Cynical rant incoming to explain why I approve of Peter Joseph:
The contemporary western world is extremely disillusioned with politics, it's fearful of positive liberty, revolutions and any attempts to change the world, perhaps rightfully so after experiencing things like nazi germany and the soviet union.
As a result, politics are no longer driven by ideals but rather with the aim of containing and minimizing the use of power. If there's an ideal, then it's one where nobody is in control but the system is capable of regulating itself. This has been achieved by using the tools of free market and democracy-machinations that sufficiently please the masses and complicate descision-making.
It's been so successful in creating a stable society that with America leading the charge, the west has been imposing the same model on the rest of the world, by force when necessary. That hasn't worked perfectly and created a number of backlashes such as political Islam and whatever it is that China is doing. But all that is going on a tangent.
My worry is that this model of western society is a sort of trap which, while seemingly stable now, may become a terrible dead end in the future. It's different from the catastrophes of socialism and dictatorship that were suffered in the 20th century, instead caused by the unsustainability of the economic model, ecological problems, and warping of human values and psychology.
So when the time comes for people to once again make revolutions and change the world, it'd be nice if they had at least some idea of what they were doing. That's where visionaries with controversial world views come in handy - the failings of the current system can be processed and futuristic ideas developed beforehand, without inciting bloody revolutions that go beyond the point of no return. As cynical as Peter sounds, I actually consider people who dream of changing the world the more positive kind of people.
