If you live in a dystopia like NY, you have to leave a large cushion between yourself and anybody who looks sketchy.

That means being prepared to sprint the other direction at a moment's notice.

Europe is following the US in the process of ghetto-ization for all their cities, so the only non-dystopic cities left tend to be in Asia, like Singapore.

Nice idea but if only measure is money, then it's gonna be dystopia. Economic superpowers aren't looking for happiness, end of poverty etc. They are looking for profit. Less people to share that profit means.. yes, more profit. They don't care about poverty, poverty means more profit. If persons value and importance is measured by materia, everyone is then forced to gather more and more stuff just to appear to be in the same level as your peers.

That's why you want that new iPhone.. You don't actually need it. Once you bought it you find things that are handy but you managed to those exact things perfectly fine before. So now every brokeass mom with two jobs and barely enough money to feed their young have the latest smartphones..

Just stupid, technology should be used to better mankind not to invent more needs we didn't have before. We have enough of them already.. Once we have provided food and shelter for everyone on this planet then start inventing that secondary stuff.

So yes, i'm positive too, we COULD get an utopia but money can't be the sole value in that society.

What if I said that much of what we consider advanced human society is simply a network of selfish people individually interested in maximizing pleasure and avoiding displeasure?

What if I said that, other than hugely displeasurable experiences (disease, war, famine, etc., all displeasure) there are few other driving factors to advance modern human society outside of selfish desire for more pleasure?

The success of capitalism is the recognition that a society can be built around this with some rules that keep everyone from trampling everyone else.

We exist in a society built upon selfishness, where products beget products in an endless stream. Have you seen the new 'retina display' ipads? And the new Batman movie? And the new coffee brand that the local store is carrying that you heard is good? And the new treatment for that disorder you have? This is the current state of human society. Bernays and others recognized that tweaking things here and there for their own selfish gain was not only successful, but successful beyond their expectations. Bernays and people like him don't see themselves as 'taking advantage of' or 'cheating' others, though they will readily admit that marketing is manipulation.

Many of us look around now and say, 'this marketing and consumerism has gone to far!'. Why? I suggest this is because aggressive, constant barrages of these marketing tactics is leading your typical person to feel displeasure due to constantly being pitched to, and displeasure at recognizing the unending attempts at manipulation. This displeasure is outweighing the pleasure of participating in some areas of our society.

What will this lead to? Maybe a happy medium, maybe a swing the other direction, maybe an incredible swing to a 'matrix'-like dystopia where we are happily asleep in our minds, maximally pleased with the state of things.

>> ^Dread:

I'm of the opinion that these methods of massive crowd manipulation are unfortunately a blight... I do instead see a few very wealthy individuals throughout society whom most assuredly endorse and utilize these systems... I wonder if they are truly happy?

Glad I am not the only one who hated this movie. All good "dystopian" stories must be either DARK or SATIRICAL or both. Even mediocre dystopia like Starship Troopers manages to achieve both.

The Hunger Games manages to do neither. It couldn't be dark because they needed a PG-13 rating, and any satire was undermined by all the bad parts pointed out in this fake trailer.

>> ^kevingrr:

As Huxley said, "It is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past, but then I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with breads and circuses and you can provide them with endless distractions and propaganda."
@StukaFox
Your comment is as clever as it is simpleminded. You can worship the elephant or the donkey and I'll disagree with you based on the zeal you have for one and the disdain for the other. The world is a complicated place and whats best isn't found in one camp or the other.
Look at Huxley's last novel Island. He merges 'East and West'. He takes what he feels is best from both.


I upvoted because my reaction to this is that we've ended up in a world a lot closer to Aldous Huxley's shiny, distracted, and soul suckingly disconnected dystopia than we have 1984's drab, brutal, overtly totalitarian one. Our dystopia is much harder to break out of, because on the surface it seems open, free, and filled with prosperity, until you scratch the surface, and see the rot festering underneath.

I could've just as easily have downvoted for the stupidity of your pox upon both their houses view of modern politics though. I don't really get the sense much of anyone on the left is filled with some sort of "zeal" for the "donkey" -- and the disdain for the Republicans largely stems from the way they seem to be functionally identical to the Inner Party members from 1984. They can shamelessly go from lauding an individual mandate as the "personal responsibility principle that's essential to bring costs down" and then when the party's needs change, decry the same policy as somehow being a violation of everything that Americans hold sacred. All this while demanding they still be treated as if they were serious people of conviction and principle, and painting those who dare to point out their hypocrisy as some sort of dishonest partisan hack.

The fact that one side, and only one side has fully committed to this level of partisan loyalty should make even the most cynical, above the fray, non-partisan person sit up and take notice. Maybe it's time to stop pretending this is politics as usual, and see it for what it really is: a battle to stop a group of committed fanatics without a shred of human empathy from pushing out the last vestiges of the flawed, inept, but well-meaning opposition standing in their way.

America, rushing headlong into a 3rd world dystopia. There's a reason for things like welfare and universal healthcare, because they're the RIGHT thing to do.

That was a horrendous interview all around, it...went...nowhere... Cenk is getting overtly irate at a Fat Cat Republican Congressmen who says that he read the 2011 Social Security release. Then Cenk has a large problem of "centering" himself, allowing himself to give the man who is talking enough rope to hang himself on it. He almost had him after the first part, but he got SO angry and overzealous in his pushing of the conversation that the conversation drowned in the ramblings of two pride filled men who couldn't stand to allow conversation to be heard or really go anywhere--with some sort of pint or reason.

Cenk needed to get this idiots ideas, all of them, onto the plate before pressing. When I say pressing I don't mean yelling. Cenk needed to allow this Congressmen to bring in his own "proof of fact" (with various sources for them to look at and then take him out strategically if he used them and the source is incorrect, biased, or useless--tell the public why this is so), so that when he said that the surplus was a short fall they could napalm him later for it. Of course a lot of these idiots read a few lines of facts before they go into an interview and try to use them--the fact that Cenk pressed him and he said nothing except to mumble his correctness and sit and smile, just smile when you may have erred--but you can NEVER be wrong. That lets us know that that may have been the case here. You can EASILY look on factcheck.org and quickly find out that Cenk was right, but there was a short fall too. That number was of course still large, but was clearly defined by MANY that it indeed was most likely the result of a terrible economy and recession.

BTW, when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security (slowly though, so you don't rebel all at once). I would assume anyway. After all, if we wished to really solve the problem we could SLOW DOWN life for ourselves. Work only 6 hours a day and only 4 days in a week. We get One month off in the summer, the nation splitting that break into groups the size of thirds or fourths of all of us. The Federal system could limit certain types of inflation and interest (and maybe one-day we could almost entirely kill off interest, but probably not rich men need their golden swimming pools). We could start to shape the way we pay people (as I assume most of you want your grocery store as much as your doctors and so forth). To move so much money from a business to help to pay people between a certain age range. Teenagers may have to take the bullet of the lowest wages, but it may secure their futures in the process. Then we could talk about re-managing the entirety of the Federal Budget and maybe one day we could get away from spending for a war machine that HAS NO WARS. BUT, this is crazy talk.

Instead... Are FICA and SS minimums will go up, thus we make even less, and our taxes will as well--unless you're rich. Your life will stay about the same and your affect upon the middle and lower classes will show your indifference to their demise or situation--unfortunately this seems to be something you learn by going through, what you know nothing of--it is the power and the price to having true empathy. Houses will tend to cost as much as a top scale middle-American could pay for one in half their lifetime. Gas will cost more, as hybrids get more efficient--until you never by it again they will try to make sure you ALWAYS pay the same amount. You work 8 hours a day but overtime is nearly mandatory everyday, somedays can get up to 10 hours, if you're a blue collar it might even go around 12. Then they want you to retire at 72. Medicare and Medicaid barely get you along, you HAVE TO buy a "jacket" plan now (such as AARP), this says nothing of dental or other medical concerns.

Or we stay a lot like it is now. I hope not, because I always hope for a brighter future.

I'll be blunt the Republicans are taking us FAR from that idea and Cenk doesn't help here. His audience must eventually try to grab every ear it can IF it, if we, are to be successful. Otherwise, a revolution may be coming--not now, but someday off in the future--maybe in my lifetime. I'm 35 and paid into SS.

/oops longer than I meant, hopefully not too much dystopia or utopia -- things in reach, for worse or better...

Minority Report Dystopia, here we come!

2011: A Brave New Dystopia

Maybe Bieber knows that he's making enough money as it is.. And the fact that if this kind of law would've been made ten years ago, he would be poor.. Make fretilized eggs a person, make corporations persons, take away all the rights to express yourself, make suing corporations illegal and see what happens.. Dystopia, my friend, here we come, i hope you're ready and have a lot of comfy cells for all of us!

>> ^aurens:

"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...


I'm not talking about what Ron Paul believes or says he's doing, I'm talking about what he's actually out there fighting to make happen.

Is Ron Paul a philanthropist who goes around promoting everyone contribute more to charitable causes? No, he's a politician who thinks it's evil and tyrannical to tell people they have to pay taxes to help out other people. Further, he makes it clear that "freedom" means you should not have to contribute anything to anyone who isn't you if you don't feel like it, even if it means letting someone else die.

It's not that I misunderstand Paul's "message," it's that I see through the spin.

3. My answer is meant to show that your question is laden with faulty assumptions. (Your initial post is a textbook example of begging the question.) But, again, to humor you, I'll address what would happen without farming subsidies in the United States: (a) Americans would eat more healthfully; (b) no, farming would not become unprofitable (except maybe for the huge corporations who wastefully produce the once-subsidized products, namely corn); (c) the average percentage of income spent on food might go up, though it wouldn't necessarily cut "heavily into the income of poorer people."

By the way: farming is profitable for many farmers, and to suggest that it isn't ("would it become profitable again") is misleading.


2. I'll spell it out for you: I choose not to address it. There are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of labor laws. To suggest that, in their absence, people would be "fired on a whim" is not one of them, and it relegates this conversation to something unworthy of my time.


1. The point of the link was to show, without engaging with your assumption-laden imaginative dystopia, that there are many defensible positions for those who question the wisdom and necessity of antitrust laws.


4. "That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance."

That's worse than a bad paraphrase; it's intellectual dishonesty. You and I gain nothing from this kind of conversation if we interpret information with that strong a bias. Read it again and see if you can't come up with a more intellectually honest response:


"A common argument advanced in support of greater government intervention in the American healthcare market is that a large and growing fraction of the gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on healthcare, while the results, such as average life expectancy, do not compare favorably to the Western nations that have adopted some form of universal healthcare.

This argument is spurious for two reasons:

A growing fraction of GDP spent on healthcare is not a problem per se. In the early half of the twentieth century, the fraction of GDP spent on healthcare grew significantly as new treatments, medical technology, and drugs became available. Growth in spending of this nature is desirable if it satisfies consumer preferences.

Attributing national-health results to the healthcare system adopted by different countries confuses correlation with causation and ignores the many salient variables that are causal factors affecting aggregate statistics (such as average life expectancy). Factors that are likely to be at least as important as the healthcare system include the dietary and exercise preferences of a population.

Another argument commonly used in healthcare-policy debates is that there are almost 46 million people who have no health insurance at all. Again, this is not a problem in and of itself. According to the National Health Interview Survey, 40 percent of those uninsured are less than 35 years old, while approximately 20 percent earn over $75,000 a year. In other words, a large fraction of those who are uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or are healthy enough that they don’t really need it (beyond, perhaps, catastrophic coverage). The real problem with the American healthcare system is that prices are continually rising, greatly outpacing the rate of inflation, making healthcare unaffordable to an ever-increasing fraction of the population—particularly those without insurance.

If prices in the healthcare market were falling, as they are in other markets such as computers and electronics, the large number of uninsured would be of little concern. Treatments, drugs, and medical technology would become more affordable over time, allowing patients to pay directly for them. Identifying the cause of rising healthcare costs should be the first priority for anyone who seeks solutions to America’s broken healthcare system."


Again, the full article: http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Of course the post is highly speculative ...

>> ^aurens:

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:

1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."
If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)

2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."
Too absurd to even address.

3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."
You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.

4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."
Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.



Of course the post is highly speculative: It says that RP gets elected. I thought this would be obvious.

1. The question would be: What would happen if Antitrust-laws exist no more at all, not: Are Anti-trust laws at the moment used fairly?


2. Either you adress it or you don't. It is not absurd. Tell me why it would be.


3. Again, the inferred question is not: Does it work now?; the question at hand is: What would happen if the farm subsidies in a first-world-country would fall away? Would farming become too unprofittable and only be used for subsistence; importing cheaper food from outside the US? Or would it become profittable again by increasing the price of food immensely, cutting heavily into the income of poorer people?


4. That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance. Give me a serious unbiased text on this, and I'll read it. I really will. But to dismiss at least 40% of the uninsured right out of hand is highly irresponisble and assholish.

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...

Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.

And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.

"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.

*Off soapbox.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^aurens:
"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...

I think NR gets that, but I can only speak for myself:
Let's say RP gets his ideology through to the presidency and would have 76% of all seats filled with people that share the same ideology, supreme court as well, and ditto for the military (just for completeness). Abolish the national health care system and all other governmental social securities. All regulations and all subsidies get canned, plus: No more wars on foreign soil. Small government.
So let's assume that all people who were laid off in the social sector are immediately hired by the free market companies, all the laid off military personnel from foreign bases find some jobs. Plus: Everyone's net pay comes out as it would be without the taxes.
Let's assume patent laws are still in existence: Drug companies holding a patent can charge whatever price they want, other companies would have to field the costly research themselves to come up with a similar patent. --> costly and ineffective.
If there are no more patents, no company would do research for new patents to stay in business.

People can get fired on a whim without regulations. As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce. Wages will be low, as there will be enough replacement workforce. People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies), expensive public transport (no subsidies, high prices for gas) and their rents (which would most likely also be high, as their landlords need more money).
Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded. The underfunded ones only pay out for immediate threats of life. Only few charities with rich backers have enough income to provide for their employees and selectively only grant moneys as dictated yb their rich backer: Most likely to employees of his firm. What happens to people without jobs? Completely dependant on charity. Around the few charitable organisations, slums are built by the people who rely on the distributed food. Many of these people get hired for the day just for a little money and a bit of food.
Soem are kept by rich people as their personal poor they care for (see India).
People start flocking to the remaining rich states, large areas of middle-America are depopulated, as the aging communities cannot sustain themselves. Farmer is the most popular job again.
The poor revolt, the underfunded police force joins them. Private security of the rich fires into the crowds.
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:


1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."

If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)


2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."

Too absurd to even address.


3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."

You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.


4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."

Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.