I've also watched the Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum, so it seems revolutionary to hear a congressman speaking about the same kinds of things, for e.g. The fraud that is the federal reserve. He doesn't go as far as Jacque Fresco in proposing that money is the problem and that it should be abolished in favour of a resource based economy.
RP is a strong believer in the free market and believes everything will take care of itself in a free market without the need for big government to do anything.
I wrote an article last year on the free market:
Free Market Principles applied to the Insurance Industry
It turned out the Insurance industry is heavily regulated, my argument was (on the pretense that it wasn't regulated) was that if insurance contracts were treated more as an open market - then only the providers who do the right things (calculating the right premiums, providing good customer services) will survive.RP proposes that government stay out of all regulation, this would for example include the insurance industry, it means that the government can no longer pass rules and regulations dictating how they do business! but if this happens won't everyone just get ripped off? who protects the individual (in RP's terminology, there is only the individual and liberties for the individual alone)?
Well, if the market was truly free, then the individual is more empowered to choose the right thing, he/she will choose the provider with the most clearly defined rules that are favourable, or as I see it, instead of the government passing regulations, consumer groups will provide this function - they will form the link between the industry and the consumer.
It is slightly scary though, the private sector could make up any contract they like, and hire their own police force to enforce it. RP believes that the government's function is only to see that the contract is met! It would be unlikely that the now empowered individual (that has to look out for him/her self because the government under RP will have removed safety nets) would not choose such a contract over others, because it is rather unfavourable to have your door kicked down because you missed a payment. Although I have heard of this happening (fucking repo).
Crime prevention could also be privatised (it is happening already in some rich neighbourhoods). Organisation and individuals buy services, because there is competition the service would actually be any good (ever called the cops to a burglary in progress and measured the time to response?). But I would rather it not, there must be a single authority that decides what is eventually right or wrong, based on either common sense, the constitutions, state laws and finally the contract between two individuals (whether one of them should be an organisation or not). And as RP proposes this should be the function of the government.
All of this relies on keeping the market free, from monopolies, from regulations, from taxation and big government.
What about social stratification? What about the in-equality? It is simple enough to say there is always going to be in-equality so the best we can do is create incentives by removing social securities and socialist taxation policies?
In a truly free market, is anyone truly richer?