What the hell?!? I thought Utopia was some stupid 'big brother in the wild' kind of American 'reality' television show about creating a utopian society out of random strangers.
What was that?!? What channel is this Utopia on?
And who was that brilliant man? I want to pay him to sit in my farmer's market every week and say the same thing.

As dismal and depressing as this video is, it would appear that if we can fix these problems we'll have gazillions of dollars of spending money with which we could use to build a utopian society.

When I was a child, I was fortunate enough to meet and speak with an old man who fought with the Anarchists in the Spanish civil war. As he described it, their ideology was virtually identical to modern American Libertarians, looking for a utopian society based essentially on villages and with no central government.

Even a child, something bugged me about it... something didn't sound quite right... and I had trouble putting my finger on exactly what it was. I think you've hit the nail right on the head though.

If you put that objection to an anarchist though, they would dismiss it and say something along the lines of it wouldn't be a problem in practice, because the people wouldn't let it. Needless to say, given the choice, I won't be voting #1 anarchist party.

Right, a Utopian society... Because the only reason people are unhappy is because they lack a power source big enough.

Good luck on the revolution front. Not only do we need a new foundation on how we deal with corporations, police, military, science, religion/state, prisons, health-care, lawmaking, politics, policy foreign/domestic, executive functions state or country, emergency response systems, logistics roads/bridges/railroad, infrastructure, welfare and societal needs, energy, money/goods, trade, etc...

Like he said, we need a new foundation on our psychology. What we teach our children is bunk, it will make the majority of them happy for a few fleeting moments and unhappy the rest of their lives. We need to find a new foundation to help find happiness for everyone for the majority of their entire life--without resorting to competition and instead combining our strengths and creating a great community.

I'd wager the closest you'll get is to literally do education completely different than what we do now. Start at an early age and give the children a glimpse of ALL trades to be used and learned in the world. Over time find what they excel at and LIKE doing and help them achieve their goal in that field. Then continually narrow the field as they get older so they can truly become a master at something, like a chemical engineer. Education would, graphically, look more like a giant plinko board that students slowly make their way down and filter themselves into the field THEY want. If we supported students all the way PASS college to the point they were job ready (and in fact you could perhaps harmonize corporations into the mix, so that when you get your degree not only have you most likely interned/researched at the place you will work gaining practical knowledge you are ready day one out of school to start a job you LOVE and excel at.

I know you'll get clumps and pools of people in places you may not have uses for them, but if we truly put our minds to it I bet we could find a way to still get the method to work (I know corporations won't necessarily do what I said except in--most likely-- the science fields, but having just a few large companies do it would help). Then if we lived a slower paced life, with more time off to OURSELVES than in slavery to someone else you might see a change in the overall attitude of our community and maybe civilization. Help people pay for modest houses and maybe even some furniture. Cover healthcare needs for each other, maybe even other social services as well. Tone the military down to a defensive one, one that can defend us, but can only truly become a real war machine like what happened in WWII.

Granted, there would be a lot to work out, but I highly doubt it's impossible to create a GREAT life here on this planet if we all work together to make it happen. Hell, we walked on the fucking moon! I know most of this will require not only leaps in science and with those leaps, hopefully ,soon, some of those bring about leaps in the psychology fields helping us to genetically weed out sociopaths, psychopaths, unipolar, bipolar, borderline, Asperger's, sever depression/anxiety, OCDs, addictions, etc... Plus with expanded bio-engineering, especially in genetics, if we could make sure people atleast have an IQ of say 120 (hell if you truly find the master switch--just turn it up), get rid of all genetic diseases and birth imperfections, rid us of deafness, blindness, baldness, etc... Then add in the advancements in bio-engineering on the mechanical, nanotechnological, electronics, and computers and we'll have one hell of a ride (of course if we haven't solved the psychological issues by then, we will almost certainly kill ourselves off). But, that stuff is 50 years away with some probably 150-200 years away. If we can help stabilize our humanity, through engineering and perfecting our psychology, I really believe we'll have a chance one day to see some sort of Utopian society.

Everything he talked about most likely leads to something that MIGHT be better than what we had. But, it won't be here in the U.S. and I doubt it'll even be in Asia (China, South Korea, and Japan). Europe, excluding the U.K. has a chance, with northern Europe having a better chance. You never quite know who history will choose next to bring the next big leap in progress to the human civilization.

/I didn't think I'd write something so long about that. Oh well, I just felt like sharing a little more optimistic view on what could happen to we humans.

I like Ron Paul... I probably would not vote for him, instead I would just not vote at all and give into bitterness. But, if Dennis Kucinich gets involved as Pauls running mate I will be absolutely sold on the idea of voting for them.

I seriously have me some man love for Kucinich. He is an angel from a different dimension where Spock mated with elves and they formed a utopian society by bonding over Working Class Hero, fighting off the evil mages and making love to fine women.

>> ^Fade:

Anarchy does not automatically imply lawlessness or chaos. In much the same way that being an atheist does not imply that you are immoral. >> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.



I think you meant to say Anarchy doesn't imply lawlessness, but your statement is correct as it is. Anarchy means there is no law, by definition. The moment you introduce a law like declaring murder illegal you have instituted a form of a state, and enforcement of said law is once again the act of a state. Any other use of the word Anarchy is a hijacking of it describe something that is NOT in fact Anarchy. Call it minimal government, call it some variation of Libertarianism, but Anarchy it is not.

Anarchy, from Websters:
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3
: anarchism

You'll note the only 'positive' definition for Anarchy presupposes that human beings will collectively get along and play nice with each other be default. If that were true we'd have a utopia with or without any form of government period.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Hitler isn't infamous because he built the Autobahn. Making an omelet generally doesn't involve crimes against humanity. Nor does building roads.
You're wrong. His omelet was the greater good of Germany. He broke a number of eggs that involved crimes against humanity, segregation and imperialism.
He was building the utopian society. Through force and coercion.
That aside, the civil rights act is poorly written and a huge encroachment on our rights. It stands in the way of equality because it tips the playing field unfairly and tries to legislate the hearts and minds of men and women. Terrible central planning morass.


But here's the thing, you're aiming for a utopian society too, and though you won't admit it, you're proposing to use force and coercion to get there.

The difference is, I care about the actual outcomes for people in our society. For you, the only thing that matters is that force is always used to uphold your vision of morality. Property owners get absolute authority, and people who challenge that authority should get violently coerced to stop. If it turns out that setting things up that way makes life qualitatively worse for wide swaths of people, you say so be it. You have to break a few eggs to make a liberty omelet.

I say that the goal here is to maximize human happiness. If you could convince me that something I believe in (like the Civil Rights Act) has created more suffering than it alleviates, I'd change my mind.

I think you've got a pretty hard case to make on the Civil Rights Act though. You'd literally have a better chance of convincing me that making an omelet is wrong; to make an omelet you have to kill the unborn children of a living creature! By the same token, you've got a pretty easy case when it comes to the things that made people like Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, Pol Pot, etc. infamous.

>> ^NetRunner:

Hitler isn't infamous because he built the Autobahn. Making an omelet generally doesn't involve crimes against humanity. Nor does building roads.

You're wrong. His omelet was the greater good of Germany. He broke a number of eggs that involved crimes against humanity, segregation and imperialism.

He was building the utopian society. Through force and coercion.

That aside, the civil rights act is poorly written and a huge encroachment on our rights. It stands in the way of equality because it tips the playing field unfairly and tries to legislate the hearts and minds of men and women. Terrible central planning morass.

This had potential to be so much better than it was. I don't smoke weed, but I disagree with prohibition due to it's astronomical costs and the prevention of taxation (Not that it would generate a whole lot anyway, with the ability to grow it at home).

This video, however, implies that the only alternative to weed is alcohol, and that everyone who drinks does so only because they can't get high. Also, it says that legalization makes for a Utopian society, whereas prohibition is equal to death, destruction, and the downfall of society. Downvote for taking it too far.

I think you hit a lot of nails on their heads. I'm thinking follow the money and power. That's the endpoint that can't be hidden easily...because the purpose of power is influence. Where and how is that coming from. Who's benefiting. In the US I'm sure you'll see that easily. Just look at who's gotten money and what policies have been pushed and who benefits from them. For Obama for the most part it's investment banks and insurance companys so far(so far). Actually the same constituency as Bush but by other means and words.
The major foreign policy push under Bush 2 was supposed to be an adrenalin like shot to your countries dominance in the world but it didn't work easily. But empires can't change their trajectory on a dime. Countries investments are set and wars are in play. So Obama, carries out the same basic policies under a new PR campaign, with well worded adjustments but in the same trajectory. >> ^enoch:

i had some people ask me about "seeing the farm" concerning this video.
while i will not attribute a draconian "they" to these ephemeral owners nor will i ascribe a universal intent to dominate but i also will not close my eyes to the indoctrination and subversion of my fellow citizens.
i really feel this is a worthy conversation and one where a better vehicle than comments should be used but that is all i have at the moment.that being said i shall attempt..feebly most likely..to convey how i see things in the most simplest of terms:
financiers,corporations and governments are in the business of expansion.over the centuries these names were different but with the same goal.over the past two hundred years these systems have increasingly grown....cozy.
how and what tools do these institutions employ to gain their objective?
people,workers and their ability to produce and in the past 50 years here in america..consume.
how do they get these people to throw themselves into huge debt?
or think that working three jobs is normal?
how do they get a country to stop producing its own food and import?
how do they get an entire country to agree that mass slaughter is in the best interest of the nation?
an over-simplified answer:
control the media and control the message.
control the education and indoctrinate children to not only hear that message but find it reasonable as they join the workforce.
keep the citizenry barely cognizent of current events and distract them with cheap and tawdry entertainment.
over the past 4000 years wars were fought over religion but in the last 100 they have mainly been fought over nationalism but BOTH forms had the same goal in mind....expansion and the aquisition of resources.
the vehicle may have changed but the goal was the same.
and WHO do YOU think fight these wars?not those who wish to prosper from the spoils but rather the most poor and ill-educated from that society.
does this mean there is some secret cabal of bildebergers planning the future of their utopian society?
i dont know..but i dont think so.things are just as they were centuries ago..those few who wield power wield it for their own interests..not yours.
they throw scraps and larder in the general publics direction to keep things relatively stable and keep production going.
they need you to buy the product.
they need you to find it good.
they need you to go fight and die in their war campaigns so they can aquire more resources.
they need you to not think too hard or look too closely.
because if you did think and look closely you may find that there is a hand in your back pocket and it has been stealing not only your future but your childrens.
that you are free is only an illusion.
and if you realized that..well.."they" would become very anxious.
because "they" need you.
WHO are "they"?
goldman sachs,the fed,walmart,the federal government...the list is not too long and all the players know each other but are they all in cahoots?
meh../shrugs..maybe i am being naive but i dont think so.i think they all have the same agenda which is the accumulation of wealth and power.
it is a small club..
and you and i ain't in it.

i had some people ask me about "seeing the farm" concerning this video.
while i will not attribute a draconian "they" to these ephemeral owners nor will i ascribe a universal intent to dominate but i also will not close my eyes to the indoctrination and subversion of my fellow citizens.

i really feel this is a worthy conversation and one where a better vehicle than comments should be used but that is all i have at the moment.that being said i shall attempt..feebly most likely..to convey how i see things in the most simplest of terms:

financiers,corporations and governments are in the business of expansion.over the centuries these names were different but with the same goal.over the past two hundred years these systems have increasingly grown....cozy.
how and what tools do these institutions employ to gain their objective?
people,workers and their ability to produce and in the past 50 years here in america..consume.
how do they get these people to throw themselves into huge debt?
or think that working three jobs is normal?
how do they get a country to stop producing its own food and import?
how do they get an entire country to agree that mass slaughter is in the best interest of the nation?

an over-simplified answer:
control the media and control the message.
control the education and indoctrinate children to not only hear that message but find it reasonable as they join the workforce.
keep the citizenry barely cognizent of current events and distract them with cheap and tawdry entertainment.

over the past 4000 years wars were fought over religion but in the last 100 they have mainly been fought over nationalism but BOTH forms had the same goal in mind....expansion and the aquisition of resources.
the vehicle may have changed but the goal was the same.
and WHO do YOU think fight these wars?not those who wish to prosper from the spoils but rather the most poor and ill-educated from that society.

does this mean there is some secret cabal of bildebergers planning the future of their utopian society?
i dont know..but i dont think so.things are just as they were centuries ago..those few who wield power wield it for their own interests..not yours.
they throw scraps and larder in the general publics direction to keep things relatively stable and keep production going.
they need you to buy the product.
they need you to find it good.
they need you to go fight and die in their war campaigns so they can aquire more resources.
they need you to not think too hard or look too closely.
because if you did think and look closely you may find that there is a hand in your back pocket and it has been stealing not only your future but your childrens.
that you are free is only an illusion.
and if you realized that..well.."they" would become very anxious.
because "they" need you.

WHO are "they"?
goldman sachs,the fed,walmart,the federal government...the list is not too long and all the players know each other but are they all in cahoots?
meh../shrugs..maybe i am being naive but i dont think so.i think they all have the same agenda which is the accumulation of wealth and power.
it is a small club..
and you and i ain't in it.

If not guns, they would use knives, if not knives they would use sticks. History tells us we've been killing each other since beginning of recorded history.

Lets not pretend that getting rid of guns will somehow create a utopian society where killing stops. It's wrong and mis-leading argument. You're just scapegoating the gun as ills of human society.

In a society such as Somalia, Afghanistan and many other 3rd world countries, guns aren't the problems. It's the people.

So the argument "It's not the gun that kill people, its people who kill people." is correct.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^blankfist:
I would not want to live in that city.

i would. perfectly engineered and controlled Utopian society. couldn't ask for anything better.


yeah, me neither BF