THE PROFIT MOTIVE HAS GOT TO GO
by Dustin Archer - in defense of Zeitgeist Addendum
2008 October 13
Greetings, I am an avid support of Freedom Force
and a reader of The Creature from Jekyll Island. I am also a huge
proponent of the world envisioned in Zeitgeist Addendum.
It is my hope that those statements do not dissuade you from reading the
content of this message, as I am deeply curious if you understand the
underlying issues and if I will be able to continue to associate myself with
your organization in the future.
While I do not disagree with many of your claims and I understand the
failures in the Addendum, the main overall argument must be refuted. You are
a man who believes in the profit motive, and thus your natural inclination
is to defend that ideology, even it it is outdated. I challenge you to
sufficiently dispute the fact that seeking profit results in exploitation of
both the people of the world as well as destruction of the worlds resources.
No matter how individualist-based a world we live in, there will still be a
great deal of wealth stratification that will not go away. This results from
education, access to technology, etc.
However, the worlds resources are in abundance, but will not be accessed if
money remains the central theme. Under the laws of supply and demand, moving
our world to a sustainable society both economically and environmentally
will not work under individualism unless we also remove money from the
equation, allowing resources to be accessed by all and the most useful, non
damaging technologies to be used. For example, the movie points out that we
currently have the technology to satisfy all the worlds energy demand by
using safe, environmentally friendly, renewable resources. However, the
profit motive will not allow this as those already in institutional
positions of power will be able to use their influence to buy patents
preventing technologies from coming to market. Even without government
protecting these corporations they will still, at least temporarily, have a
tremendous market share in all major industries. How, under a profit based
individualist society, would you propose to implement this technology which
would benefit everyone - not merely the greatest good for the greatest
number, but true freedom for mankind. Freedom from war, poverty, labor,
toil, etc
I find it interesting that you would dispute the idea that machines could
handle 90% of the worlds occupations if money was obsolete. Indeed, it is
only a small portion of our society now that works in manufacturing, and in
the society alluded to in Zeitgeist Addendum every profession dealing with
money, which intrinsically does not benefit society, would be eliminated.
Why do people need the profit motive to motivate them in a world when they
have all their demands met? I am currently unemployed with my basic needs
met. I don't desire more money. Yet, I don't sit around doing nothing -
instead I devote myself to liberty and freedom through education and
conversation. The ideology that people who have their needs met will simply
do nothing is foolish - you have obviously never been in such a situation.
My final argument is that you suggest that an 'elite' would be necessary to
implement the ideas in the Venus project. Why? If money became worthless
anyway (which it is looking like it will, at least the dollar) why wouldn't
people want to use their energy and resources to build a world where they
(among everyone on the planet) would have an extremely high quality of life?
Generosity is the trademark of a world where profit is eliminated - as
opposed to hording wealth like we do today.
In this society we don't need government at all - nor leaders. The only
purpose the founding fathers had when creating this nation was regulating
commerce (unnecessary without money) and to provide for the common defense
(unnecessary if everyone has access to everything they need for life). What
function would government hold in this world? Nothing . . . people would be
totally free, without government, and great altruism would be achieved
because peoples lives would be devoted to helping society - rather than
making money for themselves by, often, providing no useful service to
society.
My main confusion is that I would think you would be an advocate of this
type of society . . . instead of its opponent. My only conclusion that can
be drawn is either that you simply don't understand because you're held back
by outmoded ideas, or that you enjoy the social and economic stratification
that America has over the rest of the world and you enjoy feeling 'elite'
yourself compared to citizens of other nations.
Please clarify your position for me.
Sincerely,
Dustin Archer
EDITOR'S RESPONSE:
Hello Dustin.
Thanks for your letter. I have studied it carefully and find nothing that
was not part of the argument presented in Zeitgeist Addendum. It
appears to be merely a re-statement of the thesis presented in the film, so
there is little I can add to what I have already written. We have different
views of the nature of man. My view is that he is what he is, and that's not
altogether bad. Your view is that he must be perfected according to a higher
standard. My view is that a desire to be rewarded for one's effort and a
desire to acquire property is a constructive force in a free society without
political favoritism but is a destructive force when social engineers have
power to coerce us into a collective mould to their liking.
The only way to create the kind of a system envisioned in Zeitgeist
Addendum would be to violate just about every principle in The Creed
of Freedom. The dream of the state just disappearing is, to me,
incredibly naive. If anyone can show how such a system could be established
without denying my freedom to reject it if I should choose, I would be more
enthusiastic, but my sense of history and human nature compels me to reject
it as just another collectivist utopia. As with all the others, either it
never has been tried or, if it has, it has been totally destructive of
freedom.
By the way, I do not aspire to be an elitist as you suggest. However, I am
not new to these concepts. I have been reading about them in one form or
another for over fifty years, many of them appearing in the Socialist-utopia
novels that proliferated in the 1920s through 1940s. I believe that I DO
understand these issues very well. Only beginning political-science students
could call this a new program. By contrast, the concept of freedom and
individualism is far from outmoded. If anything is outmoded, it is the
re-mixing and re-packaging of old and worn out collectivist theories.
I welcome your support of Freedom Force and hope that we can work together
in support of the principles expressed in The Creed of Freedom.
Ed Griffin
For Mr. Griffin's original analysis of this topic,
click here.
==========================================
Dear Mr. Griffin,
I really must reply to Dustin Archer's not-so-new idea about somehow
abolishing the profit motive from human nature so we can somehow build
Utopia.
Sounds nice to be unemployed so one can devote oneself to education and
conversation while other people supply one's needs. If he would like to be
even more productive, and generous, as he describes the behavior of people
in his utopian society, I wonder if I can arrange to have him come clean my
house every week while I devote my talents and energy for some people
committed to installing and repairing roofs? Also, I could use a screened-in
deck, so I'd be most grateful to him and his generosity if he would provide
the material, labor and services for that, too. I'm sure the material
suppliers would happily donate to the cause from the stocks they've worked
hard to acquire, right?
Now I'd like to ask Mr. Archer a few more questions. In this world of
technological abundance and availability where money is no longer needed,
who's going to keep the sewage systems running? Who are the people who are
so generous that they'll work in the filthiest environment known to man for
absolutely nothing? And who's going to collect the garbage? A robotic system
for such things does not yet exist. Who's going to build it? Will they build
it for free?
I'm well acquainted with roofers, and I can tell you truly, that not a
single one of them likes the work. It's hard, heavy work. It's too
hot/cold/windy and customers (not to mention the boss!) are often a pain in
the soft spots. I really have no doubt that when money disappears, so will
the roofers. Who's designing the roofing robots right now for that future
day when money is irrelevant and technology and resources are abundant? MIT?
I doubt it.
Who's going to build the plumbing robots so when you're toilet backs up,
because your baby flushed your cell phone and now it's stuck in the pipe
under your front lawn, you can get it unstuck? Who's building the robots to
serve you your free, abundant filet mignon and salmon steaks at the
restaurant, because no one wants to wait tables anymore because, like
roofing, it's unpleasant? Who's going to butcher the cows and gut the fish?
Who's going to work night shifts at the factory?
And, lastly, I wonder if Mr. Archer knows who all are supplying his needs
while he's unemployed and devoting himself to "education and conversation?"
I'd be much obliged to know.
Linda June, 2008 October 20
lindajune2@juno.com