Interesting! i'll listen soon c:

where is naylor cast 3? I listened to 1 & 2 and must of missed 3

wow..who knew you who have drawn so many comics is a philosopher..lol O.o; *has been listening for 10mins.* holy shit..this is a bloody hour long!>.>; i'll listen to the rest later. but i like how you got this going:)

Your chain got yanked something fierce :)

It's always interesting to hear where your axioms come out...

I should explain that a bit- I'm seeing it as axiomatic for you that societal permission for individual action is sacrosanct. Nothing else is allowed to even potentially interfere with specifically freedom of action.

I say societal permission, because no matter what happens in society's rules you can always go all Somalia and refuse to pay any attention to the rules- much like what mortgage banks have apparently been doing in recent years. But you're not talking about that freedom (freedom to revolt, freedom to die for your beliefs) which by definition isn't removable- you're looking to society for permission for all manner of individual action, the expectation that you will be given the liberty to not only act wisely but to act foolishly if that's how you call it. No training wheels.

Seems like the assumption is that if there's complete license to act and decide, there can be no consequences that can't be accepted as tradeoffs for the liberty to take this freedom of action?

You're certainly a lot less happy about tradeoffs that impinge on the societal permission for unlimited and free decision and action! :)

That is so far afield of reality and intellect, that our choices are between statism and raw anarchy... I won't entertain those blithe assertions.

Oh now come on ;) if you're that fond of grey areas why do you sound so passionately committed to individual liberty? I'm not claiming that liberty = Somalia, I'm saying that anyone anywhere can practice 'liberty' to any extent they want simply by breaking any laws they find repugnant. You're looking to society to cosign some of your beliefs, you're NOT simply out to break any laws that offend you :)

In other words, no of course our choices are not between statism and raw anarchy...

I had never heard of these people. Spent the 'cast looking over their website.

Thankfully, they have a shortage of funding... they scare me if they ever were to somehow implement this.

I think you hit the nail right on the head.


The best alternative this could devolve into would be some kind of benevolent dictatorship. The worst? I dunno, somewhere around SKYNET. They continually insist that everything will be taken care of an run rationally by machines... but that the system engineers and analysts will only be needed during the changeover to this society.

Gah. It gets worse, if you spend some time in the FAQ.

It surprises me that you would address only one topic this week. That being said it is interesting that you're interested in philosophy; it would be great to have the opportunity to speak with you about philosophic topics sometime.

I do not post much, but I thought I would just poke my head in.

I have been reading your comics since...*checks archives* Somewhere around mid-2007. And Better Days pretty consistently had me delving into philosophical and psychological discussions with myself, which usually culminated in agreeing with whatever message you were conveying—oft reluctantly, but acknowledging your points to be valid.

That said, I have also been a fairly devoted (if quiet) proponent of the Venus Project ever since I heard of it a few years ago. So when I came to FA tonight and saw a journal entry from you for "Venus Project stuff", I was intrigued. And while I am generally not a podcast person (preferring other recreational timesinks), considering how much I have agreed with your purported philosophies in your comics, I could not pass up an opportunity to hear an in-depth philosophical schpiel from the source.

As I listened, I found my perspective changing rapidly. At first, hearing you compare the Venus Project to Marxism, I said what is said by the Project site somewhere: "It's not an 'ism,' it's a radical new idea!" As you progressed, I found myself—as I usually do when seeing your take on things—saying: "...He's right. I don't want him to be right, but he is." But towards the end, I actually said something I've never said before: "Maybe this world, this society, isn't such a bad place after all. Sure, it's not perfect, it's not ideal, but it's pretty damn good all things considered."

So I guess I'd just like to say thank you for being realistic. I know you don't necessarily need thanks, and that it's highly unlikely you're doing it for the sake of random people on the internet, but it is appreciated all the same.

Being able to recognize core principles of any proposal, even if the person proposing it doesn't, is a valuable skill. I picked it up as I studied philosophy, and it's useful to cut through all the repackaged ideas and get down to the nut of it.

Thanks for sharing.

You make a lot of fair points and the "official" website is rubbish. I'm assuming that this was your only point of reference.
However I'm still not convinced the idea proposed is flawed.

You only seem to defend how our current system "should" work, not how it works in practice.
Regardless of your opinion regarding the "ideal" VS "in practice" Marxism or Capitalism, neither system takes into account the fact that we live on a planet with finite resources that need to be regulated responsibly.
Once we've used up all the resources in the name of the free market, then what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI

Scarcity breeds ingenuity. Rationing everyone's property isn't the answer. There've been statistics about the coming copper/tin/oil/iron shortages and limitations from the government going back to the late 1800s. They've all been wrong. Someone else declaring limitation as an excuse to forgo my rights is just silly. We should be moving toward freedom and private management for this reason, not rationing and slavery.

I haven't heard anything, or seen anything in the video that adequately addresses what I raised in my audio. I even anticipated your response in your concept of capitalism as presented here, and the false presumption at we're living in capitalism (or ever have fully). Perhaps you didn't listen to it fully.

Either way, my response stands well founded and I stand by it.

Scarcity Breeds ingenuity?
Many of the worlds greatest inventors (the few who didn't grow up in financially stable environments) succeeded in spite of scarcity, not because of it, and adversity doesn't necessarily bring the best innovations out of people.
Technology is advanced by a desire to solve a problem, the ulterior motives of the person solving the problem doesn't change how it gets solved.

A Human is born as a blank canvas that only desires what its environment is told to. Children only do things for the sake of doing them and are only taught to do so for a reward as they get older. Those of us who truly desire to make something will do so regardless of the incentive.

Our generation have been brought up on the desire to own things. Something I believe in to an extent. If I make something, it is mine to do as I please. But I shouldn't need to acquire something purely for the sake of trading it.
That being said people shouldn't have the right to trade revoked, but they shouldn't be forced to trade for the sake of survival (which isn't freedom, at all). Worldwide There are enough resources for every individual to use and make whatever they want, but not for companies to hoard for the sake of reselling.

That is my response to the current system, regardless of it's name.

VP isn't forcing slavery on any level, or forcing you to give anything up. Everything needed for any sort of transition has to be volunteered, including farms, mines, labour, land and company assets.
If everyone was taught to share (or at least the practicalities of it) in an environment that reinforced that notion (ie non-competitive/ cooperative), trade would be for the most part rendered unnecessary.

My only gripes with the ideal proposal of capitalism is it requires that people trade perpetually for the sake of survival. Doesn't that seem like slavery on any level? I'm not advocating people do nothing with their lives but they shouldn't be threatened by any civilised system to do so for the sake of survival.

That one video was merely an intro, I didn't expect it to answer your questions though I did expect you to use it to continue researching this avenue until you found satisfactory answers.
Regarding the Audio I'll admit to not remembering every point brought up.

You obviously have no grasp of what a claim would lead to in practice, and no grasp at all of what principles must be applied to achieve your desired goal: everyone magically getting what they want as if no one has to work to do it - the wet dream of social planners from day one. The human who doesn't live in reality. The human who's existence doesn't require work from himself or someone else.

It's obvious you don't remember every point. But you asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you. When such a scheme aims to do A, I point out the premises required to want A as a moral goal. When it cites B as a goal, I point out what has to happen to achieve B. If this vexes you, I can't do anything about it. I'm not sure what you wanted out of this. But throwing the same bromides and sloppy thinking back at me as a retort to a specifically solicited opinion isn't compelling me to continue this back and forth. The constant equating of natural circumstances (the need to survive by production, either your own or someone else's) with politically imposed conditions is precisely one of those very things I addressed in the audio and you go blithely along offering it to me as if I'd said nothing, or can't tell the difference. Like it's some kind of trump card.

You can SAY anything about it to pacify me to the plan. But I understand the principles of the plan. I understand the goals. I understand the premises behind it's moral philosophy. I know what has to happen to bring it about. I oppose it for those reasons. I know it's an effort to shortcut your survival by professing to magically supply you everything you need to live, as if somehow we've subverted the nature of our existence by scheme. I'm not in unknown territory here.

I'll let this go for now as it's taken up a lot of my time.

Hahahaha.
I found these discussions between us interesting. Thanks for your time. :)

Most superlatively done, sir.

For an encore, try collectivist societal construct.

Ayn Rand bless you.