I'm convinced that there is not one person that actually understands resource based economies enough to explain them on the radio. I get what it is. It sucks, its a horrible idea... There is not one person that can explain it to Ernie... its been like 4 or more interviews about this crap, and each time the "expert" is no expert at all.

I think the talk show host did an effective job of distorting the central issues and trying to understand specifics without understanding the general framework.  This is the same thing that happens in biology class where they start talking about the intricacies of cellular biology without first understand the basics of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Applying the scientific method to social concerns is not at all difficult.  I would think a Libertarian would see this as a good thing, being as objective as subjective beings can be.  The big question I have is if the line of questioning presented by the radio host purposeful or simply ignorant?  It sounds to me that he was framing the debate based upon current paradigms.  A Resource Based Economy is only partly based upon of current paradigms.  A local distribution network based on demand is exactly what we do with virtually every commodity and service.  What could be more free than a complete lack of governance unrelated to natural law?  Automation increases freedom but with it comes a price: structural unemployment due to technological unemployment. With this comes the inability to keep cyclical consumption going.

The current system is wasteful.  The current system is obsolete.  The trend is irreversable.  These are not very controversial statements.  I'll take an example where anyone can understand, Netflix.  Netflix is a company that has economized and revolutionized the way we watch movies.  No more need to go to video store, your selections are tracked and it's entirely effiicient.  No more endless discs, cases and posters to advertise as it can all be replicated through technology.

Now, we have a lot of problems in the world and all of these problems have solutions.  The operating constaing is money.  Thirty four thousand people die every day due to hunger, not because there is not enough food to feed everyone but because of a lack of enough money to *purchase* it all.  Distribution is not a problem, we have the technology to do it.  It's just cost prohibitive to do it.  How many times do we say, "...if money were no object."  Furthermore, I think the obsessive need for 'private property' is a direct result of the artifice of scarcity.  Real scarcities do exist which is exactly why we need to do a full audit of our finite resources and have computers track the allocation.  That is not a scary concept, that's just good Systems Management.  Most concerns can be handled locally which logistically makes more sense and wastes less time and energy on transportation.  So this is not a NWO/One World Gov't sort of wacked out conspiracy.  Just using common sense and trying to presere what we have.  What is it going to matter how much artificial debt we rack up for our grandkids is going to matter if there aren't the resources in the future to enable them to survive to begin with?

If this host has questions, I have answers.  However, I wouldn't let him frame the debate so much.  I'd be accomodating but we can do this through e-mail if he is genuinely interested in answers.