A new phenomenon will soon occur... (White Giant)

Let me introduce you to this new phenomenon, a film about our world and the root problems that can be changed, if YOU will...

ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

The human nature segment was okay for the most part aside from an unsupported opinion on altruism, but after that . . . I can see this is clearly neo-Marxist, technocratic propaganda (recalling biopower) using, at turns: hasty generalization (altruism is assumed to be good), false concept (capitalism as exploitation rather than freedom, also freedom as free lunch rather than free choice), genetic fallacy (regarding the origins of capitalism), false dichotomy (individualism versus cooperation), and package-deal (essentially a special case of false concept mixing in a little straw man, every second or third concept: capital/fiat currency [this is a big one], capitalism/corporatism, exploitation/free trade, selfishness/self-interest) arguments.

The rhetoric is undoubtedly that of the Left Libertarian variety and heavily Behaviorist. However, my main complaint is that it only has unoriginal rhetoric. I mean how difficult is it to come up with new rhetoric? Segment 4 did have a few instances of decent rhetoric, very subtle package-dealing and bait-and-switch. Unsurprisingly, I saw some Argument by Intimidation, associating ignorance, herdishness, etc. with disagreement . . . but this is the nature of rhetoric. Why can't we get original rhetoric now and then? Rhetoric that is more subtle, more artistic, more convincing. God, our standards low if this passes as halfway decent rhetoric. It's nothing more than a compilation of various cliches, about a fourth of which is stolen from the Communist Manifesto.

I like the part where they promote centralized control by a computer. I guess there is the essence of technocracy. So . . . I'm looking forward to being ruled by a computer, are you? I'm also looking forward to not owning anything, not striving for anything, and living happily among my scientifically, "rationally" conditioned fellows.

Anyway I'll get right to the point: I would oppose that system with every thought, word, and action available to me. I would not live in such a system and, if necessary, I would die opposing it.

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible." - Ayn Rand

Scarlet, thanks for writing that so I don't have to...but, I'd say that it's not so much that our system is perfect, it's just that those who are proposing this Zeitgeist stuff have their own agenda and do not state their case in a dispassionate way. Btw, I'm not a money hungry capitalist...more of an ascetic if anything (an escatic who likes the internet). So, I don't oppose efforts to improve things, but I see nothing in Zeitgeist worthy of obtaining. Anyway, Scarlet...no need to die. But, yes...I agree almost entirely.

I dont know any other attempts than the Zeitgeist movies, to force people to think about our present system. The ideas expressed in this new film and the other one (Zeitgeist: Addendum), will sure not be possible and if we all should be ruled by a computer, people who controlled that computer, would sure be deeply corrupt.

But I love Zeitgeist for its ability to get people thinking...

Why live in, and accept, an ego-society when we all could work together towards common goals? But this dream is impossible and the world must be destroyed totally (I think), before that kind of ideas would have a change to manifest.

See the two other movies here:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

The overblown rhetoric regarding the ills of capitalism are hardly new. You are entirely correct, John, and there is much historical evidence to support your position. Utopianism has been around at least since Plato and has been the source of some truly horrific disasters whenever implemented.

I particularly enjoyed the computer notion as well. As a great believer in our technical progress, I find it curious how ignorant some in society still are in that reagrd. As if computers do anything which human designed software does not instruct them to do?

However, Adam Smith, himself, warned about the dangers to the market and economic liberty posed by the overconcentration of wealth in private hands. You mentioned many of the areas where there is legitimate cause for concern.

Of course, the Left sees Marxism, an undisputedly failed philosophy, as the only alternative to the flaws we have willfully created in our in our economic system.
Whereas, the Right considers any criticism, no matter how obvious and clearly in violation of fundamental principles, as an attack on free markets and private ownership.

Remove the notion of the corporation as an independent legal entity with civil rights, A product of the 14th Amendment unforseen by its crafters, and we eliminate 90% of the abuses so common to the mega corporations of today.

Freedom and liberty must be balanced by responsibility and legal accountability, hardly a novel concept. We, as a society, have been dismantling many of our safeguards over the last few generations in a misguided notion of libertarianism, however. Private and public institutions run amok are, of course, a natural result.

I recall something Noam Chomsky once said about Captalism being a great thing... if only we had it.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Why live in, and accept, an ego-society when we all could work together towards common goals? But this dream is impossible and the world must be destroyed totally (I think), before that kind of ideas would have a change to manifest.<!-/Quote-!>

I live not for my fellow man, and my fellow man lives not for me. If our goals are indeed common, then voluntary cooperation is the rational, egoistic choice. If our goals are not common, then cooperation is not in one person's interest. In the latter case, cooperation is not possible except through fraud, coercion, or both. Given that a fully capitalistic society is predicated upon voluntary exchange and voluntary associations among individuals: if working together in an ego-society is not possible, then perhaps it is because the "common" goals are not so common.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Remove the notion of the corporation as an independent legal entity with civil rights, A product of the 14th Amendment unforseen by its crafters, and we eliminate 90% of the abuses so common to the mega corporations of today.<!-/Quote-!>

I never thought of that. Not a bad idea at all if you ask me.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Freedom and liberty must be balanced by responsibility and legal accountability, hardly a novel concept. We, as a society, have been dismantling many of our safeguards over the last few generations in a misguided notion of libertarianism, however. Private and public institutions run amok are, of course, a natural result.<!-/Quote-!>

If you're talking about strict laws against fraud and coercion, and protecting life, liberty, and property of individuals from other individuals (and government), I'm with you. If you're talking about the expropriation of private property for compulsory altruism, I'm not with you.

General Jeremiah... these responders are comfortable in the system as it is. In a new system, those who are comfortable and have more, have more to lose in any event of change. They will oppose any equality and won't feel any different until they have been forced into a box by the present system. For example free and universal health care is opposed by Scarlet, and others because it is their view that they shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay anyone else health care bills. They won't readily acknowledge that the tax revenue that is collected is already spent before it is collected and we have a shortfall for services. The issue of health care is not a tax issue it is a humanitarian issue. But their stance would quickly reverse if one of their loved ones had cancer and received the bottom of the barrel care because they don't have or can't afford premium health insurance. This is just one example of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own well being. A disgusting trend. It also highlights the need for changes because by and large more and more of the American people subject to the system are becoming victims inevitably of the same system.

You can't expect selfish people to want to listen to anything that proposes helping others while handicapping their perceived advantages. Anyway, thanks for sharing, for every one of you there will be 10 in opposition.

Wendy, I don't have any health insurance.

As I've said before, if anyone wants to voluntarily pay for someone else's healthcare, that's perfectly fine. If nobody wants to, nobody else has the right to force them to . . . no majority, no government, no individual. It's a freedom issue.

*"The issue of health care is not a tax issue it is a humanitarian issue."*

Being a 'humanitarian' is a good thing, but you shouldnt force others to be a humanitarian.

Having ignored the block of words and jumped to the last two (short) responses....

Scarlet - Thumbs up!

Serpent - Thumbs up! (because I know what you mean)

Wendy - Panning your comments, as they are utterably predictable.

And #&@! "humanitarians"

Thats a real convincing argument Border C. Let me jump off the cliff if you tell me to!

Compassion, understanding, not feeding into the nonsense tax argument against health care, is predictable? For me, yes it is.

You all are like lambs to the slaughter, you'll take any quick one liner from fox noise and run with it.

Serpent, how does offering every American citizen free and universal health care force you to be humanitarian? You perceive the 'forcing' of humanitarianism upon you by feeding into the silly notion that 'your' tax dollars will pay for it. The argument is not even an argument. It is a joke. Your tax money is absorbed before you spend it. Any service that is proposed or implemented now is paid for not by taxes but through borrowing.

Now if we announced war with Iran, North Korea, or China using x amount of excuses you would not jump up and down yelling about your taxes paying for the wars.

It amazes me how many of us are eager to contribute and support actions that create death, while opposing things that promote health, well-being, and life.

That is utterably predictable, and... pathetic.

"It amazes me how many of us are eager to contribute and support actions that create death, while opposing things that promote health, well-being, and life."

Good point.

"Why live in, and accept, an ego-society when we all could work together towards common goals? But this dream is impossible and the world must be destroyed totally (I think), before that kind of ideas would have a change to manifest."

Bad point. Hope you're a teenager; the other options are asshole and lunatic.

"General Jeremiah... these responders are comfortable in the system as it is."

Missing the point. On the one hand, yes, many of us humans are somewhat comfortable with this system of civilization that has been evolving for many generations. It's healthy... right?... to be comfortable with the civilization your ancestors have built. More healthy than, say, wanting to destroy it.

On the other hand, many of us same humans are not complacent, and work to change things, for the better. And we try to be careful and think about the consequences changes may have, and make wise decisions. Difficult, sometimes, when people who could be allies for positive change rant and rave with such vitriol and willful ignorance that it becomes more important for rational people to defend what exists than to focus on improving it.

This arguement is as old as time is. Im all for people being healthy and having the right to a good education, house, children etc.... But it is wrong to expect others in society to provide it for those who cant/don't/wont work for it themselves. They do have the right to obtain it themselves. It does not take a genius to understand that the GREAT majority of social programs are abused and only enable further bad actions.

You gotta realize tho, things like social programs, health-care, bad economy etc... all these things are just part of the big picture that is all screwed and messed up. So debating things like this is really trivial, because its like painting the door on your house when the rest of the home has paint chipping off, roof leaks, floor is falling in, plumbing leaks, electrical wiring causing random fires and a plethora of other problems. Gotta go back to the basics, stop trying to put a band-aid on a slit jugular.

#1 It's such a simple argument to say that people can't/don't/won't work for themselves. Are there people out there who abuse the system and are just lazy? Of course. Is that the vast majority? Not at all. Just like the vast majority of wealthy Wall St types aren't walking around thinking about how to Madoff everyone while wearing monocles and smoking pipes filled with dollar bills.

#2 We put way too much emphasis on people's 'individualism', 'get it done' attitudes and 'rags to riches' stories. Success has far more to do with social class and luck than we generally give credit. So instead of accepting that some people started off in a far better position than others which *gave* them opportunities, we pretend like those people did something special and those that weren't *given* opportunities don't deserve support.

#3 It's easy to say that because people haven't 'earned' the right to things as necessary as healthcare, in real life it's much more difficult. I don't care how conservative you claim to be, if you see a CHILD who fell from a slide and broke their neck who has parents that happen to be too poor to afford the thousands in medical bills, there is no way you could possibly say: too bad, should have worked harder. I know that is an extreme example but it illustrates the overall issue.

#4 We live in the wealthiest country in the world, we can afford to cover the healthcare costs of all people in this country.

#5 We already do cover the costs of all people in the country, except we stupidly pay far higher amounts than we need to because those who can't afford care get it at the last minute and in the most expensive places.

#6 We panic way too much, we have problems but if you look at the overall health, wealth and future of this country it is positive. We have difficulties, but it is time to stop pretending like the world is falling apart and start working on our problems in a rational state, not a panic state. We don't have a slit-jugular, we have a small tumor that is malignant but has been caught early on and needs focus and intelligent management.

I agree, the health care solution as is doesn't go far enough.

Canada has free universal health care. They pulled out of the economic downturn before we did, reduced unemployment faster than we did, and their money isn't falling vs the 100 other currencies in the world. Somehow universal health care would be bad?

No one is asking Serpent for example to pay for anything. Convincing yourself that you actually would be paying for anyone is delusional. The government is not Serpent, and Serpent is not the government. Free Universal health care would be provided by the government and NOT Serpent

Is it wrong for you to contribute to the Social Security fund... Serpent? According to your logic it is...

"But it is wrong to expect others in society to provide it for those who cant/don't/wont work for it themselves."

The sad thing is that you place Can't with won't and don't in that sentence.

If someone cannot, would you treat them the same as someone who will not?

Getting away from that now, your other feeling "all these things are just part of the big picture that is all screwed and messed up."

Exactly, Exactly, exactly, that brings us back to the top of the thread. I'm glad you see that the entire picture is screwed and the video General Jeremiah shared at least begins a discussion on it.

It is sad that for lack of a better solution all opponents will do is bash the only solution presented instead of their one of their own, or offering an improvement to the solution presented.

I agree 100% that there are those who for whatever reason CANT afford health-care or the other necessities of life. For those, it should be provided. I do not lump all into one category, hence why I said "GREAT majority". Because I do think that MOST take advantage of the situation as a lifestyle and not an assistance as it should be.

WB you are correct in that many of peoples success isn't an example of a 'how hard I worked mentality'. There is a good book on that subject written by Malcolm Gladwell called 'Outliers', its a good read. But that's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is that most... MOST, not all... people can provide for themselves. there is a place for charity and humanitarian deeds, but it should even then be on a necessity, not luxury basis.

True 'Serpent' is not the government, no ONE person is. Hopefully no ONE person would be as corrupt as the government. I just think the universal health-care system is just a further deterioration of the system. Even if it was an improvement, the resources could be spent much better in other places.

I know where you're coming from Serp and you're right about "Outliers", it's a great book. I really just think that some perspective needs to be added to this issue. It's easy to stand back and assume that most people getting assistance are manipulating the system, it's another when you actually know people that do need it. When my brother and wife lost their jobs and then 6 months later I lost mine, my entire family including my daughter went from fully covered HMO insurance for a couple of hundred dollars a month to insurance costs in excess of $1000 a month...with no job.

If it wasn't for the stimulus covering 70% of our Cobra healthcare costs we would have been screwed. Buying individual healthcare is ridiculously expensive for no valid reason. Someone buying care for themselves shouldn't have to pay double the rate of what a company pays for their employee health plans.

I'll again say, as the wealthiest country in the world, we can afford to provide every citizen with the most important need they'll ever have, health care. Do we need to provide welfare, Social Security, subsidies, etc...I don't know...probably not as much as we already do if at all. But we do need to provide healthcare to everyone, it doesn't make us less free...it will make us more free. Free to leave 'safe' corporate jobs that provide healthcare to take risks on new innovative ideas on our own...that's a freedom that could make this country a lot better.

I think we try to tackle the same problems, but in a different way. You said ***"Buying individual healthcare is ridiculously expensive for no valid reason. Someone buying care for themselves shouldn't have to pay double the rate of what a company pays for their employee health plans."*** And I agree 100%. THATS what needs to be fixed. The WHOLE system needs to be fixed in order for people to (as the constitution says) have the RIGHT to obtain those things for themselves. Of course there are some extreme cases it does not apply, and total care has to be issued for a select few individuals.

The WHOLE system would include things like the cost of a visit to the hospital, if you break a bone the cost is astronomical! Why? Is it because the cost of the tools and materials needed to fix a broken bone is so expensive? Thats prolly part of it. What about the big dollars that doctors make? Sure they should be paid well, for they perform an important role. Is it because the cost to become a doctor is so great? Several years of college and then graduate school? How old is the avg doctor when they actually begin to make money? And this is just a few of the many points that can be argued about health-care alone. What about everything else?

I just think universal health-care is the wrong way to go about tackling the problem. Just like most other government run programs, to much waste and to much abuse. Of course not in every case, but in most.

I think there is confusion between the terms 'universal health care' and 'government run healthcare'. Universal healthcare simply means that all citizens should be guaranteed a minimum level of health coverage. In many ways we already have 'universal' healthcare in that no person who walks into an emergency room with a life threatening injury can be denied. Unfortunately, this means that people must have possibly curable/non-life threatening injuries/sicknesses turn into life threatening before they are guaranteed care, this causes excessive costs and horrible outcomes. That system isn't 'government run', it's privately run and that is part of the excessive costs that those with health insurance pay ALREADY to cover the costs of the uninsured.

Anyway, a universal healthcare system does not have to be government run, it can be a single payer system in which the government is the single payer of all health costs to a variety of different providers (private corporations, non-profit corporations, government programs, i.e. the public option). A person would then have the choice of many different plans, there would be several that were completely covered by the government and some that people could choose to come out of pocket for in order to gain additional coverage. That would be a universal system that isn't government run. I believe Sweden and Switzerland have systems that are similar to what I've described...used to know but I haven't looked into it in a while.

Anyway, point is 'universal' does not equal 'government run'.

Exactly.

Government subsidized insurance plans, contracted through private vendors. All 50 states are doing it now. The programs in most states focus on children, but are being expanded to low income adults.

Low-cost, comprehensive insurance plans available by means testing.

NOT National Health Care.

We DO NOT need the Federal Government further feeding the Health Care Industry. Better to have the Sates negotiating for themselves and providing multiple systems of audit and review, Not just the GAO.

Forget the political rhetoric and hype. This problem, at least, is an easy fix.

Okay, WB, and FB too, as both of you are reasonable, rational people. First question: How is it that, while food is an absolute necessity for life, we don't feel the need to have "universal food service," let alone "government run food service". Yes, I realize government is entangled in food production and distribution. It is entangled in virtually every commercial activity. And yes, sure, there are food stamps, as well as charity. And yes, some Americans go hungry. Though starvation is rare, and newsworthy.

But there really is a network of food producers and of food distributors, not government owned or operated, setting largely their own prices. And it's easy enough, for me anyway, to imagine taking away the gov't penalties and gov't supports and gov't price regulations where they all exist, and still having a functioning system.

Why can that happen with food, but not with health care? The last time I asked this Wendy gave an incoherent response, which I took to mean she had no good answer. Can either of you, or anyone else, do better?

Massive food distribution programs were implemented all over the world during the Great Depression.

Should needs arise, they will be again.

Our "Health Care Crisis" is simply a matter of rapidly shifting demographics, coupled with difficult economic times.

Again, not a Gordian Knot by any stretch of the imagination.

......unless of course, the overiding principle is not reasonable solution to peoples' demonstrated needs, but rather adherence to political ideology?

The market could, of course, provide a solution. We have it now. Pay the premiums or do without. Or accept the care via Emergency Room, and declare bankruptcy. If you are speaking of private charity, such could help; but, the hundreds of billions per annum? Question of scale. Food is relatively cheap. An internist is not.

The Market is not the "be all, end all", just as government is not. The free market enterprise system has wrought medical miracles on the supply side of the equation. Using a single payer supplemental for low income on the demand side hardly compromises that.

The average American household simply does not posess the resources to shoulder their costs in addition to the retiring boomers. Government taxation will be used to spread the burden, just as it always has. Not the end of the world.

Though our Derivatives Markets, churning away in the Neverland of imaginary money, just might be...

Exactly FB, I believe if necessary a person could probably eat an acceptable diet, not particularly tasty or filling, but nutritionally sufficient, for a couple of dollars a day. $2 x 365=$730 a year. But for example, the cost of stepping on a rusty nail (according to this document http://www.mnhealthplans.org/consumers/documents/HowMuchDoesItCost2005.doc which I'm sure is not perfectly accurate but looks about right to me) is $1030. That isn't a particularly crazy injury to have, maybe an hour in an ER without wait times, but it exceeds the minimum cost of food for a year. A minimum amount of food for every person in America would be around $220B per year, compared to $2.3T on healthcare in 2008.

The other reason that healthcare is much different than food is that food is an expected expense, I can tell you right now how much food I'll need to live 10 years from now. However, I can't tell you that tomorrow I won't sprain my ankle, cut my hand, catch the flu or find out that I have cancer. As an intelligent person what I should do is assign some probability to each of these things and plan for costs accordingly but that is pretty much impossible to do and the .1% probability that I place on having cancer within the next year at an assumed cost of say $200K for treatment means that I would save $200. It looks stupid when you put it on paper but that is exactly how one should plan for contingencies and if I get cancer, well $200 isn't going to do me much good. Insurance companies spread the risk and are more capable in determining accurate probabilities and costs than I am as an individual consumer. They provide a valuable service in doing so, I would argue a necessary service, even a person in the 90th percentile in income would likely be bankrupted by a serious cancer without health insurance.

Finally, people don't die in the U.S. from a lack of food, it's a broad statement and I'm sure some do, but a quick search yielded me no results and I've never heard a story of someone losing their life to hunger in the U.S. Frankly, if it got that far a person wouldn't have to look much further than a garbage can for enough calories to survive, we throw out a lot of food.

I don't think the government would need to set healthcare prices, just a minimum coverage level that all plans would have to meet. Then let the market determine how to reach that level of service at their minimum cost to maximize for-profit or non-profit goals.

As far as food subsidies go, I'm with you on that...get rid of them...they ultimately do nothing to lessen the cost of food as we just pay for the subsidy in taxes and they have all kinds of negative spillovers the biggest of which is making the food that is the least healthy for us the cheapest which in turn increases our healthcare costs!

Excelleny points, WB.

Of course, JO does point the direction of the need for limitations to governmental intervention.

Such is why I prefer the many states and counties competing, as opposed to one fix all by the Feds.