You don’t think it’s possible for me to be “smarter” than him do you 🙂
They want you to think that way.They want you to believe that you don’t have the right to speak against him unless you can play the education/skill/experience card.
But given his age and life focus, that’s hardly fair for a consensus friendly movement. In actuality it’s just a way to arbitrarily exclude potential opposition.
That’s why the first thing you see in “Future by Design” is Larry King telling the world what a super genius this guy is because of all his technical skill.
Since the kitchen sink approach has failed so many others, let me focus on a couple things the guy said in the 8 minute video above. Not the FAQ, not what other people say he meant, let’s focus on the leader and his words.
How is that fair? Because if you disregard the leader then you might as well name your own movement.The leader while he is alive defines the movement, and after he dies whoever can best manage the perception of being true to that vision controls the movement. (That’s why north Korea is saturated with past leader mythology and why American politics is so full of speculation and debate over what the founders meant or thought or said.)
That’s why I focus on policy fragments/elements (like the UBI) not policy collectives (like nations, parties, or ideologies).
“It has to be global.”
This has two problems.
Firstly it’s like saying “I have a great way to live but it’ll only work if you live by yourself.”
Secondly, it has a very clear “my way or the highway” implication to it. No matter how gentle and palatable you make that highway and the journey to it.
Thirdly it betrays a deep misunderstanding of war and its causes. War isn’t about resources ultimately, war is about perception. As an example explore this little area of the planet.
TVP’s solution is the same as Cosmos in essence. He wants to destroy money because he fears what Cosmo calls _”its most powerful ability.”_ Marx and Lennon did as well but they realized more accurately what money is, what it facilitates, and why destroying it wasn’t possible, or necessary.
But they, and he, were wrong for the same reason the drug war is futile and why gun law is unenforceable. Diverse desires cannot be moderated effectively by authority. Authority itself is perception management. So is money in a sense. Control of perception can control the flow of money and the value of money, that much is obvious, but money, value itself, are just perceptions.
TVP ultimately proposes and is/would be defined by and as a command economy. the problem is that no central command (silicon or carbon) can compete with distributed parallel processing and barring totalitarian technological despotism, the collective computing power and sophistication of the group will always outstrip the computing power of any center.
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold…” ~Yeats
That is why communism invariably fails. It only survives to the degree that it behaviorally refutes itself. Putin’s Russia for example is doing well expressly because it no longer has to fake being communist.
The USSR only lasted as long as it did because it emulated our systemically fostered corruption. Basically we dragged them down to our level and beat them with experience. Faking democracy is a lot easier than faking communism.
“…we announce on TV what is available and what is not available at the time…”
He intends to replace money entirely with “technically competent” and “scientific” command.
That will not work. Even if you make the entire population technicians, which he clearly expects to occur as demonstrated by his back to school rhetoric.
“If you have a million sincere people that have no technical competence I can assure you nothing can be accomplished.”
Really, this tells me all I need to know. He doesn’t understand humanity at all. He needs to watch this show: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-burke-connections/
He also need to really think about the following quote:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” ~Albert Einstein
Knowledge can be systematically acquired. Indeed it’s something machines can do.
Those 1000 imaginations are far more valuable than 10,000 highly skilled but dull technicians. This isn’t a matter of opinion or doe eyed sentimental claptrap, it’s one of those ironic paradoxical but universal truths. We’ve scientifically confirmed that science isn’t all that important.
That’s why facts and reason don’t convince people. That’s why showmen are always in charge, not scientists. That’s why charisma is more powerful than reason.
It’s also why appearing irrational conveys advantage.
He fundamentally fails to parse the importance of the subjective. He makes the same mistake Nash did, he assumed a mercenary/rational base of human action. (By his own description his vision of what defined a rational player in part depended on his own mental illness.)