TVPChallenge Responds…

UPDATE: Noticing the lack of Zeitgeist during the last “ZDay” events I’ve decided to end the conversations with TZM. It’s a dead movement, they’ve had their 15 minutes and it’s slipped into the dustbin of history as just a minor blip in history. Phase 1 was a failure and it’s time to move on to bust up other myths and collective delusions. My videos will stay up with comments disabled as my ode to their long standing history censorship. So long and thanks for all the death threats.  

UPDATE: I got this message from TVPChallenge: 

 (FYI, this isn’t the vid I was telling you about, addressing the ECP and the value system.) YT uploads really slow, so I may not get those up ’til tomorrow, since I’ll have to go to bed soon =/

So this isn’t the video addressing the ECP, but in these videos ECP is addressed. Just note this isn’t her offical retort. 

…well not really. This is again just rehashing the mistakes Peter Joesph Merola in response to Stefan Molyneux with some other errors sprinkled in. Look, I appreciate any attempts to solve this riddle that has confused some of the brightest minds that have ever supported any sort of centrally planned economy. This riddle is still let unanswered even in wake of this video.

Why? Because there is no answer to this question, it’s just assured that all will be well once we hand over the keys to a select group of engineers and then they will be responsible for this burden. Now even with that said, it’s the closest I got to a rational response on the economic calculation problem I have heard from any Zeitgeister because on the surface it seems as though it is addressing the problem, but it’s really not.

 Their misunderstanding of basic economics regarding planned obsolescence and being FORCED to participate in the monetary system (which is patently absurd considering the numerous ways one can ‘live off the grid’) are really irrelevant even if they are true. Why? To say we’re going to take a ‘scientific’ approach instead of this isn’t answering how we approach this, it’s just saying “We don’t know now, but we’ll figure it out when the time comes.”

No. Not only is this a non-argument, it’s unscientific. It’s unscientific to use the science to reach a particular predetermined conclusion. How do we know that the scientific consensus after we get to R.B.E. Land is “Sorry, we need money?” Will we force science to comply with no money our ideology? Well then fine, but let’s not pretend we still talking about science anymore, we’re talking about pseudoscience.

It’s taking a lot of restraint for me to get distracted by this videos attempt to divert and steer the conversation away from free-market to the current system. The utterly stupid debunked arguments that Marxists have been putting out for 100 years, that just fails in the face of reality. Peter Joseph Merola is a master in propaganda, so it’s his forte to never admit any kind of error and divert legitimate criticism into a set line of shop talking points. When he does get nailed to a corner about the free market, he delves into a classic reductio ad absurdum logical fail.

So does this answer the economic calculation problem? No, you’ re promising me that your supercomputer and your team of engineers will figure out the problem when the time comes. How about figuring out a solution before promoting it as the end all be all of human evolution? Hm?

Let’s say tomorrow and everyone agrees that maybe they were wrong about the Zeitgeist movie and we need the RBE and they want it now, what algorithm will you install in your computer to distribute goods? That’s the question we’re asking. How EXACTLY will it work? How EXACTLY can you calculate an iPhone4 minus a cheeseburger? Not give me a hazy idea on how it could work, and pretend it’s an answer.

Now before you respond to this and attack my position; may I remind you that ‘debunking’ free-market economics, even if valid, does not mean that we should all hop on-board. Ergo I will not respond to attacks on the free-market, because it is irrelevant. You need to show me the algorithm if this is your argument.