Whilst dystopian's quote is right, i think they had a tendancy to sell the guy short.. not sure if he's anti-ron paul (whatever that may be), but i'd have to say he deserves a bit of respect for not only saying that stuff, but also being reasonably on the mark about a succession of crises, it's not perfect but i don't think it needs to be in order to be impressive.

I think the video is probably poorly titled and too emotive and with the music choice - ignoring that though, the things may not be true, but he's not done too badly as far as 10 year future predictions go.. he managed to identify some of the major sources of problems at least? If you just taking it on merit, that is..

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^ponceleon:
OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...

If you're going to be flamed, then let me get my asbestos jacket, 'cos I agree with you. LOTR is an undisputed classic, but it wasn't without it's problems. Tolkiens pacing was terrible and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story. The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.
Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured.

I'll go even farther...Tolkien was a top-notch world-builder, but he was a crappy storyteller. His stories were dry, boring, and flat-out hard to read (e.g. three names for every individual, all sounding so similar as to be virtually impossible to differentiate). Now, the world was so amazing that it took me nearly two decades of annual re-readings to come to this conclusion. But in the end, I see no other way to describe his work.

Jackson and Co. did a remarkable job of making it better while keeping the world mostly intact.

>> ^ponceleon:

OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...


If you're going to be flamed, then let me get my asbestos jacket, 'cos I agree with you. LOTR is an undisputed classic, but it wasn't without it's problems. Tolkiens pacing was terrible and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story. The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured.

OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...

hey, i just logged in, and my video is top 15. TYVM dystopian futuretoday

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Well done. *promote

>> ^Trancecoach:

Nothing invokes a positive thought-exercise like an affluent, depressing world in which every surface has been turned into a screen with notifications telling you what to do or think, atrophied interpersonal relations, and muted emotions and sensations

I know, much more likely it's going to be a dingy, depressing world in which every surface has been turned into a screen with notifications telling you what to do or think, atrophied interpersonal relations, and emotions that haven't been muted, but diverted towards the convenient scapegoat of the hour, all brought to you by nearly flawless software from a variety of companies with happy-sounding names like Apple, Google, and Microsoft.

You know, sorta like the world I see when I look out my window...

Dark sci-fi brooding aside, I guess I don't see any really revolutionary technology here. Most of this kind of UI and network integration already exists, or is coming in the next year or two. There's a lot of paper-thin borderless screens and a couple augmented reality projections that are still a ways off, but not really that far either -- I'd expect both to be available before 2020.

This dystopian future is already here today!

Crazy dystopian police state much?!

Straw that broke the dystopian camel's back.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

No one deserves a dystopian future. No matter how disenfranchised, fat, out of shape, undereducated, manipulated and/or needy we may be. >> ^Lawdeedaw:
Our lazy ass country deserves this--it seems. We don't vote right, we don't eat right or exercise right, we refuse proper education and instead take spoon-fed bullshit, we demand everything for nothing... Why don't we deserve this DFT? Why?



Okay, why?

No one deserves a dystopian future. No matter how disenfranchised, fat, out of shape, undereducated, manipulated and/or needy we may be. >> ^Lawdeedaw:

Our lazy ass country deserves this--it seems. We don't vote right, we don't eat right or exercise right, we refuse proper education and instead take spoon-fed bullshit, we demand everything for nothing... Why don't we deserve this DFT? Why?

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.


Well, no. Precision isn't the issue, accuracy is. When building a climate model we don't need a precise answer for temperature at a location, we need accurate (though perhaps fairly imprecise) temperatures for many locations over time. This may seem pedantic, but you've wandered into discussing science so you might as well learn the terms.

Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power?


Sorry, you're talking about some dystopian future ruled by environmentalists? Are you worried about this coming to be? Do you look around at the world and shudder at the enormous power environmentalists are getting? I mean, for whatever you think of climate change theory, surely you have to agree that the climate change movement has been pretty much completely ineffectual at getting anything significant changed or regulated. Near-absolute power, even imagining the passing of quite a bit of time and the world getting disastrously more environmentally conscious, is a bit of a stretch.

Look, I disagree with the "stereotypical environmentalist" on a lot of things - and I think many environmental programs and restrictions and whatever are pointless (recycling, random painful acts of conservation, etc..). But whether or not you like environmentalists or think they'd do a good job running things doesn't effect whether the proposition in question is true.

Me? I think the balance of evidence is currently on the side of global warming becoming a problem in the next 100 years. I think the evidence is strong enough to prompt further research and certain kinds of actions. And I don't mean cutting automotive emissions by 20%. That is really pointless. Cars burning gas is a turd that we need to flush completely and soon (burning oil at the current rate has enough problems, global warming or not) - not slowly polish.

In general, I think that good approaches to fighting global warming (mostly new energy sources) are net wins whether or not they're related to global warming. Nobody is going to regret stimulating the economy by spending on research, technology development, and manufacturing. And if it turns out global warming was happening for some other reason (or not happening at all) we'll be happy to have our Mr. Fusion powered air conditioners and holodecks.