Foster Gamble on 'Thrive' the Movie, Its Critics and What Can Be Done to Stop the Conspiracy
The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Foster Gamble.
Introduction: Foster Gamble is President & Co-Founder of Clear Compass Media; Creator, Host, Co-Writer, and Director of Visual Design for THRIVE ... At age 14, Foster Gamble had a vision where he glimpsed what he perceived to be the Universe’s fundamental energy pattern. He spent the next 35 years trying to figure out the details and implications of what he had seen. That quest took two paths: a scientific journey and an exploration of the human potential to navigate successfully through the challenges threatening our survival. THRIVE represents the convergence of these two paths. Furthering his exploration of what was keeping humanity from thriving, Foster spent nearly a decade “following the money” in every sector of human endeavor. The process revealed an understanding of our predicament that led him to create the strategic solutions offered in THRIVE. Foster’s exploration of “living geometry” – how nature builds the “material” world, came to fruition in 1997 when he co-convened the Sequoia Symposium, a multi-disciplinary scientific think tank exploring perspectives on “Unification Theory.” There, the primary patterning that the universe uses to sustain healthy systems was clarified and cohered, as was its use as a blueprint for us to design sustainable, all-inclusive technologies and social systems. This discovery represents the convergence of science and the evolution of consciousness that Foster set out to explore after his initial vision, and is the “code” that is featured in the documentary film, THRIVE, and on this website. Foster lives in Santa Cruz, California with his wife Kimberly Carter Gamble.
Kimberly Carter Gamble is Former CEO, Co-Founder and Advisor for Clear Compass Media; Producer, Director, and Co-Writer of THRIVE. She brings a wealth of personal and professional experience to Clear Compass Media, and creating the movie THRIVE called upon it all: as a former journalist, including for Newsweek International; a producer of large projects and events; a lifelong activist for social justice and as a mother and step mother to nine children. One especially encouraging insight that emerged in the course of making THRIVE was that the most informed people are consistently the most hopeful, because once the nature of the problem is clear, so are the solutions. Kimberly is committed to using her privilege to empower these bold and leveraged solutions.
Daily Bell: We were surprised by how good Thrive was, especially since we'd been critical of it previously. Why did you make such a high-budget production as opposed to, say, writing a book or article?
Foster Gamble: First of all, I want to comment on your being surprised. Frankly, I was shocked and really disappointed that The Daily Bell was doing an in-depth review of the film, really twice, without having seen it. It was not the kind of critical thinking I usually associate with the Daily Bell, so I am glad that some of your people, including yourself, have actually seen the movie and appreciate it. So now we can have much more meaningful conversation about what we have done and who we are.
The message of this movie is really the result of literally my entire life's research. I put most of my life savings into making it because the goal was to actually alter the global conversation in a way that could really make a difference in the way that everyone on the planet could have the opportunity to thrive. So, I knew that to do that, a book wouldn't reach that many people, an article wouldn't reach that many people, but if a film were really coherent and powerful and done in a quality way so it carried as much beauty and credibility as possible, that had the best shot of going all over the world and changing the conversation. I am happy to say that seems to be what is happening.
Daily Bell: Give us some background on yourself for those who haven't seen the movie.
Foster Gamble: I was raised in Cincinnati, Ohio by extraordinarily wonderful parents. My father was part of the Gamble family, who were descendants of James Gamble, four generations ago, who was the co-founder of Proctor and Gamble, the soap and household products company. So I was raised in quite a comfortable situation. I went to all the elite private schools and went to Princeton University, and was successful in school in a lot of ways.
I was on the fast lane in the mainstream towards the usual pyramid of success but I was completely disenchanted with it. I looked around at the world that I was about to leave college for and I saw that we were destroying our environment, we were invading Cambodia for no good reason that I could figure out and we were at the risk of destroying life as we know it on planet Earth through a nuclear holocaust.
So when I found out that I was inheriting from my grandparents just enough money that if I managed it carefully, I could choose what I wanted to do with my life – I had created the film-making department with some others at Princeton so I was passionate about making films but I realized I didn't have anything to say that was worth all the time and money and knowledge that's necessary to make a feature film. So instead, I dedicated my life at that point to finding out what is causing so much human suffering. With all the technology, and all the goodness of the human spirit that I know about, why is it that so few people are really thriving? So I thought that would take a few years, and when I figured that out, I would make a film about it.
Well, little did I know it would take more than forty years to come to a sufficient understanding of what I think is in the way of our thriving, but also a sufficient perspective on the nature of solutions that could actually get us out of this mess. So that's when I decided to make the film and to give it the best possible shot of being successful and effective.
Daily Bell: Give us some background on your wife, who appears in the movie as well.
Foster Gamble: Kimberly grew up in Los Angeles in a real film-making family. Her dad was the major producer for Jack Lemmon's films and her brother is the major production designer for Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis and also won the Academy Award for production design in "Avatar" recently. So she grew up around people who knew how to make a dream come true and go from just thoughts in their heads to a very successful project that could positively impact people's lives.
She herself was very disenchanted with Hollywood and left at an early age. She went to Berkeley and really has been an activist all her life. She is a brilliant investigator and writer and she worked for Newsweek International for 10 years, mostly in Europe, and then she just created basic entrepreneurial, activist projects the rest of her life, which were both her occupation and the fulfillment of her mission. So she's a very talented producer, and she ended up directing Thrive. She did a fantastic job of bringing in the feminine energy into topics which are so often dominated by either sort of removed and purely intellectual men in science, or angry ranting males in the conspiracy area.
I am glad to be talking to you in this conversation about her because even in the liberty world, the percentages, gender-wise, are so strongly focused toward the masculine that we are really thrilled by the level of interest in these topics that Thrive is generating, especially amongst women and young people. There is no more powerful force that I have come across in the universe so far than the motherly protection of the female species. I have found over the years in my activism, if women take something on, it's going to happen.
Daily Bell: Can you give us a synopsis of Thrive?
Foster Gamble: Thrive is an investigation into what is in the way of our thriving and what on Earth it is going to take for humanity to be thriving on a healthy planet. The film starts with an investigation of what we call 'The Code.' The code is a pattern in nature, this donut-shaped toroidal vortex that seems to be, from my studies, the only pattern by which nature sustains a healthy system – and that's quite a statement. Obviously, we live in a pretty large universe and as far as we can tell, at least from the atomic level to the clustering of galaxies, every system organizes in a toroidal form that can sustain itself. So what is being offered to us is a blueprint from nature as to how to design healthy living systems. There is nothing more critical that we need at this point in history.
Later in the film, we get into how to use that as a compass to chart a healthy course. But first of all, once we see the implications of this code – because it turns out that inventors who have been aware of this fundamental pattern in nature have designed devices that mimic this pattern and then can be tuned like a musical instrument and at certain frequencies will start pouring out clean, safe electricity. That's great news, given the way we are polluting our skies and fighting over oil and running out of fossil fuel and all that kind of stuff. So the great news is that those technologies exist. The unfortunate part is that they have all been brutally suppressed by the powers that shouldn't be.
So we go into an exploration: If this code is so important, who else knew about it and who else knows about it? It turns out that core elements of this geometry have been encoded by multiple ancient cultures – by the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Mayans, the Aztecs – over and over again. Knowledge of these codes has been passed on in stories and books and icons, buildings, for millennia so there was something important that they wanted to pass on.
Then, in addition, in a sense from the future, we go into the phenomenon of crop circles. These crop circles are patterns in crops around the world. There have been at least 6,000 of these documented, but the estimates actually go up to about 11,000. Certainly many of them are hoaxes but many of them are absolutely inexplicable with their phenomenology, and their detail, and no footprints on rainy nights. But more importantly, hundreds of these patterns represent, at a very deep level, exactly the same understanding of the geometric patterns of energy that took me a lifetime to even begin to glimpse. So I think, and I suggest in the film, that we are being shown by civilizations more advanced than we are fundamentally how energy works so that instead of ourselves destroying our selves and polluting our planet we can actually learn to come into harmony with these energetic patterns. So that's the first chapter of the movie, The Code.
The second chapter is The Problem, where we really look to see who is suppressing these things and who's destroying our food supply and who's polluting our skies and our water and our soil and who's destroying the economy. We have a major problem here. What's going on? So basically, Chapter 2 is we follow the money upstream, to see who's actually controlling the money. And it turns out those same people, those same organizations – and it's a small group of families – are actually controlling virtually every sector of human endeavor.
Once we establish that, then we go into the next chapter, which is what we call the Global Domination Agenda, because it turns out, as far as I can tell from consistent vast research, the point of the control is not just to make money. These families already have more money than anyone on the planet and they can pretty much print it whenever they want because they run the central banking system as well. But the agenda seems to be to actually take over the lives of all people across the entire planet, which is pretty chilling and sounds like a poor James Bond movie or something – except that it seems to be true, and all the evidence that comes out in the news these days supports that hypothesis.
Given that, the last chapter in the film is Solutions and we really made a strong effort to have half of this movie be about solutions. Rather than scare people under their beds and then in the credits say, have people write your congressperson, buy a Prius, and change your light bulb, we actually looked to say, now that we know what's going on, here are some active solutions and strategy's that we can take, that can turn this thing around, especially given that it's a very small percentage of the population, it's not even the 1%, it's like .0001% of people that are actually perpetrating this agenda. As we wake up, especially through the Internet and we begin to take action, non-violently, especially in the pattern of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, non-violent, non-participation is the key, and movement like Occupy, Anonymous, and aspects of the Tea Party and others are beginning to tap into these principles to take effective actions to turn this thing around.
Daily Bell: You explain toward the end of the movie that there is a cabal trying to shove the world toward global governance, but that it is far broader than any one religious group. Can you explain who is participating?
Foster Gamble: Yes, it is really important that people understand that this is not a religious thing, it's not a ethnic thing, it's not a nationality thing, but it is a group of people fundamentally who saw the potential of the central banking, fiat money scam. In other words a few people get to make up money whenever they want, and of course if they can do that, like the Monopoly game, they're going to be able to buy everybody out eventually. That's what is about to happen, we are almost there. It's taken in this country, since 1913, the creation of the Federal Reserve to devalue the purchasing power of the dollar to almost zero, but it's become a global situation. We're about to see Greek collapse, the Euro collapse and it's coming to this country.
It's not an accident, it's not just incompetence, there is a small group of people, most simply the international bankers and their minions who have a plan, and there's plenty of documentation for this, to create a one-world government, with them in charge. So it's really got the benefits of crony capitalism for them, but also the benefits of kind of communist dictatorship, kind of along the lines of the Chinese model and that's why David Rockefeller really praises the Chinese model, because they get to privatize the profits but socialize the loses, just like we're seeing in this country. The plan is very close to being fulfilled, they have just about taken over every sector of human endeavor, and they've virtually collapsed the entire global economy. Obviously the entire planet is bankrupt, but that's part of the plan. When they bring it all down that's the excuse, when people are running around scared to death, they say, hey, we've got this global structure and this global economy and this one world currency and the UN and NATO will be the organizational units and the police force, and we'll come in and rescue you. It's the classic problem reaction; solution and we are almost there. So we need to wake up and take action right away.
Daily Bell: Much of what you related toward the end of the movie is in line with what we suggest regularly. We know you've read the Daily Bell because you sent us an email objecting to our characterizing the movie before seeing it. Are you a regular reader?
Foster Gamble: Well, I go there quite often but I really haven't had a chance to put in the time to follow it as much as I'd like to. I was driven away for a while and lost interest with those two original reviews but as some of your membership started writing very thoughtful things after seeing the movie, I have been following it quite closely.
Daily Bell: So much of what you reported in the movie parallels what we believe – even the stuff about the promise of the Internet and the struggle between what we call the Internet Reformation and the power elite. Do you believe, as we've argued, that the Internet is an updated Gutenberg press, and that there is in modern history a struggle going on between communication technologies and the ability of the elites to control information?
Foster Gamble: I think the major battleground coming up will be for the Internet. As long as we can keep the Internet open, we are getting informed so rapidly and getting organized so rapidly that it gives me tremendous confidence about a thriving future. Whereas, through SOPA, PIPA and ACTA and the Cyber Security Act and so forth, there are so many attempts by the government, by corporations and by the UN to take over control of the Internet that I was very concerned and it was my greatest concern when the film was coming out, frankly – until the emergence of ANONYMOUS, because I have been hoping that brilliant computer whizzes from all over the planet would organize in a way, just to protect free speech globally, and I am thrilled that they have.
Daily Bell: How did you come to know of us? We are not exactly a mainstream publication.
Foster Gamble: Well, my son, Trevor Gamble, was the one who introduced me to key elements of conspiracy and how money really works and finally, the whole perspective of liberty. He gave me lots of things to read, references and websites to go to, and he and I would stay up late arguing night after night for months about these principles. I realized that he was standing on much stronger ethical and logical ground than I was, and invited him to teach me.
The Daily Bell was one of the sites that he introduced me to and I also want to proudly let people know that he has just published a book after many years of his own research, called The Secrets to Non-Violent Prosperity – The Principles of Liberty. You can check this out on Amazon. I think the Bell readers would really appreciate the job he has done, collecting and simplifying a tremendous amount of data and anticipating and answering the usual objections.
Daily Bell: Explain how you became interested in Austrian economics and knowledgeable about it.
Foster Gamble: As we discussed earlier, my son was most instrumental to begin with. I consider the liberty awareness as the third great discovery in my life. The first was Aikido. Aikido is a non-violent martial art and I taught this art for 15 years. When I found there was a way to access universal energy and to protect ones self and one's loved ones, in a non-violent blending way, it was an absolute turning point in my life, that has affected everything that I have done, because then I have gone on to apply those principles in every area, so that was the first one.
The second one was when I came across these inventors who were accessing free energy by resonating, by blending with the movement of this toroidal flow, instead of crushing atoms together or burning hydrogen or making an explosion and trying to control it. That released me, in terms of relationship to energy in a way, because it was similar to the Aikido, and both of these were the application of these toroidal awareness.
The third big break through was when I came across the liberty perspective, because I am convinced that if we are going to sustain life on planet earth, as human beings, we are going to need to redesign all of our systems in the honoring of this toroidal pattern because that's what nature does to sustain.
What I came to realize as I say in the movie, at the human level the fundamental torus is the individual, not the group, and a healthy culture, a healthy civilization can only be made up of healthy individual torus's. So that for me, it was the third big discovery of my life and that's how profound this liberty perspective is. It transcends the usual illusion of the political polarity and all of the coerciveness that collectivism always has to resort to, and can actually liberate humanity, to honor one another, to create a healthy economy and an absolutely thriving planet, in a relatively short amount of time.
Daily Bell: You've moved among elite circles. Why isn't free-market economics more popular in universities, etc.?
Foster Gamble: In universities, first of all, most of the teachers are tenured through government funding. They would undermine themselves to be honest about true free-market economics. Secondly, the education, just as with agriculture and energy and the rest of these areas, has basically been taken over by these elite families.
The National Education Association, NEA, was funded by the Rockefellers and the Carnegies and the Fords, and if you look into each one of these areas, the elite created these foundations to shelter their own income, but then basically to take over education, and take over health care, to match their own agenda. Their agenda for education is to create docile workers and willing consumers. If you look very narrowly behind the surface of most schools, most foundations, most corporations, you are going to find an agenda for state control that we are not educated about in those very systems.
Daily Bell: Is there fear in elite circles about those at the top of the hierarchy and what they intend to do?
Foster Gamble: That's a great question. I don't travel much in elite circles anymore. It's not where I found my interest to be. I feel like I pretty much understand what is going on there, and don't like to be around that conversation, but one thing that has been very exciting for me it that I have been contacted by numerous people who do travel in those circles and who did not know what is going on. They didn't realize what they were a part of in certain corporations or foundations and schools and so forth, and they have become very interested in the information in Thrive and are reassessing what they are doing in their life energy. I have been contacted by one member of the Rockefeller family and one member of the Rothschild family, in the youngest adult generation, and what I am hearing from several members of their families is that we're accurate about what we are saying in the film. These two individuals, at least, are embarrassed about what their ancestors have done and are looking to see how they can be effective in turning the course of that ship and changing the legacy of the family.
I'm excited about having constructive conversations with people like this, to align not on the principles of how to control people's lives or which political party to align with but instead to move the whole conversation to the principles of integrity and the principles of freedom. That's where I am finding that people are reconciling in their families, in their workplace, even in their political parties. They are reconciling at a new level that we can all agree on.
I would also like to add another thing that has been very exciting for me. I have been doing a ton of interviews in all different sorts of media. It will go from a UFO interview to a conspiracy interview to a liberty interview to an economics interview, and not only is that interesting, to not be focusing on one topic, but most excitingly, what I am finding is the conversations in each of those groups is very similar. The conversation is up-leveling beyond exclusive topics – 'we are the only ones that know about this, we only want to talk about this and talk to people who agree with us.' It's elevating to the level of, 'Okay now we are beginning to understand how we've been fooled, we are understanding how the dots are connected and we want to be in the conversation about what we can do about it before it's too late.' I am getting that everywhere.
So I am hoping that Thrive can help play a role in the liberty movement of connecting to other groups, as some of the people on your comment board have noticed, also, of connecting to left-wing groups, new-age groups, connecting to science groups and many other groups, in ways that the liberty perspective has had some challenges in connecting successfully in the past.
Daily Bell: You mention what we have come to believe, that the top elites intend to wipe out much of humanity. What's the schedule, in your view?
Foster Gamble: (Laughing) Well, I don't have any specific data on the schedule for depopulation but what I am seeing out there now is that the would-be controllers are pulling out all the stops and just moving as fast as possible.
The first order of business seems to be the collapse of the global economy and the US economy, especially because I think the Federal Reserve Charter, which was a 100-year charter, comes up for renewal in August of 2013. I don't think there's a chance that that would pass any legal or true vote so I think that has partly accelerated their desire for total control. I think they are trying to complete their agenda for total control this year, in 2012, to actually have the global currency and global government and global army, global tax in place.
In terms of depopulation, I just see them stepping up their attempts with these fake pandemics, the toxic vaccines, the chemtrails and the fluoride, the unnecessary wars and the drones killing civilians and the GMOs in the food – it just goes on and on. What are the chances that this is all just incompetence that all happens to lead to the dumbing down, the sickening of and the killing off of the human population?
Daily Bell: Let's go back in time. When did you decide to make Thrive and why?
Foster Gamble: As I mentioned, this was the movie I wanted to make since college but it was in 2003 that I finally felt that both my understanding of the real problems – what's going on behind the scenes – and that my understanding of the minimum, sufficient, coherent solution strategies to get us out of this, first came to fruition. That's when Kimberly and I started, and spent the last eight years making the movie and the website.
Daily Bell: You come from a moneyed family and are presumably a rich man. Why were you driven to do this?
Foster Gamble: First, I have been blessed with the privilege of choosing what I wanted to do with my life, and have been able to help some people along the way, but that's about it in terms of my wealth. I have what I would call an upper middle class income but the key thing is, I haven't had to work for it. So instead, I have devoted my life to working for a thriving planet, whatever that took, and I have been a very hard worker in that cause. I have spent most of my resources in getting to this point.
What really inspired me to do the film, and the turning point, was when I learned about meditation. The deeper I went in meditation the more I kept hearing this sound, which turned out to be the wailing of the suffering of humanity. And once I started hearing that literally screaming inside my own being, which wasn't me in my privilege of Ivy League college but actually the humanity of which I'm a part, I committed myself to doing everything in my power and privilege to relieve that suffering. And when I made that commitment, that wailing went away from my meditation. So I think that was the major turning point and everything in my life that I have learned has only made me want to do more to relieve suffering and to help humanity discover the principles and practices that can allow everyone to thrive, without exception.
Daily Bell: Are you afraid for your life and that of your loved ones?
Foster Gamble: No, I'm not. It has been a definite consideration, given that we cover about a dozen topics in the film any one of which people have been threatened or harmed for even bringing up. It's definitely been a consideration and we've learned from many of the people who are in the movie, like David Icke, Catherine Austin Fitts, James Gilliland, Steven Greer, Patrick Flannigan and many others who have been threatened and harmed or had their work stopped by the powers that shouldn't be. We learned from them a lot of how to go about this as realistically and eyes-open as possible.
We've taken every precaution we know how to take but the main one was to stay under the radar until the movie was out. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and to harm us would only reinforce what we are saying about how this kind of information is very often suppressed. I am happy to say there are the usual debunking sites on the Internet, where they try to make things up about the movie and me, but so far, so good.
Daily Bell: If the elites are as terrible as they say, don't you think they won't take their revenge on you?
Foster Gamble: No, I don't.
Daily Bell: You mention a lot of solutions toward the end of the movie but we have come to believe, like Larken Rose, among others, that the best thing that can happen is that society, Western society anyway, collapses. How do you respond?
Foster Gamble: Yes, that's a really interesting question because obviously there is a tremendous amount of suffering in collapse. What I am dedicating my current efforts to is I'm travelling all over the country and all over the world, meeting with Thrive-inspired groups, that are self-creating communities and sharing with them what we call the Thrive solutions model. It is a very highly leveraged and effective means of organizing in a local community by sector and then linking together with other communities around the world to leverage the actions that people are taking.
I think the systems as we know them are crumbling; in fact, they are being intentionally taken down, as I described before, so that they can be taken over at a whole new level. I don't think there's been a more important time for people to catch on to self-sustaining, localized energy access and food access and media access, and to the principles of liberty around which we can organize and actually create non-coercive, sustainable alternatives.
I'm a big fan of Larken Rose, and in particular, Stefan Molyneux, and others who have been willing to try to think through, 'OK ... how would civilization actually work if there were no coercion, if there were no mandatory taxes, if there were no states as we know it?' That's what got me really excited because there are not only viable alternatives; they are, in fact, the only alternatives that I know of that could actually work – because when tyranny rears its head there's always a revolution, and in these days of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, even single individuals can begin the destruction of life as we know it. So we absolutely have to organize effectively and create the new systems on a decentralized basis. And to me, as I say in the movie, the non-aggression principle is the absolute core navigating insight around which we can do that.
Daily Bell: We noticed that you emphasize in the movie group solutions and not necessarily individual ones. Is that a correct interpretation?
Foster Gamble: No. I am recommending that all solutions be based on honoring the individual and voluntary association. So when people come together, I think they are going to be a lot more effective when they create groups. Whether it's a protest or a petition or a new alternative currency bank or a gold-backed currency, they are going to be more effective as they organize in groups, as long as the groups are never based on violating the rights of the individual.
Interestingly enough, I just came back from Olympia, Washington, where I was invited to address and participate at the Occupy Solidarity Social Forum, where they brought the representatives from Occupy sites from all over the country for this conference. The most popular and intense conversation that was going on at that entire conference was centered on exactly these liberty issues. They had set aside one room among many, many workshops – I think there were 70 workshops or so – but they had set aside one small room where a socialist was going to debate a young Ron Paul advocate. Well, they should have had it in the auditorium because it was packed, standing room only and spilling out into the halls. The debate was so intense that unfortunately I didn't get to hear all of it and what I heard was not well informed or articulated.
But also when I did my screening of Thrive with an hour of questions and answers and solutions brainstorming, I would say the most compelling topic to everyone was: How do we resolve this left versus right split? If we trust going with the individual, are people who are disadvantaged going to be taken care of? This whole notion of how do we create solutions without violating our core ethics is the one that is emerging, even in Occupy. I am seeing it everywhere I go. At different screenings of Thrive around the world, this is primary. Besides free energy this is the most popular topic and that excites me.
I thought I was going to spend six months to a year arguing over whether the Federal Reserve was federal and whether there was any agenda going on. People are getting the movie, they are getting the coherence and they are moving very quickly to, 'OK, what can we do about it and what are the organizing principles?' This is where I think the knowledge that is in the liberty movement is now going to be blossoming and bringing its contribution to really rescuing what's going on across the planet.
One of the major breakthroughs in Thrive was offering a three-stage solution – a solution plan, if you will. Certainly one of the stumbling blocks for the liberty community, as I've been associated with it for many years, is that so many of the thinkers are isolated in the ivory towers of the peer principles that they are not engaging much at all in practical, transition solutions. What I did in Thrive was kept to Mises and Rothbard's notion of keeping the goal in mind but then creating effective transition strategies. As long as the goal is absolute liberty, and you commit to not creating any new violations along the way, it's easier to tolerate what goes on in the gradual shrinking of the system – because the system is not going away overnight.
So that's where, in Stage 1, we take care of disenfranchised people not with new taxes but with money that is getting freed up from cutting the military budget and from getting rid of the Federal Reserve and so much other corruption. If you take that money for some period of time and help people, and help transition from polluted to organic soil, and take care of people who have really been struggling the most and those who have been most damaged from this corrupt system, then that gets you to the stage where government has shrunk down to a kind of minarchist stage, where you're protecting individual rights and providing some needed security while you still have any government at all.
I personally am quite confident that if we can take it that far, the prosperity and freedom and security will have so mushroomed that people will not want to stop there. By that time – and really all these steps start at the same time – by that time we will have seen that dispute resolute organizations work and private security and private insurance work way better than the state and people are taken care of by neighborhood and by church and by family, by genuine charity rather than coerced. We are going to see how much better all these systems are already working, and it will just be natural to keep going to ultimately a voluntary civilization. If we don't ultimately go there, I am not sure it can work.
Daily Bell: We think people should just stop participating in this increasing horrible society and practice peaceful civil disobedience. What say you?
Foster Gamble: I totally agree and that's one of the reasons why they invited me to Occupy and I was eager to be there and learn from them, because there are a lot of people there who have been working on that for a long time, as have I. I have been a non-violent civil disobedient activist pretty much my whole life, and I think that if we get violent in reaction, other than in true self-defense, we're just going to justify more police state measures. So I think it's critical that we actually use non-violent non-participation.
World War III has been going on for a long time and it's been going on in almost everyone's life. It's primarily because it's economic. In Thrive, John Perkins makes very clear what's been going on in other countries, but in this country the vast majority of people's lives are being destroyed by this economic warfare. But if people catch on that through economic means we can collapse that house of cards – that is the tapeworm banks and the media and the military and so forth – those can be collapsed or they will need to turn on a dime to get with the new agenda if people organize effectively and vote with their money, vote with their lives, votes with their choices that they make every day. And one of those is to not participate to whatever degree is safe and practical to not participate in those systems.
Now, I have chosen to pay taxes because I don't want to be taken out of the game. I object completely to any involuntary taxes, especially the income tax, but if I were sitting in a jail cell I don't think I would be as effective as I have been through being able to make Thrive and the website and having a voice in the world. At the same time, though, I totally respect people like Larken Rose and Wesley Snipes and others who have been willing to take that stand and pay the price and have that action speak very loudly.
Daily Bell: Why is it necessary to bring aliens into the picture at the beginning of the movie? Couldn't ancient civilizations have discovered what you mention? Does it have to be ETs?
Foster Gamble: Well, that is interesting, and one of the reasons Kimberly and I funded the movie on our own, up through the first rough cut. That's as far as we could afford to go but we were committed to having any investors that came in know exactly what the story was. We didn't want anyone saying, 'Well, if I'm putting my money in then you have to take out ETs or you have to take out liberty or you have to take out conspiracy.' I will tell you there are people who have warned us to take out every single part of the movie. (Laughing)
But we knew that our life's mission was to connect the dots, and this free energy dot is as significant as any of the other ones. The change that it would make would be more dramatic than any other one I can think of and it's right up there with liberty, in terms of that core importance. It is really part of the back-story to the free energy, this really convincing phenomenon of extra-terrestrial visitation. For anyone who is willing to immerse themselves in the data, you can read over 500 first-hand witness reports, from high level government military people, astronauts, police officers, pilots and so forth, and from countries all over the world. There are consistent stories from all sorts of people and consistent from people who have seen how these ships are driven.
The two key elements that for me are one the suppression of ETs and UFO information, hand in hand with the suppression of free energy, because they do go hand in hand. If we're being visited by beings from other planets or solar systems or other frequency dimensions, they're not burning fossile fuel to get here. That's physically impossible. So the implications are huge.
The other element is that this isn't just a political film. This film has a lot to do with our consciousness and our worldview. We used to think the sun went around the Earth and that the Earth was flat but we grew beyond those realizations. A lot of people think that we're the only life in the cosmos and we are, I believe, truly cosmic citizens. We live on this particular planet in a vast cosmos, but our consciousness is connected to the entire rest of the universe. To the degree to which people open up to that their consciousness expands, their identity expands and they begin to access inner guidance, whether it's from cosmic consciousness or higher-level beings or whatever. Many famous scientists and inventors have attributed their inventions to being able to access this inner intuition which is intimately connected with consciousness beyond the human rational mind and our particular plane of existence.
Daily Bell: Give us your take on ancient civilizations. We believe that there was perhaps a global, coastal civilization that was very advanced and was drowned by melting glaciers. You disagree?
Foster Gamble: I don't know about that but there certainly are a ton of flood stories in vary reputable documents, from all over the world from ancient cultures. So I think there must have been some pretty amazing floods in the past, whether from meteors or melting of glaciers during warming periods. Scientifically, I would certainly bet that those occurred. Whether or not we have had ancient cultures influenced by extraterrestrial cultures, the evidence is very convincing to me that that did happen. I can't prove it but circumstantially it seems to be so and the reports from all over the world are logically very compelling.
There aren't many other explanations that I can think of for how cultures thousands of years ago would have been aware of very advanced physics and mathematics and astronomy, and have been able to build things like the great pyramids where there are block of stone that we could not even lift with our current technology, then put together with laser-like precision that also would be difficult if not impossible for us to mimic. Many of the stories that talked about these sun gods and their burning chariots and mating with human beings and so on seemed wild and crazy to me, until I spent 10-15 years immersed in the literature, cross correlating different facts from different civilizations. And then the key moment came, what I call the maybe moment when you do enough homework and a window opens in your mind and you go "HUH... well, maybe..." and you start to seriously consider it rather than reject it just on face value because you have been taught to ridicule the topics.
Daily Bell: Has it ever occurred to you that you're a traitor to your class? Are you getting the cold shoulder?
Foster Gamble: I certainly anticipated some of it but I am delighted to say I haven't gotten a single bit of it. Nothing.
Daily Bell: We were touched by the movie, because it is only the shred of a dream now that Western elites will actually stick up for civil society. The idea that someone initially from the moneyed class would do so is surprising. What are your ulterior motives?
Foster Gamble: (LOL) I truly appreciate responsible skepticism, and I truly have learned to be more and more skeptical, particularly of people who might, by association, have some sort of hidden agenda. So it was excruciating for me. The two months between the time the trailer came out and when the film came out were really emotionally challenging for me because here I gave a lifetime's work of an offering to humanity and then a whole lot of people on the Internet are writing it off because of some sort of imagined illuminati symbolism, or because of what my great, great grandfather did. I could hardly believe it at first. Then I realized, I understand that. I'll just have to wait till they can actually see the film, do their due diligence on Kimberly and mine's lives, and then they can decide for themselves. I can't convince everyone.
What I learned in business is that you provide what you can to early adopters, to those people we are actually ready to integrate something new and I am happy to say that most of that conversation has dwindled since the film came out. Kimberly and I have lived lives of great compassion and integrity, and we didn't anticipate that someone would dig up something nasty from our lives, or uncover our true scheme or something like that, because there just isn't any. What is happening now bit-by-bit, just like on your site, people who are actually willing to do their homework on Thrive, on the website and on our lives are going through that maybe moment? Maybe these guys are for real and maybe this is kind of our dream come true of what it would look like if somebody had a lifetime, and four or five million dollars to devote to getting the word out, that we need to honor each other's liberty if we are going to survive and thrive.
Daily Bell: OK, maybe that question wasn't entirely serious, but we want to know if you still experience skepticism in the alternative media community.
Foster Gamble: I'm getting very little skepticism from the liberty movement. Most of the skepticism I am getting now is from the ultra left wing, from what I would call militant progressives who, frankly, are afraid of the response that Thrive is getting, particularly amongst young people, amongst a lot of the usual left-leaning base who have become disenchanted with traditional politics and disillusioned with their hopes for Obama changing things. So, it's creating a very animated liberty conversation on the left, as well as on the right. I really thank them for having the courage to come forward and challenge me because on the Internet and in various convenings now we're starting to have that conversation where each individual − I am challenging each individual, in every single talk, to stand up and tell me at exactly what point is it okay for somebody to put on a uniform, strap on a gun and go take somebody else's stuff or harm them? And I tell you it gets really quiet in those rooms.
We are taking about suppression by the state in our countries and other countries as well but people are just starting to catch on that this is going on. I did a screening in northern California where about a hundred mostly left-leaning progressives loved Thrive, and they wanted to engage in this liberty conversation, and they got into pretty hot debates amongst themselves. There were still a few who had lingering hopes that Obama had just been hobbled by the Republicans, but most of them realized because it was literally within a few days of him signing the NDAA, authorizing detaining citizens indefinitely and rendition and even assassination all around the world and even of American citizens. That was the straw that finally opened up this conversation of, HUH, maybe we need to find principles and structures that go beyond the old political binary. So I am thrilled to say that that conversation is emerging faster than I ever thought possible.
Daily Bell: We kept looking for elite promotional propaganda in the film, but outside of the ET stuff we couldn't find any. We have to warn that we are flabbergasted generally and none of the elves can really believe what they just saw. We therefore state for the record that the jury is still out. We are waiting for you to announce something that will undercut your apparent sincerity. How do you respond?
Foster Gamble: (LOL) I really appreciate the integrity of people in your membership to sit down with this movie and experience it first hand with a skeptical mind, and then come up with their own conclusions. I hope they never lose their skepticism about Thrive but at the same time, I hope they won't restrain their enthusiasm and support in sharing it with their friends and neighbors and colleagues.
Daily Bell: We mentioned we hadn't seen the movie when we wrote about it ... some would say negatively. Has this been a fair interview?
Foster Gamble: I think it's been a very fair interview and I think it was very irresponsible to slam the film before seeing it. I must say Alex Jones did the same thing. He got sucked in on the radio. A caller called in and said, 'I really love this Thrive thing, and what do you think?' He said, well, he really shouldn't comment on it before he sees it and then he went on commenting about it in all sorts of suspicious ways, about my family and the hidden agendas and so forth. So we wrote to him because at the same time that he was doing that, we had just received an invitation from his producer to come on the show. So we wrote to him and said we would love to come on the show, but only if you have seen the film and you welcome an open conversation and you can ask us anything. Anyway, they did see the film and they have invited us on the show and we are looking forward to that conversation. I really appreciate the maturity of being willing to acknowledge a mistake by doing a premature review, and to do an open fruitful interview like this.
Daily Bell: What are your thoughts on Ron Paul?
Foster Gamble: A lot of people have been asking me, 'Well, if you're not a political guy and you don't believe in the state, what do you think about current politics? What do you think we should be doing?' I really am a principles rather than a politics based solution organizer, and the only two politicians that interest me in the high levels, are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, but based on their principles and not so much their politics.
I would love to see an independent party with the two of them running together. I think Kucinich would be a brilliant stage one strategist for the progressive caretaking aspect of the Thrive solution strategy and Ron Paul would be fabulous for the shrinking government and getting out of foreign wars and so forth. They would be overlapping in stage 2. I have known Kucinich personally, but I don't know Ron Paul, though I have followed him for years and I have so much respect for his integrity and his courage even though I don't agree with all his social policies. I think that both of them have an absolute stand for getting rid of the Federal Reserve and for stopping the foreign wars. So it is on the basis of that and their personal integrity that if I were going to vote for anyone, I would vote for the two of them, and Ron Paul has gone public and said he would be delighted to have Kucinich in his cabinet.
Daily Bell: Any last statements you want to make? Do you have a timeline for social collapse or war or whatever? Are the elites moving too fast because they're scared of the Internet?
Foster Gamble: Well, I just did a video blog yesterday that I think will come out on Saturday morning on the Thrive site on this very topic because I am more concerned about this, more than I ever have been. I had just done one on a potential false flag in Iran last week, and how I see them doing the same thing they did in Vietnam, same thing in Iraq – beating the drums for war under false pretenses – and I have a concern that they will potentially even sink the USS Enterprise and say the Iranians did it in order to get it going over there.
But the one that I just did has to do with the Greek situation. I believe that what we are seeing is predominately a domino situation: Collapse the economies throughout the European Union and there is enough interconnectedness with all those banks and governments that it could be the domino collapse that really goes globally. I also think they are not only trying to do that this year, I think they may be trying to do it within the next few months, but potentially weeks and that's why I did that video log right now.
I am really concerned that they are doing this last little pump-up of our stock market, and then going to bring the whole thing down in order to create the fear reaction to bring in their global government.
I am not optimistic about the near-term transition, and I am encouraging people to prepare individually, in their communities, and in their lives, and then with whatever time you have to get out and be active with groups, exposing the agenda and creating the new systems that can emerge as the old ones come down. Whether it's new alternatives to government or alternatives to central banking, alternatives to corporate media. The work that so many people are doing right now is so great and it only needs to be amplified so it can emerge, rather than a global police state as the systems come down.
Daily Bell: Any websites, etc., that you want to recommend?
Foster Gamble: Mainly, www.thrivemovement.com and particularly the liberty and the solutions section. In the solutions section there's a very copious set of solutions, strategies, tactics and tools, and then there's a whole section under solutions on liberty. This is for people who aren't that familiar with it. We go into principles, debunking the common myths and that type of thing.
The main thing is the organizational strategies that we have, such as connecting with other organizations, with other communities, principles around which to organize and use the Internet if you are inclined to link up with one another on a national and global scale in that liberty section – you will find resources in every section, and we have the resource tree where we recommend websites and books.
Daily Bell: Thank you for being so generous with your time. Congratulations on the movie. We'll be watching ...
Foster Gamble: Well, thank you so much for your open-mindedness and open-heartedness. Also, to the Daily Bell, I deeply congratulate you on the work that you've been doing, getting this critical word out for years, and I am truly thrilled and honored to be included in the form of this interview and your support of Thrive.
Well, our elves DID end up enjoying the movie, especially as Foster Gamble doesn't duck hard questions including those having to do with the apparent genocide that the power elite may have in mind (see Georgia Guidestones). And while the movie does focus on aliens, it only does so in the first part, not throughout.
There are some, of course, who may claim that Gamble's movie has been created to cover up Jewish involvement in the power elite conspiracy (or to promote libertarian economics). We don't see it that way. We believe the conspiracy is larger than any one religion or culture, and Gamble isn't shy about apportioning blame generally.
But the movie is about more than merely blaming and Gamble tries to come up with solutions that are proactive and that people can actually implement. Some of these may be more logical than others and in this interview (above) he mentions entities such as Occupy Wall Street that we believe may have been created initially by the powers-that-be to stay "ahead of the curve."
The "curve" is the Internet itself and the Internet Reformation that is steadily exposing what we consider to be the implementation of a New World Order. Thrive makes itself part of this exposure and, whatever its flaws, it certainly must stand as one of the more accessible and slickly produced efforts within this venue.
Maybe we are missing something about Thrive, and maybe Gamble's ultimate message or behavior may be different than what it currently seems to be. But one would likely have to push the boundaries of skepticism to claim that it has an obvious overt motive beyond the stated one. Others may come to a different conclusion, and we certainly had different notions before we viewed the movie. But we were pleasantly surprised (for now anyway) and will be interested to see how Gamble builds on his movie as he tries to awaken more people to the unfortunate reality of what is currently taking place.
Editor's Note: In previous comments, we were negative about Thrive, pointing to its supposed "New Age" and "aliens-among-us" approach. In this review we were certainly more positive. But as part of our larger effort to be even-handed, we should probably point out that the movie has been alleged to contain Illuminati symbolism in certain graphics and certain supposed factual errors. As we mentioned above (and suspected) the movie is being accused of subtly fostering a one-world agenda and misleading viewers about Jewish influence. Here's one criticism: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=225161 (On date of publication.)
Posted by NAPpy on 03/07/12 02:09 AM
I agree that anarchism, Ancap, libertarian are already sullied terms. When cornered into talking politics, I usually say something like--I can validate for myself that I should never initiate aggressin against another. All of my political beliefs can be deduced from that principal. Then I smile to myself while I watch them try to figure out if I'm a republican or a democrat! When forced to label myself, I'd probably say voluntarist.
I think I figured out the concept now--wasn't patient enough figuring out the site navigation yesterday. I have no problem with the concept in general. How committed to the idea of 7 are you? Shouldn't a group number be tied to its purpose? Also, would adopting contract theory add anything to the concept? If I'm electing a person in some voluntary association to represent my interests, I'd feel more comfortable if his authority was spelled out. Do you see this as just a natural organization that would evolve when left to voluntarily associate, or something that would need to be sold?
I like the outlaw example. Have you looked at Hoppe's argumentation ethics, or any of Libertarian legal theory? I think some guidelines need to evolve on when it's ok to enforce something, when you use non-violent outlaw type tools, and when you can't enforce anything at all.
You did fine on the pop quiz. I was just trying to show to those interested that economics isn't just this random field of study--it's an effort to answer specific questions. How those questions are answered determines what school of economic thought you adopt. Most people aren't aware that there is a heated competition of ideas in economics, and that a consensus is nowhere near occurring.
Anyways, I like what you've started and will continue to check your site for new materials.
Thanks for introducing me to the concept.
Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 02:08 AM
MLG sounds interesting, thanks.
"Power always flows from the bottom up - never from institutionalized seats of power back down. Because it is based on the voluntary association of Sovereign Individuals, it tends always to correct any groups activities back towards the freedom of those individuals."
I agree with this.
Here is what I wrote earlier on this thread to NAPpy:
"If the State exists as a legitimate vehicle of the community's choices and aspirations, and truly represents these choices, and as long as its power does not go beyond this, it has a legitimate function."
It is not that different from your viewpoint, if I add that a community is a collection of individuals with some shared goals and some individual goals (I still think, however, that the interactions between individuals can make a community "greater than the sum of its parts" - so it is not merely a question of looking at fragmented individualities).
Posted by John the Just on 03/07/12 02:03 AM
Did you get a chance to check out my offerings at Click to view link Let me know if you think they too are clear and logical.
As to those dancing angels... I think many folks here have extremely similar ideas and goals, but are so frustrated in being unable to implement those ideas in the world, that much of their energy is devoted to arguing the minutia which separates them. It is my hope to provide a platform in MultiLevel Governance for fruitful discussions leading to action.
Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 01:40 AM
"If all a MEC is going to do is make an entry in Quickbooks, then I can do that by myself, and save my service costs."
The short answer would be that I see mutual credit, interest-free currencies, and demurrage-bearing currencies as ideally suited for the "means of exchange" function, but not for the store of value function. I agree that gold would be a much better store of value.
As long as people can save in gold (or some other commodity that is suitable as a long-term store of value, but I agree with Bischoff that, for several reasons, gold is probably the ideal commodity), then the means of exchange doesn't need to be optimally designed as a currency that people would want for saving in the long term. So I don't necessarily see this as a problem (at least not in the way you expressed it).
"When a saver loans bananas, he's giving away something real for a mere promise. I don't know about you, but I will not willingly accept some strangers promise, without some compensation--for me, I will charge interest for accepting somebody's promise."
I do make a distinction between payable and unpayable interest. But, more generally, I also agree with Gesell's point that, with interest-negative currencies, people are actually encouraged to invest their savings (banana surpluses in your example) in REAL things (buildings, other businesses) rather than merely saving money for the future. It shifts the "balance of power" to the physical plane, which is where true societal prosperity lies (at least when considering only the material viewpoint), rather than in saving more currency units.
"If governments are funded by service fees, and I can refuse to pay for them if the service is bad, then I, and most AE/L, will take that government over what we have now."
I'm not necessarily against that idea. Something else to keep in mind: I don't believe that governments stripped of Money Power would voluntarily initiate many wars. I note that most wars in the last few centuries were ultimately initiated by Money Power.
Ethics: I will have to look into it. I am somewhat skeptical of a theory that claims that all human conduct can be derived from axiomatic deduction, but I remain open-minded. I do not claim to have anything equivalent to what you proposed.
I'm afraid your link didn't work, but thanks for your efforts.
Posted by John the Just on 03/07/12 01:19 AM
As I developed MLG, I became more and more aware that the bulk of what I am aiming for as a lifestyle has been amply described over the millennia. Anarchism has been the umbrella term for where many of us are headed. I think Zeno - that master of the paradox - was one of its first proponents, and the concept has been hammered and beaten on ever since. Ironically Marx was aiming for Anarchy as he unleashed the blueprint for the most centralized States the world has ever had the misfortune to experience.
For a long time I identified myself as a Libertarian, but now I see Libertarianism as just Anarchy-lite. And at this point I reject the term Anarchy itself - the term not the concept. It is a totally negative term. It does not make a positive statement of philosophy so much as a denial of something else - the State. I am just now learning about Agorism, so please excuse my knee-jerk reaction to what seems to be a very weak definition of purpose. It seems to emphasize how to kill the State, rather than a positive statement of how to create a viable alternative. It is an excellent example of the conceptual negativity I find with the term Anarchy. Agorism is not an economic system in and of itself, but more a reaction against what its proponents don't want. Paradoxically, it depends for its essence on the very thing it wishes to eschew - the State. By its definition, if the State ever disappears, so does Agorism; if the State is gone, so is Counter-Economics. If Counter-Economics is gone, Agorism becomes the practice of nothing, since there would no longer be anything forbidden.
Agorism generally refers to a political philosophy founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III that holds as its ultimate goal the bringing about of a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics.
Click to view link
Counter-economics is a term originally used by Samuel Edward Konkin III and J. Neil Schulman, libertarian activists and theorists. Konkin defined it as "the study and/or practice of all peaceful human action which is forbidden by the State." The term is short for "counter-establishment economics". Counter-economics was integrated by Schulman into Konkin's doctrine of agorism.
Click to view link
I'll heartily agree with a 'society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges,' but Counter-Economics would seem on the surface to be very limiting. If we wish to unplug from the State, should we allow the State to continue to define our actions?
You have also introduced me to the Darknet Project - it sounds great. Such decentralized technologies are very much what MultiLevel Governance is all about. And above all, MLG is about how to associate to get things quickly and efficiently done!
But MLG is not a political philosophy as such. It is merely an organizational methodology which will allow the association of a vast number of people, without their giving up their individual input and control over the group - no matter how large it gets. Power always flows from the bottom up - never from institutionalized seats of power back down. Because it is based on the voluntary association of Sovereign Individuals, it tends always to correct any groups activities back towards the freedom of those individuals. In contrast, the State structure is based on the seniority of the Group, and tends always to correct individuals' activities back towards Group control.
And, yes - as you suggest - MLG could be used for any and all projects where a bunch of individuals have similar goals. And force against anyone is anathema to the concept behind it, since it is built on the concept of the Sovereign Individual acting in free association with other Sovereign Individuals.
Here's a post I'm still working on - dealing with an MLG group using force on one of its own. What do you think?
PS - How did I do on the pop quiz?
3 Dec 11
In MLG, the concept of an Outlaw would revert to what that term originally meant. Anathema to MLG is the use of Force on another. But… what of the guy who gets drunk and breaks the window at his favorite tavern? Traditionally the tavern owner would call the cops and have bad Big Bart arrested. Bart would stand trial and be sentenced to jail-time and/or be fined to recompense the tavern owner. But what if Bart said, 'I quit! I renounce my membership in this Group, and to Hell with all of you!' Traditionally, he would be told by the judge to shut up, and sit down - that the court had no time for such nonsense.
But here is the dilemma. In a MLG Structure, in theory Big Bart would have every right to disAssociate from the group and go on his merry way. But what then? Big Bart did do damage to the tavern owner. Does he just get to walk away, scot-free? Well, yes and no. Once he renounces his membership in the Group called Pleasantville, he is on his own, and he is outside the Group's power to use Force against him. BUT… and this is a big But, he is also outside the protection of Pleasantville's Law. The judge will declare him an Outlaw, and in theory, Fred, the owner of the tavern could kill Big Bart and suffer no consequences.
Merriam Webster defines Outlaw as - 1: a person excluded from the benefit or protection of the law. Notice that this definition has nothing to do with sheriffs and posses riding over the hills trying to arrest anyone. What it implies is that if Big Bart is set upon and robbed, beaten, enslaved, or killed - the sheriff of Pleasantville has no jurisdiction to do anything about it. Here's another definition: noun, 1 Historical - a person declared by a court of law to be deprived of legal rights and protection, generally for the commission of some crime: the killing of such a person was not a legal offense.
So, as a consequence of the liability of being declared an Outlaw, Big Bart might well be led (once he sobers up) to accept the court's findings, spend a week in jail, and pay for the new window at the Dew Drop Inn.
Posted by memehunter on 03/07/12 01:19 AM
"Why would you think they are somewhat hindered by governmental regulations, when THEY ARE the ones who are INITIATING them in the first place? How can they have much more (read: unhindered) control today than a 100 years ago, when there were NEVER so many laws and regulations effective than today?"
There are still many regulations that actually aim to prevent crime and fraud. Presumably, even though Money Power is probably "immune" to many of these regulations, it does constitute a hindrance.
"The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits, and where everyone's living standard flourishes (compared to what it would be in an unfree society)."
I hope that this is true, but again, if there is nothing to prevent crime, or bad conduct more generally, such behaviors will also flourish when profitable (cf. Jesse's point on "Café Américain").
The fact that at least some factions of Money Power have consistently advocated an anarchist/minarchist viewpoint tells me that they would surely find it advantageous (I agree that this doesn't mean, in itself, that minarchies are "bad" - but we should keep this in mind).
"It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity, notably under communism, where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially, but deadens their spirit."
To be clear, I haven't defended socialism, communism, or totalitarianism (see my articles). On the contrary...
About driving and anarchy, that may be true, but from what I've heard and from personal experience, driving in nearly-totally unregulated environments is not always a pleasant experience and can be stressful. Of course, there may also be cultural factors at work.
Finally, I am not out there to defend government, that should be clear. But I explained my position relative to the "State vs. Money Power" issue. I know that you disagree, but I want to make it clear that seeing Money Power as a greater evil than government does not mean that I am in favor of centralized authority and increased coercion.
Posted by NAPpy on 03/06/12 08:40 PM
"I agree about the interest part, but I don't agree that a debt-based currency is always bad. Interest-free debt-based currencies, such as mutual credit, could presumably work very well, and would not give any undue advantage to the currency issuer."
As far as I can tell, MEC is an accounting tool to facilitate barter. Then, these MEC units are supposed to trade against something else--precious metals, foreign currencies, etc. If I get to trade MECs in terms of PM's, then why would I use the MEC at all? I think more attention needs to be paid to what happens before the barter occurs. For example, I grow 10 pounds of bananas. My neighbor grows 10 pounds of strawberries. In order for barter to occur, people have to make something! I am not going to trade real bananas for an accounting tool. If my neighbor wants my bananas, then I am going to insist on receiving something tangible in return. The problem with barter has always been comparing apples to oranges. That's why Austrians contend that, if left alone, some commodities will emerge that are more recognized than others, and are therefore more useful in barter. If you make tires, and want to trade your tires for 1000 MEC, more power to you. I will not part with my bananas until I get an equivalent amount in strawberries, or some commonly traded commodity. Now if MECs were used to account for the value of a commodity, I might use it. I have no problem with paper and electronic currency, per se. My problem is why should I pay a service fee to some MEC company? The service I want is warehousing of my commodities. I'll pay for that. I want an accounting service to take care of clearing operations with the people I trade with. I'll pay for that. I want a security service to secure my commodities while they are being stored, and while they are moved to another warehouse. I'll pay for that. If all a MEC is going to do is make an entry in Quickbooks, then I can do that by myself, and save my service costs.
"You may be right - I don't really know. However, I assume that borrowers would favor the lowest possible interest rates in a free market."
I agree that borrowers will want the lowest possible interest rate. Would you agree that savers will want the highest possible return on their savings? Let's not demonize savers. If I can live off 1000 bananas a year, and yet work to produce 2000 bananas, I did that extra work so that I can trade for other things I want. So, I would prefer not to loan a banana out. I'd rather do a direct exchange because I have a time preference to have my needs met now, as opposed to later. So, if my neighbor Wembly comes to me and says, give me 100 bananas, right now, just because I said so. Would you make that trade? Something for nothing? I might, if it was a family member, or someone that I loved, and I recognized their need. I'm not, however, in the habit of giving my savings (bananas) away to total strangers for nothing. If Wembly wants my 100 bananas, he can either trade for it, or he can borrow them from me at whatever interest rate the market will bear. This is why demonizing interest really frustrates me. I produced more than I consumed, yet Wembly now feels entitled to take my bananas without trading like for like, or offering interest in return for trading like for nothing. Think about that. When a saver loans bananas, he's giving away something real for a mere promise. I don't know about you, but I will not willingly accept some strangers promise, without some compensation--for me, I will charge interest for accepting somebody's promise.
"I would have to think more about that, but I think that focusing on what you call the "nightwatchman" functions might be enough for a start."
That's fine. Here is the fundamental problem Libertarians have with minarchies (the name for nightwatchmen states). If my minarchy starts a war with Iran that I think is immoral, do I have to pay taxes to support that war? Can I opt out? If I can opt out, then my fee for service is no longer a tax, because taxes are enforced. Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron. If governments are funded by service fees, and I can refuse to pay for them if the service is bad, then I, and most AE/L, will take that government over what we have now.
"I think that, as a minimum, any sensible ethical theory would consider both sides of voluntary choices and actions: the side of the voluntary "acting" participant(s), and the side of the involuntary recipients. This would already cover many bases, such as the situation I described with two participants agreeing on a loan but using a currency shared with other users, or a parent voluntarily deciding not to feed their child."
Thanks for providing this insight into how you see ethics. I debated how to engage in this part of the conversation, and decided to take the boring libertarian approach. Here's my interpretation of Kinsella's interpretation of Hoppe's argumentation ethics:
a. Ethics: A scientific theory which attempts to minimize aggression against person or property by discovering and categorizing as valid those normative truth claims (propositions) which are logically justifiable, and by discovering and categorizing as invalid those which are not. Ethics delineates which normative truth claims can be enforced by proportional violence.
b. Etiquette: Those normative truth claims that are enforceable through non-violent means only.
c. Aesthetics: Those normative truth claims that are unenforceable.
d. Definition of Property: A physical object / space / resource / product of creation whose use is mutually excludable between two humans.
e. Definition of Ownership: The right to exclusive use, possession or control of property.
f. Definition of Right: A normative truth claim that can be justified through deduction from an axiom.
g. Definition of Argue:
i. to prove or try to prove a truth proposition by giving reasons
ii. to persuade by giving reasons
h. Definition of Aggression: The act of initiating unprovoked hostilities, invasion, attacks, destruction, harm, force, injury or coercion.
25. All normative truth claims must meet these conditions in order to be valid:
a. The claim must be universalizable.
b. The claim must be logically justifiable.
c. The claim must be communicable to every person it is applied to.
26. The following are justifiable normative truth claims:
a. The right to self-ownership is justifiable.
b. The concept of property rights is justifiable.
c. It is not justifiable to initiate or threaten aggression against another person.
d. It is not justifiable to initiate or threaten aggression against another person's property.
e. It is justifiable to defend against aggression.
27. What is good? Good is any action which does not violate a valid normative truth claim.
28. What is evil? Evil is any action which violates a valid normative truth claim.
29. What should humans do? Humans should not violate valid normative truth claims.
Notice that Argumentation Ethics is very well developed in deducing negative rights. I have yet to see a well-developed ethical theory that justifies asserting positive rights.
This is as far as I've gotten in developing a theory of ethics. If you have the equivalent I'd be interested in seeing it.
"I'm willing to concede, but please note that Hayek, Mises, and Keynes for that matter, all spent a fair amount of ink on Mandeville's ideas (especially Hayek and Keynes), so I believe that his ideas should be included in the discussion."
Fine. Here is a link to widely acknowledged and referenced Austrian scholars. Notice that Mandeville is not on there. I don't follow his ideas. No Austrian I know does, either. A/E is a DEVELOPING school of thought. Mandeville has nothing to do with it:
E:\Economics\Praxeology\Praxeology reading list - The Mises Community.mht
Posted by rossbcan on 03/06/12 07:50 PM
"Chaos always defeats order because it is better organized."
hmmmm... Imposed order is always to the advantage of the "organizers" (their POINT), a survival hit for the "organized", because, to be imposed upon requires either the cost of compliance, or, penalty for non-compliance.
the "organizers" (rulers) always form a system, and (proven by Mathematics of Rule), the rulers are at a perpetual numerical disadvantage.
It is not "chaos" is "more organized", it is more a matter of there are more "inonvators" attempting to extricate themselves from the machinations and traps of "organizers" who, in addition to being blindsided by their "manifest destiny" to rule, inherent unproductivity, slaves to arbitrary rules, suppressing innovation, there are just too few to outinnovate the majority, responding to organizer's every tit with an equal and opposite tat.
... and, as stated before, the wonderful internet allows us to collate information, digest and opensource devise counterstrategies far faster than in the past. Before elites can dot the i's and cross the t's of their next fraud, it is already understood and, strategies in place to counter.
... and, some wonder why they HATE the internet. It is an intelligence magnifier and, tyrants have been at war with intelligence, for all of history.
Intelligence? What's that?
Click to view link
... which you will NEVER be "taught" in school.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 03/06/12 06:59 PM
MH: "Even though Money Power is mostly in charge now, they are still somewhat hindered by governmental regulations and other societal rules."
Why would you think they are somewhat hindered by governmental regulations, when THEY ARE the ones who are INITIATING them in the first place? How can they have much more (read: unhindered) control today than a 100 years ago, when there were NEVER so many laws and regulations effective than today?
"About 40,000 state laws taking effect at the start of the new year will change rules about getting abortions in New Hampshire, learning about gays and lesbians in California, getting jobs in Alabama and even driving golf carts in Georgia."
Several federal rules change with the new year, too, including a Social Security increase amounting to $450 a year for the average recipients and stiff fines up to $2,700 per offense for truckers and bus drivers caught using hand-held cellphones while driving.
Alabama, with the country's toughest immigration law, will require all employers who do business with any government entity to use a federal system known as E-Verify to check that all new employees are in the country legally.
Georgia is putting a similar law into effect requiring any business with 500 or more employees to use E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of new hires. The requirement is being phased in, with all employers with more than 10 employees to be included by July 2013.
In Colorado, coaches will be required to bench players as young as 11 when they're believed to have suffered a head injury. The young athletes will also need medical clearance to return to play.
The law also requires coaches in public and private schools and even volunteer Little League and Pop Warner football coaches to take free annual online training to recognize the symptoms of a concussion. At least a dozen other states have enacted similar laws with the support of the National Football League.
People 18 and under in Illinois will have to wear seat belts while riding in taxis for school-related purposes, and Illinois school boards can suspend or expel students who make explicit threats on websites against other students or school employees.
Florida will take control of lunch and other school food programs from the federal government, allowing the state to put more Florida-grown fresh fruit and vegetables on school menus. Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam says the change will help children eat healthier."
Click to view link
MH: "That would not be the case in a pure free market: it would be the absolute "law of the jungle" and we would basically give not only the car keys, but the whole road to Money Power."
To the contrary: No government levers to enforce monopoly ... No Money Power.
"A common charge against the free-market society is that it institutes "the law of the jungle," of "dog eat dog," that it spurns human cooperation for competition, and that it exalts material success as opposed to spiritual values, philosophy, or leisure activities. On the contrary, the jungle is precisely a society of coercion, theft, and parasitism, a society that demolishes lives and living standards. The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits, and where everyone's living standard flourishes (compared to what it would be in an unfree society). And the undoubted material success of free societies provides the general affluence that permits us to enjoy an enormous amount of leisure as compared to other societies, and to pursue matters of the spirit. It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity, notably under communism, where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially, but deadens their spirit."
Click to view link
"A very interesting study of the orderly nature of anarchy is found in John Phillip Reid's book, Law for the Elephant. Reid studied numerous diaries and letters written by persons crossing the overland trail in wagon trains going from St. Joseph, Missouri to Oregon and California. The institutions we have been conditioned to equate with "law and order" (e.g., police, prisons, judges, etc.) were absent along the frontier, and Reid was interested in discovering how people behaved toward one another in such circumstances. He discovered that most people respected property and contract rights, and settled whatever differences they had in a peaceful manner, all of this in spite of the fact that there were no "authorities" to call in to enforce a decision. Such traits went so far as to include respect for the property claims of Indians. The values and integrities that individuals brought with them were sufficient to keep the wagon trains as peaceful communities.
Having spent many years driving on California freeways, I have observed an informal order amongst motorists who are complete strangers to one another. There is a general - albeit not universal - courtesy exhibited when one driver wishes to make a lane change and, in spite of noncooperative drivers, a spontaneous order arises from this interplay. A major reason for the cooperative order lies in the fact that a driving mistake can result in serious injury or death, and that such consequences will be felt at once, and by the actor, unlike political decision-making that shifts the costs to others.
One may answer that freeway driving is regulated by the state, and that driving habits are not indicative of anarchistic behavior. The same response can be made concerning our behavior generally (i.e., that government laws dictate our conduct in all settings). But this misconceives the causal connections at work. The supervision of our moment-to-moment activities by the state is too remote to affect our actions. We are polite to fellow shoppers or our neighbor for reasons that have nothing to do with legal prescripts. What makes our dealings with others peaceful and respectful comes from within ourselves, not from beyond. For precisely the same reason, a society can be utterly destroyed by the corruption of such subjective influences, and no blizzard of legislative enactments or quadrupling of police forces will be able to avert the entropic outcome. Do you now understand the social meaning of the "Humpty-Dumpty" nursery rhyme?
The study of complexity, or chaos, informs us of patterns of regularity that lie hidden in our world, but which spontaneously manifest themselves to generate the order that we like to pretend authorities have created for us. There is much to discover about the interplay of unseen forces that work, without conscious direction, to make our lives more productive and peaceful than even the best-intended autocrat can accomplish. As the disruptive histories of state planning and regulation reveal, efforts to impose order by fiat often produce disorder, a phenomenon whose explanation is to be found in the dynamical nature of complexity. In the words of Terry Pratchett: "Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. Chaos always defeats order because it is better organized."
"Anarchy" is an expression of social behavior that reflects the individualized nature of life. Only as living beings are free to pursue their particular interests in the unique circumstances in which they find themselves, can conditions for the well-being of all be attained. Anarchy presumes decentralized and cooperative systems that serve the mutual interests of the individuals comprising them, without the systems ever becoming their own reasons for being. It is this thinking, and the practices that result therefrom, that is alone responsible for whatever peace and order exists in society."
Click to view link
Posted by rossbcan on 03/06/12 04:56 PM
You will appreciate Stefan Molyneux, if not already familiar
Starting with "The Bomb in the Brain"
Click to view link
Posted by pjmauigirl1 on 03/06/12 04:48 PM
Hey Weebley! Have I been cranky? So sorry.
Posted by pjmauigirl1 on 03/06/12 04:47 PM
Never meant to discount another's efforts. Just want room for mental freedom and entertaining multiple views.
I think the freedom movement is also served by looking at the tyranny of our own mental constructs and finding ways to leave the cage of our mental conditioning and grow into a consciousness that will allow a truly free state of being to flourish.
Posted by memehunter on 03/06/12 04:39 PM
"A debt-based currency is always bad. Interest charged by monopoly banking institutions on a debt-based currency is always bad. Can we agree on that?"
I agree about the interest part, but I don't agree that a debt-based currency is always bad. Interest-free debt-based currencies, such as mutual credit, could presumably work very well, and would not give any undue advantage to the currency issuer.
For more on this, see Anthony Migchels' blog:
Click to view link
I'd be sincerely curious to hear what you think about this, this is a topic that I'm still exploring.
"With that said, I think that a currency where its users can charge interest for the use of their savings will out-compete a currency that forbids its users to get a return for their savings."
You may be right - I don't really know. However, I assume that borrowers would favor the lowest possible interest rates in a free market. Moreover, if the interest-bearing currencies are debt-based, then we both agree (if I understood correctly your position) that this will lead to instability down the road.
"What specific function do you want the state to have?"
I would have to think more about that, but I think that focusing on what you call the "nightwatchman" functions might be enough for a start.
"How could it be any worse under a A/E/L system?"
I don't know if this is what you mean by an A/E/L system, but in the case of a pure free-market situation with absolutely no governmental supervision, there would be absolutely nothing in the path of the transnational oligarchic elites. Even though Money Power is mostly in charge now, they are still somewhat hindered by governmental regulations and other societal rules. That would not be the case in a pure free market: it would be the absolute "law of the jungle" and we would basically give not only the car keys, but the whole road to Money Power.
"Can money power take over under Worgl / Social Credit? I thought we agreed that those were perfectly fine under AE/L?"
Agreed that using interest-free Social Credit or demurrage-based currencies would make it a lot more difficult for Money Power to take over.
"The DB, myself, and others have said that Rand, Rothbard, and Mises weren't perfect. Contemporary writers have improved on their positions."
That may be the case. I'm glad to hear about that. I note, however, that the DB, other websites, and several feedbackers here often refer to Mises and Rothbard, so I think it was entirely fair that I focused on their positions.
"What moral obligations are required in your ethical theory?"
I think that, as a minimum, any sensible ethical theory would consider both sides of voluntary choices and actions: the side of the voluntary "acting" participant(s), and the side of the involuntary recipients. This would already cover many bases, such as the situation I described with two participants agreeing on a loan but using a currency shared with other users, or a parent voluntarily deciding not to feed their child.
"Can you please define evil?"
A philosophy that allows for the unbridled expression of the lowest human instincts and aspirations, that emphasizes materialism and neglects spirituality, and finally that puts self-interest and individual desires above everything else while simultaneously excluding any moral considerations towards other humans (and possibly other living creatures).
"Mises isn't recommending that we work to make people inequal, he's just acknowledging that people ARE inequal."
Mises seems to suggest that inequality is a prerequisite for social cooperation and prosperity. I'm not sure that this is true.
"Will you concede this point or do I need to dig up something specific to alleviate your concern?"
I'm willing to concede, but please note that Hayek, Mises, and Keynes for that matter, all spent a fair amount of ink on Mandeville's ideas (especially Hayek and Keynes), so I believe that his ideas should be included in the discussion.
Thanks again for this debate, I appreciate your patience with someone sharing a fairly different viewpoint.
Posted by rossbcan on 03/06/12 04:32 PM
As I stated before, advocating Ron Paul is but one pincer of a vast freedom movement. I respect your POV, and every effort helps. Where I took issue (and, it may have been misinterpretation on my part) is when the efforts of other pincers are discounted.
Thanks for the well considered, reasoned response.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 03/06/12 04:32 PM
now that's the pjmauigirl1 I remember
Posted by pjmauigirl1 on 03/06/12 04:15 PM
Thanks for the reply.
I've been to your site before, like the name by the way. My concern is how we get from here to there and what can be done in a practical sense here and now. I think taking back the constitution is the most expedient given where we are as a species.
I believe true freedom is a state of mind and being. That truth is truth whatever we may perceive of it and communicate of it and I think truth doesn't give a darn about what we think or do about it. Truth just is.
I'm not trying to be cute or clever, but to communicate something that is difficult to distill down to verbal communication.
I think we are all, all of us, just foolish beings deluded into thinking our minds are reliable tools to use to experience the world we find ourselves in. I think our minds are a useful, but limited tool. A good scientist knows this. I think, no I know, on a deep experiential level that there is something pulsing at the heart of all this that we can't experience directly with our thinking mind. It is a power, force, whatever, that makes the endeavors that we take so seriously in this world look like pre-school. We are a part of that. Looking back at beliefs through the ages, I find it easy to imagine that we also, don't understand some fundamentals of existence and that in the future (hopefully we have a future) we will be looked upon much as we look upon cave dwelling early man.
I like to think that we are evolving and are at a cusp where at some point in time a shift of consciousness will be forced by need, in order to continue material existence. I think Mr. Gamble is on to this.
I'm not a scholar but I see that certain themes and behaviours play out over and over in our human history. Nothing much has changed in the realm of consciousness. I think there are some fundamental insanities in the human mind; fear being the main one. So much action is taken from a point of fear and the paradigm of them against us, or vice versa. I think until we evolve beyond this paradigm not much will change, however high the ideals. For the current state of our evolution I think it would be a huge coup if enough people rallied around Ron Paul to get him elected. (Pipe dream) I would like to take back the country and use the Constitution as it was intended, continue to protect it and then go on from there.
I think our mind keeps us in chains and believing that we are limited, frail beings. I think we are more than that. I think the only thing we really have any control over is our own attitude and I agree with you that mental or emotional manipulation is predatory aggression; perhaps the worst sort of aggression. I think tyranny of thought is terrible and is what prompts me to respond to certain things I see written. I had a similar experience in responding to some fundamental Christians who seemed to need to convince others to think or behave like them. Gets my hackles up every time.
I think there are some that have evolved further and have a mastery over life that they have tried to teach. People in limited understanding form religions, cults, whatever they are, around these teachings and don't really grasp the totality of the teaching. I don't think these teachers are from other planets, but I could be wrong, and it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other.
If you are still reading, I would like to shift a bit and share a thought today resulting from these blogs and the talk of smaller groups of like-minded people forming their own societies. In a sense I see that is what we have now. This country has become a splintered cacophony of groups lobbying for their own particular needs with no thought to the whole of things. Taken in a DB perspective I could say this is a good way to bring a nation down.
The reason I like Ron Paul, and I'm not campaigning here, is that he finds a commonality (liberty) that people from very diverse backgrounds and beliefs can come together on.
Posted by rossbcan on 03/06/12 02:43 PM
You are, as all are free to prove your point, when anyone (not you, personally, I have stated my case to you) continuously misrepresents and attempts to taint ideas by ad-homium association, continuously repeats the same false points, all in support of the basic falsity that "we are our brother's keeper" and, organized force is required to complel political morality du-jour, you can bet there will be pushback on a freedom site.
You, as I are free to speak, and, as I free to consider / reject / disprove.
That is FREEDOM. We are free to do whatever the hell we choose, so long as we do not hurt anyone. And, words are just patterned wind, or squiggles on paper UNTIL composed of REAL, measurable concepts based on observed natural, physical phenomena. Then, words become far mightier than the sword, at least among objective thinkers who align their actions, to move mountains.
I use terms such as "less rigouous", AFTER it is a proven point.
And, since you take offense, I will state it explicitly: I am free to speak my mind. Whether I offend, or not, in in the perception of the beholder.
And, IMHO, when mainpulators attempt to influence those not able to see through it, this is a form of predatory aggression on the weak, a moral duty of those who know and can prove better, to counter.
THINK about IT:
Click to view link
Posted by pjmauigirl1 on 03/06/12 02:24 PM
Are we to think you have a monopoly on truth and any who disagree are less RIGOROUS (sp) thinkers?
This is freedom?
Posted by pjmauigirl1 on 03/06/12 02:18 PM
"As we mentioned, pjmauigirl, at one point you'd contributed over 30 posts (it's more now) or about 25 percent of the posts placed on this thread. You might wish to ponder your point about a "respectful discourse.""
Honestly do not get your point here. Is interacting with posters and responding to their replies disrespectful? Could you explain, as I must be thick, why this is not appropriate or wrong or whatever is to be taken from your comment?
Do you say the same things to others posting many more times than I, if they happen to agree with your point of view?
You know, it seems like propagandizing is the new normal wherever one goes these days.
Posted by rossbcan on 03/06/12 12:39 PM
you really BELIEVE you are that important, or, a perceived threat by DB????
DB, I and others who take issue with your pseudo intellectual verbiage do it, not out of consideration or spite of you, but to protect the truth and help less rigourous thinkers to see it.