servicing of goods, much less prevalent. [see 1, [5] above]
One final note on this issue: Some hear this and they assume that this voids the Communicative Arts and personal and social expression as far as painting, sculpture, music and the like. No. These mediums of expression will likely thrive like never before in a RBE, for the amount of free time made available to people will permit a renaissance of creativity, invention, along with community and social capital. There is a difference between creating for the sake of keeping society sustainable and efficient, focusing on resource preservation, product efficiency and strategic allocation of labor for those things which generate a tangible social return...and creating for personal expression, exploration, experimentation and hence art, which has been a staple of human evolution since the dawn of time.
(3) We advocate a technological unification of the planet in a systems approach.

We live in a symbiotic/synergistic planetary ecosystem, with a cause-effect balance reflecting a single system of earthy operation. It is time we reflect this natural state of affairs in our social affairs on this planet, gesturally speaking. The fact of the matter is that the human societies, which are dispersed across the globe, require resources which are also un-uniformly dispersed across the globe. Our current procedure for enabling resource distribution comes in the form of corporations which seek and claim "ownership" of our earthly resources, which they in turn "sell" to others, in the name of profit. The problems inherent in this practice are numerous due to, again, the self-interest based disposition inherent in selling anything for personal gain [see (1) above]. But, this is only partially the issue in the larger scheme of things when it come to the reality that we live on a finite planet and resource management and preservation should be the number one concern in regard to human survival- especially with the population explosion of the last 200 years. Two people are born every second on this planet and each one of those humans needs a lifetime of food, energy, water and the like. Given this fundamental need to understand what we have, the rates of depletion and, invariably, the need to streamline industry in the most efficient way, a Global System of Resource Management must be put in place. This is an extensive subject when one considers the technical, quantitative variables needed for implementation. However, for the sake of overview, it can be stated that the first step is a Full Global Survey of all earthly resources. Then, based on a quantitative analysis of the properties of each material, a strategically defined process of production is construction from the bottom up, using such variables as negative retroactions, renew-ability, etc. (More on this can be found in the section called Project Earth in the ZM lecture called "Where Are We Going?") Then consumption statistics are accessed, rates of depletion monitoring, distribution logically formulated, etc. In other words, it is a full Systems Approach to earthly resource management, production and distribution, with the goal of absolute efficiency, conservation and sustainability. Given the mathematically defined attributes, as based on all available information at the time, along with the state of technology at the time, the parameters for social operation in the industrial complex become self evident, with decisions arrived at by way of computation, not human opinion. This is where computer intelligence becomes an important tool for social governance, for only the computation ability/programming of computers can access and strategically regulate such processes efficiently, and in real time. This technological application is not novel, it is simply 'scaled out' from current methods already known.
(4) We advocate no property. Rather: Universal Access

The concept of property, unannounced to most people today, is a fairly new social concept. Before the neolithic revolution, as extrapolated from current hunter and gatherer societies existing today, property relationships did not exist as we know them. Neither did money or even trade in some cases. Communities existed in an egalitarian fashion, living off of the carrying capacity of the regions and the natural production built into those regions. It was only after agriculture was discovered, eventually proceeding with resource acquisition by ship traders and the like up to the modern day of power establishments and corporations, that property became the highly defined staple of society as we know it today.
Now, with that understood, which dismisses the notion that property is a result of some kind of empirical "human nature", the notion of "no property" is also often blindly associated with "Communism" and the works of Karl Marx. It is important to point out the TZM advocation of no property is derived from logical inference, based almost explicitly upon resource management, and not any influence by these Communistic ideals. There is no relation between the two, for communism was not derived from the needs to preserve and manage resources efficiently. Communism, in theory and practice, was based on social relations which were culturally/socially specific, not environmentally specific, which is the case with a RBE.
That understood, the rationale for a property-less society is very simple - it is unsustainable, limiting and impractical. The real issue is not ownership - it is access. People use things, they do not "own" them. Ownership is a non-operational, protectionist advent, derived from generations of scarcity over resources, currently compounded by market based adverting which supports status/class division for the sake of monetary gain . To put it another way, ownership is a form of controlled restriction, both physically and ideologically.
In a RBE, the focus moves from static ownership to strategic access, with a system designed for society to obtain access, on a per case basis, as needed. For example, rather than owning various forms of recreational sporting equipment, Access Centers are set up, typically in regions where such actions occur, where a person simply "checks out" the equipment- uses it and returns it. This "library" type arrangement can be applied to virtually any type of human need. Of course, those reading this who have been conditioned into a more individualistic, materialistic mindset often objects with claims such as " what if I want green, custom golf clubs and only white are available?". This is a socially contrived, biased reservation, detached from reality. The issue in question is utility, not vanity. Human expression has been molded by the needs of the current market based system (consumption) into values which are simply nonfunctional and irrelevant. Yes, this would require a value adjustment to quality, rather than identity. The fact is, even for those who object from the standpoint their interest in personal identity, the overarching social ramifications of such an social approach will create benefits that will greatly overshadow any such arbitrary personal preference, creating new values which replace the outdated ones.
These include : (a) No Property Crime: In a world of access rather than ownership, without money, there is no incentive to steal, for there is no resale value. You can not steal something no one owns and you certainly couldn't sell it. (b) Access Abundance: It has been denoted that the average automobile sits in parking spaces for the majority of its life span, wasting space and time. Rather than having this wasteful consequence of the ownership system, one car could facilitate a large number of users in a given region, with only a fraction of the production/resource needs. [c) Peak Efficiency of Production: Unlike today, where the market system must perpetuate inherently inferior products for the sake of economic turnover, we could actually design goods to last, using the best materials and processes strategically available. We no longer make "cheap" products to serve a poor demographic ( which is the majority). This attribute alone will save cataclysmic amounts of resources, while also enabling a society to have access to goods and services they would never have had in a world based on money, inherent obsolescence and property.
(5) We advocate self-contained/streamlined/sustainable city systems.

Jacque Fresco, and his life's work, upon which many of these ideas are extrapolated, has also taken a direct focus on the physical infrastructure possibilities in a RBE. Most noted is his "circular city" which is based, in part, on a series of belts, each serving a social function, such a energy production, research, recreation, living, etc. Each city is a system, where all needs are produced in the city complex, in a localized fashion, whenever possible. For example, renewable energy generation occurs near the outer perimeter. Food production is produced closer to the middle in industrial sized greenhouses. This is very different from the "globalization" based economy we live in today, which wastes outrageous amounts of energy and resources due to unneeded transport and labor processing. Likewise, transportation within the city is strategically created to eliminate the use of detached automobiles, except for rare cases, such as emergency vehicles. Homes are created to be micro-systems as well, with as much power generation occurring internally, such as from sunlight absorbed by the building structure using photovoltaic technology. More information on these city system can be found at www.thevenusproject.com. In the end, the fundamental interest is, again, sustainability and efficiency. The market system simply doesn't allow for this to occur, for it does not facilitate a central, total design. It is almost impossible, in fact, due to the broken, competitive nature inherent in a market system. These city systems are literally designed from the bottom up to work in the most efficient way possible, using the best known methods and understandings, while also allowing for updating and improvements. As far as other regions, each city is connected, both technologically and through transport systems, to move materials and, of course, people, facilitating the foundation of a global earth system as well, which the cities essentially serve as "holographic satellites", if you will.
(6) We advocate Science as the methodology for all social decisions, including the approach to problems regarding aberrant human behavior.

The application of "the scientific method for social concern" is oft-repeated mantra for the basis of social operation in a RBE. While the obviousness of this in regard to industry is simple enough to understand, it is important to also realize its value in regard to human behavior. Science, historically speaking, has often been derailed as a cold, restrictive discipline, reserved for the sake of mere technology and invention. Little regard seems to be currently given to its use in the understanding of human behavior. Religious thought, which has been powerfully dominant in human evolution, has worked on the basis that the human being was somehow detached from the physical world. We have "souls"... "spirits"... we are "divine"...also, we are related/guided by an all seeing, all knowing, controlling god, etc. Conversely, yet oddly similarly, there is an argument that humans have "free will" in their decisions and that we have the open ability to choose our actions, absent of the influence of our environment. Now, before we go any further, let me say that I realize the vastness of the prior two statements and many reading those could find numerous cultural arguments to claim the contrary. However, this doesn't change the basic reality that we humans have historically liked to think that we are special and unique from the rest of the organisms and natural phenomena around this.
However, as time has gone on, it has been increasingly obvious that we are not special and that there is no such thing as special in the natural world... for- everything is special based on the uniqueness of all organisms. There is no ground to assume the human being is any more important or intrinsically different or special than a mole, a tree, an ant, a leaf or a cancer cell. This isn't "new age" rhetoric - it is fundamental logic. We are physical phenomena - nothing more or less .
That scientific reality understood, it is hence axiomatic to see that just as the wind can move a leaf from one location to another, the human being is also "moved" by the external world. We are greatly influenced by our culture and our values and behaviors can only mostly be a result of our conditioning, as external phenomena interacts with our genetic predispositions. For example, we have a notion called "talent", which is another word for a genetic predisposition to a given behavior, or set of behaviors.. A piano prodigy might have an inherent ability that enables them to learn more quickly and perform in a more acute way than another, who has spent the same time in practice, but doesn't have the genetic predisposition. Be that as it may, that "talented" person still had to learn 'what a piano was'. In other words, genes are not autonomous initiators of commands. It takes an environmental trigger to allow for the propensity to materialize. Anyway, it is not the point of this article to expand on the argument of "nature and nurture". The point is that we have proven to be scientifically defined and this understanding can allow us to slow and even stop the aberrant, or "criminal" behavior we see in society today such a abuse, murder, theft and the like. The logic, once the effects of human conditioning are understood, is to remove the environmental attributes which is enabling the reactions. Just as an abused dog who has been starved for a week might have a knee jerk reaction to react very violently to an otherwise innocuous passerby, we humans have the same behavior dynamic. If you don't want people to steal food, give it to them. It has been found that prisons are now generating more violence than they are curbing. If you teach a child to be a hateful racist, then he will carry those values into the rest his life, very often. Human values and hence human behavior are shaped by the environment in a cause and effect based way, no different than a leaf being blown by the wind. In a RBE, the central focus in regard to removing aberrant human actions is not to "punish them", but to find the reasons for their offensive actions and work to eliminate them. Humans are products of their environment and personal/social reform is a scientific process. http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=649&Itemid=100151&lang=en

Here is a TVP definition of a RBE

What is a Resource-Based Economy?
To transcend these limitations, The Venus Project proposes we work toward a worldwide, resource-based economy, a holistic social and economic system in which the planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants. The current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant, counter-productive, and falls far short of meeting humanity's needs.
Simply stated, within a Resource Based Economy we will utilize existing resources - rather than money - to provide an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner. It is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.
To better understand a resource-based economy, consider this. If all the money in the world disappeared overnight, as long as topsoil, factories, personnel and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we needed to fulfill most human needs. It is not money that people require, but rather free access to most of their needs without worrying about financial security or having to appeal to a government bureaucracy. In a resource-based economy of abundance, money will become irrelevant.
We have arrived at a time when new innovations in science and technology can easily provide abundance to all of the world's people. It is no longer necessary to perpetuate the conscious withdrawal of efficiency by planned obsolescence, perpetuated by our old and outworn profit system. If we are genuinely concerned about the environment and our fellow human beings, if we really want to end territorial disputes, war, crime, poverty and hunger, we must consciously reconsider the social processes that led us to a world where these factors are common. Like it or not, it is our social processes - political practices, belief systems, profit-based economy, our culture-driven behavioral norms - that lead to and support hunger, war, disease and environmental damage.
The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people toward self-fulfillment and creativity, both materially and spiritually.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/faq

Resource Based Economy
The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy


The Venus Project-Resource Based Economy
The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic social and economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo

SP (skeptic Projects) definition of a resource based economy.

Not proven, not scientific, no academic peer review, no academic review at all, horrible idea, feces is a RBE. Often people preaching for a RBE will claim it's based on science but when one asks them to show the science they say they don't need science, scientists are overrated and Fresco is the proof, or we don't need science it's like eating a hamburger it just works.

A RBE is mostly a dogma based belief system at which only works in the believers mind much like Scientology or Destinian belief system. Again RBE is not science, is not open source, has no working model, no academic peer review but it does have believers and a leader focal point.

Quote from Agent Matt

What the fuck....?

Just RBE stuff for the new person. The last part is all that a SP member needs to read.

SP (skeptic Projects) definition of a resource based economy.

Not proven, not scientific, no academic peer review, no academic review at all, horrible idea, feces is a RBE. Often people preaching for a RBE will claim it's based on science but when one asks them to show the science they say they don't need science, scientists are overrated and Fresco is the proof, or we don't need science it's like eating a hamburger it just works.

A RBE is mostly a dogma based belief system at which only works in the believers mind much like Scientology or Destinian belief system. Again RBE is not science, is not open source, has no working model, no academic peer review but it does have believers and a leader focal point.

If TZMBigsteelguy is concerned about people going hungry, why is he so fat?

Another appendage to a RBE I saw being thrown around. Peter started by changing economy to "economic" and adding "model" to the end of "Resource Based economy " in his youtube video "Peter Joseph: Message to Occupy Wall Street & The World | The Zeitgeist Movement".

When Peter refers to RBE as a RBEM (Resource based Economic Model) I started to laugh. This reminds me of the people who associate open source with a RBE. To say a RBEM, it would be suggesting that it's somewhat tangible and that their really is a working model. The problem being is that a RBE has no model so the added appendage Peter added doesn't make it true. I even went to google and googled a Resource based Economic Model and added such search appendages to RBEM such as zetgiestmovement.com and venusproject.com. What I found out is that no where on the venusproject.com website or the zeitgeistmovement.com website does it ever referred to a resource based economic as a model or even call it a RBEM (I could be wrong, if someone finds out otherwise post it up). I did find TZMers saying it's a model but not officially on both TVP and TZM mediums which shows the type of deception Peter is willing to go to push is communistic values system because of course he knows the answers and if he has to twist things up to get people to believe in his crap that's not based on science then so be it.

Originally clipped from
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/4974/tzm-anarchists-propose-hijack-ows-and-install-a-new-governme/#reply-fa33f654


RBEM term is now on the new tzm website.

(5) What are some of the central characteristics of the solution proposed (RBEM)?
No Money or Market System
Automation of Labor
Technological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach.
Access over Property.
Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems.
Science as the Methodology for Governance
1) No money or market system.
Market theory assumes a number of things which have proven to either be false, marginally beneficial, or outright socially detrimental.

The core problems to consider are the following:

A) The need for "Infinite Growth" which is mathematically unsustainable and ecologically detrimental. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and "economic growth". In order to keep people employed, people must constantly consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources.

B) A "Corruption Generating" Incentive System. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal if not more pronounced amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, labor exploitation and many other issues. The vast majority of people in prison today there because of monetary related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary-based crimes.

Also, if one was to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others - it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain. The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products and very often they are even at odds.

C) A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe rather than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US and bottled water from Fuji Japan, while western companies will go to the deprived 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This "cost efficiency" generates extreme "technical inefficiency" and is only justifiable within the market system for the sake of saving money.

In a RBEM, the focus is maximum technical efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor as compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the "strategically best" possible goods. (see more below) In other words, the system is planned, to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.

D) A propensity for "Establishments". Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self perpetuation.

If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a "competition" mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level- which is the competition against new advents which would make them obsolete, outright.

The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US Government and 'Big Oil' collusion to limit the expansion of the fully Electric Car (EV) in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car?". The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well being of those on the pay role, leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations ( ie - the perpetuation of "Hybrid" cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.) There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced progressive drugs which would void existing/profitable ones.

In a RBE, there is nothing to hold back developmental/implementation of anything. If safe and useful, it would immediately be implemented into society, with no monetary institution to thwart the change due to their self-preserving, monetary nature.

E) An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay "competitive" This little recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate each others items in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematical certainty that every good produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due the need to cut the initial cost basis of production and hence stay "competitive" against another company... which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free market adage where producers "create the best possible goods at the lower possible prices" is a needlessly wasteful reality and detrimentally misleading, for it is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the production of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis.

They very simply cannot make the "strategically best" physically - it is mathematically impossible. If they did, no one would buy it for it would be unaffordable due the values inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember - people buy what they can afford to. Every person on this planet has a built in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback loop of constant waste via inferior production, to meet inferior demand. In a RBEM, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design, with recycling strategically accessed as well, limiting waste.

You will notice the term "strategically best" was used in a statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to state of affairs of the planetary resources, with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into acct all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retroactions and the like. In other words, we would not blindly use titanium for, say, every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the "strongest" materials for the job. That narrow practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be accessed through analysis of relevant attributes - such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, statical usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be accessed through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time. It is mere issue of calcualtion.

F) A propensity for monopoly and cartel due to the basic motivation of growth and increased market share. This is a point that economic theorists will often deny, under the assumption that open competition is self regulating that that monopolies and cartels are extremely rare anomalies in a free-market system. This "invisible hand" assumption holds little validity historically, not to mention the outstanding legislation around the issue, which proves its infeasibility. In America, there have been numerous monopolies, such as Standard Oil and Microsoft. Cartels, which are essentially Monopolies by way of collusion between the largest competitors in an industry, are also persistent to this day, while less obvious to the casual observer. In any case, the "free market" itself does not resolve these issues - it always takes the government to step in and break up the monopolies.

This aside, the more important point is that in an economy based on "growth", it is only natural for a corporation to want to expand and hence dominate. After all, that is the basis of economic stability in the modern world - expansion. Expansion of any corporation, always gravitates toward monopoly or cartel, for, again, the basic drive of competition is to out do your competitor. In other words, monopoly and cartel are absolutely natural in the competitive system. In fact, it is inevitable, for again, the very basis is to seek dominance over market share. The true detriment of this reality goes back to the point above- the inherent propensity of an "Establishment" to preserve its institution. If a medical cartel is influencing the FDA, then new ideas which void that cartel's income sources will often be fought, regardless of the social benefits being thwarted.

G) The market system is driven, in part, by Scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money that can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny production abundance. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. The Kimberly Diamond Mines in Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest to generate an abundance for the world's people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short term profits.

Abundance, Efficiency and Sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This scarcity logic also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn't even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed.

While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued and hence the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of "running out"--- the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short term reward which results from scarcity driven based prices, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never "run out" of oil, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporations who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money off of the scarcity, regardless of the long term social ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.

Strategy:
In their communication, TVP, tends to source themselves as the solution and hence operate as an Institution, often claiming intellectual ownership of various ideas of Jacque Fresco. For example, the term and hence definition of a "Resource-Based Economy" was sought for Copyright by TVP in 2010.

TZM does not limit its solution reference to TVP or any single person or institution and also does not claim ownership or origination of any idea promoted. Instead, it focuses on the underling reasoning behind the approach of applying Scientific Efficiency to society, sourcing the whole of scientific inquiry indiscriminately, without the emphasis on any specific institution or figure.

It could be argued that all knowledge is serially developed through cultural and informational evolution and the concept of "Credit" and "Institutional Proprietary" becomes intellectually untenable in reality. This is not to say that those with expert authority are no to be favored in a situation that needs such merit in application. But, on the data/reasoning level, information always stands on its own and endures its own logical scrutiny and the messenger becomes unimportant.

TZM see the Values System Shift and educational imperative as the most critical issue at this time which is why public interaction programs are at the forefront.

The highly specific technical designs characteristic of TVP which would actually comprise the mechanics of the social system are seen to emerge as a natural consequence once the train of thought is digested by the public.

Furthermore, TZM, while working to promote the open source train of thought to educate the public as its most important goal through community interaction and media, it also has a more traditional activist side, with ongoing Food Drives, Protest Actions and Charity work to help ease the growing stress being caused by this system.

TVP engages no larger order activism or charity actions and, again, operates solely for the expression of the work of Jacque Fresco.

RBE vs RBEM:
Out of a general respect to TVP's work with what they consider to be the proprietary notion of a "Resource-Based Economy" [RBE] and its definition, TZM adapted to the term "Resource-Based Economic Model" [RBEM] to separate the Fresco-specific association/definition and also allow for a more general flexible understanding of the premise.

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


So the first official TZM introduction of the term RBEM was in Peter's video to occupy wall street (term first came up on random websites by TZMers attempting to pass RBEM as science but not on TZM offcial sites). It is an attempt to add a extra appendage to RBEM to sound more legit, as I heard Peter say many times that one can't copyright the term RBE therefore he should of continued to use it. This would be suggesting the reason why Peter added "Model" to RBE may not be because of a copyright issue with TVP, as it may have been added more so to make it sound that a RBEM is actually based on science as it's suggesting that TZM has a working model even though that's not true nor is it based on science. Keep in mind I am no lawyer and my knowledge and experience in dealing with copyright issues is in the software sector; my knowledge on terms that can be copyrighted such as an RBE are not so well versed so if anybody could shade some light on the matter I'd much appreciate it.

Just because someone or in this case Peter adds "model" or someone adds "open source" as an appendage to a RBE doesn't mean it's automatically based on science, have credibility, have a working model, been peer reviewed by non-bias academic experts; However If that were the case groups that include the word "science" in them like Scientology would have some clout in the academic world as well but lucky for us academics as well as most people have critical thinking skills to see through this information. However adding appendages to things, thinking it will gain more clout just makes the people spreading that stuff on the internet retarded.

Gee Wiz Peter sure is smart adopting that appendage to RBE now, cause TZM looks more scientific as opposed to TVP RBE cause TZM gotta model!

Peter Joseph: Message to Occupy Wall Street & The World | The Zeitgeist Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc&t=4m27s

^ Paul Tard is above.

In answer to your copyright question Bill:

Fresco did not manage to copyright it, and his attempt to do so was kicked off the planet by the copyright agents that dealt with the claim. Peter can legally use RBE whenever and wherever he so wishes to do so without any legal ramifications, but he may choose not to out of love for Fresco.

BUT if it was copyrighted and Peter had added model on the end to try to sidestep RBE copyright he could technically be sued and prevented from doing so if the content of his claim was the concept Fresco had intended on copyrighting. If it could be shown that Merola was just taking Frescos 'work and ideas' and just renaming them he could be prevented.

Happily though Fresco has no legal claim and anyone can use it in anyway they wish, he has zero ownership.

@anticultist didn't know that.


So this weeks Fresco and Roxanne FAQ question is...

How different is a Resource Based Economy versus the Zeitgeist Movements new coined term Resource Based Economy Model? What are your thoughts on it? Is it better than a RBE? Is a RBE a copyrighted like the Zeitgeist Movement official website says it is?


Reference to a RBEM can be found here.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq