vue - The Zeitgeist Movement - "Defining Peace" lecture

1. I dont "want to believe" there will be a state. Im talking based purely on Jaqcues Fresco statements. There never was a civilization with no State, so if you dream of a society with no State, you have to say exactly how its going to work, how the decisions are going to be made, etc. Jaqcues only says all decisions are going to be scientifically based, baseless opinions would have no place. So, there will be a State, the scientists. If you cant see that, you are an idiot, Im sorry to say.
2. Its impossible to have no State in a collectivized society. If there is private prperty, each person will decide privately how to allocate the resources they own. But without private property, all resources being owned by everybody, whos going to make the decisions? There are two options only. A select group elected by the majority vote, or a tirannical group not elected, that would decide not based on the will of the people, but based on an arbitrary concept (science, in the case of VP).
3. The question is, who are these people thats gonna decide the destiny of all resources? It cant be the totality of the society. Did you stop to think how 7 billion people will get to unanimous decisions towards the allocation of resources? Its impossible. Each one of these people have different needs, different tastes and a different ideal of happiness. And thats not the plan of the VP, their plan is to make decisions not based on the opinion of the majority, but based on science only.
4. the civil state has private property->money->poverty->force->police->law->government. just because production can be organized instead of this chaos around now a days dosen´t mean there must be an government doing it ;)
5. so i can´t argue with you about will there be a state or not, because you want to believe that it is impossible that there will be no state. just something to thought about, people coming together, discussing and deciding what they want to do; that is not a state. 
6. Thats in theory. Just as the VP, theoretically, woud have no State either. But in reality, there always will be a State. If all resources are collectively owned, somebody have to make the decisions regarding the allocation of the resources. Thats the job f the State. Even if you say that all decisions are going to be scientifically based, who have the scientfic knowledge? The scientists. In VP, the scientists are going to be the State, even if they dont use the term State to reffer to themselves
7. in communism there would be no state ;)
8. Moneys defines communism? Money is not what characterizes any economic system. Saying that just show to me how you dont know anything about economic systems. Money in communism is a COMPLETELY different thing than in capitalism. In capitalism, investors uses the price system as an indicator of where the resources must be allocated. In communism, there can be money, but no PRICE SYSTEM. The resources are allocated not according to prices, but to the whim of the State.
9. I havent seen one single case yet of cartel, oligopoly or monopoly being formed without any government intervention. I suggest you search about it. It is almost impossible to form a monopoly in a true free-market. Whatever argument you have for monopoly formation in free-markets, I will debunk it. You can try anyone.
10. Why do you think corporations try to infiltrate and control government? Because government has the monopoly of power! Government is the only institutions that has the power to intervene in markets, creating regulations, giving subsidies, fiscal advantages, protectionism and so on. The only way to gain the monopoly in a market, is infiltrating government and interviening in the market! The only solution is to drastically reduce the power of goverment to intervene in markets.
11. You don't seem to understand whats at stake here, these are pivotal times, what you are witnessing is a corporate take over of governments, money over people, the decades ahead are gonna be crucial to freedom, im serious, and the fact is, it was unavoidable, accumulation of power, "monopoly" is the end game of capitalism, trying to label us "communist" wen communism uses a monetary system only shows how little you know about our concerns or understand what we propose.
12. You take one phrase of mine out of hundreds arguments I put here, and use it to say I have faith on an ideology. This coming from a zeitgeister is so blatantly riddiculous. I think you are the one that put label in front of facts, since you probably dont think zeitgeist as communism because they have not the same name, and they use different terms, but to say the same things.
13. "Fucking communists!!" as i said, i dont waste my time with creationists. that is..Faith based ideologies. besides, a label means more to you than actual facts ..
14. You accuse me of ad hominem, but you dont hesitate to use it. And worse, you made it your argument. I never used bad language and cursing as an argument. I use because I want, not as an argument. So its not ad-hominem. You on the other hand, didnt present any argument and tried to dismiss my point attacking my person. This is the perfect example of ad-hominem.
15. You are spying what Im doing and Im the frustrated guy? If you didnt want to debate, neither to refute me, why did you bother speaking to me? I cant see any rational reason for such behaviour. And you telling me to study? You didnt put any knowledge here, didnt say anything, refuse to debate, and yet have courage to tell others to study? Have some self respect! 
16. By your recently watched videos i can see you r just a very frustrated person. the point is then reassured by the way you trow add hominems all over the place, don't be so ignorant, go study something then try to make a point.
17. Chicken.
18. Baseless? My ideas have 250 years of academic tradition, inumerous scholars that dedicated a life to understands the problems of human action, vast literature to fill entire libraries. Your movement is based on a movie. Need no more comments.
19. I dont waste my time refuting baseless statements. 
20. I challenge you to refute it.