I view Assange and Wikileaks as probably somewhat utopian in their desires.

They want politics without any bullshit involved. Yes, it's an EXTREMELY high goal to aim for, but is it wrong? No absolutely not.
What is wrong is assuming that governments have ANY right to keep secrets from the people who elected them, sometimes with the stupid shitty excuse that people wouldn't want to know what needs to be done.

Oh... and about the possible Corporate leak on the way. Is it wrong because they are privately owned? Only if the information leaked could be used for industrial espionage. If it's a leak concerning the way corporations act(ed) then fuck them all. Corporations should be the first ones to be called on their bullshit.

But hey... why would one bunch of bullshiters stop another bunch of bullshiters? Only if it serves their mutual interest.

Your arrogance and presumption don't make me retch (I'm not given to hysterical hyperbole on the internet), but it says nothing good about you as a person...

You give the whole game away when you use the term 'prostituting'. Oh, you can respect her okay just as long as everyone knows that she's a whore... Very tolerant of you. /eyeroll

And your utopian world view? Well I don't know if you've heard about the whole women's suffrage movement, or the sexual revolution, but your archaic ideas of morality (and your hauty superiority) are remnants of a bygone era. I wonder how you deal with nudity in art, such as http://www.artenuda.com/paintings1.php.

You're not a creature of principle, you're a creature of prejudice. You're just too self righteous to admit it.

ps. Anytime you'd like to submit your 'body' of work for critical appraisal, we can make determinations on whether we think you're job has any dignity... Wonder if any commercial jingles will appear... X D

>> ^Gallowflak:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MarineGunrock" title="member since July 13th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">MarineGunrock
The idea that you think dignity is a false concept makes me retch.
If a woman is comfortable exposing her body to untold masses for the sake of giving them boners and getting money in return, then I wish her all the best. I didn't say she wasn't worthy of respect, I said that prostituting oneself requires a greater resignation of one's dignity than a more typical job. You are agreeing to your body being used for the sexual satisfaction of others, so that you can get currency.
My original comment stands. A society in which women cannot be consumed as products, and men are not willing to do so, would be just that little bit closer to utopia. Humankind's approach and reaction to sexuality is enormously dysfunctional.
I'm a creature of principle. I believe that there are human traits, values, virtues and ideals that are worthy of exaltation, in spite of the lack of any objective authority. Our unique position as intelligent agents is one of great dignity and responsibility, and we must require the most exacting standards of ourselves. I think that having a market for human beings as products for arousal is disgusting and must be done away with, as well as people as products in general.

@NetRunner: Baby steps? possibly. But a working voluntary model? Absolutely not. Here's my response which extends to each and every one of you who think this guy's house burning down is a blight on voluntary taxes; quoted here:
>> ^blankfist:

When a victim's family sues their police department for not protecting them, and when the supreme court rules (as it does in EVERY SINGLE CASE) the government has no obligation to protect the people, not a single one of you pious government cultists say shit. You may grumble when the police do something horrible like murder someone or beat up protesters but you chock it up to breaking a few eggs in favor of your big government utopian omelet.
However, let one half-cocked instance of voluntarism creep into the system and it's shouted from the mountaintops when one person falls through the cracks in an isolated case. Bravo! Crusaders of Social Justice!

When a victim's family sues their police department for not protecting them, and when the supreme court rules (as it does in EVERY SINGLE CASE) the government has no obligation to protect the people, not a single one of you pious government cultists say shit. You may grumble when the police do something horrible like murder someone or beat up protesters but you chock it up to breaking a few eggs in favor of your big government utopian omelet.

However, let one half-cocked instance of voluntarism creep into the system and it's shouted from the mountaintops when one person falls through the cracks in an isolated case. Bravo! Crusaders of Social Justice!

The problem I see here is that the video author is assuming that all the problems created are actually philosophical in nature. The big problem is the human mind and our nature.

We have been selected to first, fight or flight at any unknown variable. Second, evolution plays its core tenet: survival of the fittest (which has a part to play in all these examples). Third, you have resources--which in turn go back to number two. Lastly, reproduction comes into play.

Sillma and Crosswords touched on this. We have to figure out a solution to force a change in our predisposed evolution. Whether that be a biological or technological (or both) solution. What would any such society do about sociopaths? They, by definition, will not understand "being good".

I hope we can get to a semi-Utopian like society, but it will be a mammoth undertaking. The changes he talked about are far easier in comparison (physics and astronomy--oh, and since when was quantum mechanics not messy ). The Utopian change will require an upheaval at every facet of society: government, trade, religion, decisions, structural, biological, technological, industrial, etc...

/I'd like to live in a nice paradise, but this approach would require too much from the one source that made it in the first place.

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 don't disagree about anything you just said. But, you did admit that unless we find a way to control the natural instinct for fear and the outright control everyone has over another at sometime during there lives, the cycle will continue. Technology will only make it worse.

BTW, when I speak of "merging with A.I.", with aspects of bio-engineering (breeding "bad" genes
can get out of control, as can the A.I., but this is true for all of advanced science...), is most likely the best choice to solve the worst of issues. At higher I.Q. ratios you begin to see people realizing that it takes humanity as a whole to accomplish great things. But, none of us want to lose our individuality. The A.I. I speak of would be individual A.I.s. Not controlled by a hive. When they merge it's you and them; then if you want you can merge with more to become a larger individual (i.e.- your wife, etc...).

As technology gets more advanced it becomes more likely that a small group or perhaps one person, one day, in the not-so-far-off future could make this decision without either of our consent.

The tech singularity that I linked to above is what I mention and has been bouncing around in sci-fi and science for a good one hundred years. I'm hoping it's possible to get rid of the issues that can create victims, but nothing else. Having arguments are healthy and it allows us to better ourselves. Getting rid of all the arguments would be a fatal flaw and basically nullify evolution.

/Just in case you understood wrong, I at no time meant life to become the "Borg" or for us to resolve to using Eugenics in the classical sense. Hope this gets across better as I think we're mostly on the same side.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^kceaton1:
Sorry, that's not what I meant it to sound like. I meant that the "no war" dichotomy would fail in the modern world as humanity has failed on every level to ever follow a specific ideology. What they said may be very correct and it is something we should teach and spread, that will cause what I said above "a lull".
I suppose your point then is that the hippies don't have foolproof ways of creating their desired utopia for humanity? Who does?
>> ^kceaton1:
But, as a species until you can "breed" out arguments that spill out of the brain we will always have the same issues, though they may be mitigated. What they did was not in vain, it's still being fought for and argued for.
I don't really think trying to engineer people to fit into some utopian ideal is much of a solution to anything. That sounds like a really, really scary dystopia to me.
Letting people have the ability to engineer themselves, on the other hand, sounds like it might enable us to fix some long-term societal problems by letting us have more conscious control over who we are. Or it might just make us even more factionalized and give us an even better excuse to dehumanize those we disagree with...


Sorry, ye ol' trollin conservative guys you're on ignored for comments in the past that were most likely very childish and distasteful. Just like this sentence probably is to you. So put me on ignore.

Also, the hippies certainly never had any idea of how to fix the issues in this world. Neither do I, neither does anyone posting. If crucifying my statement helps you, have at it. I only tried to post one idea out of many that "could" happen. Is it going to work? Ask the people after they try it.

/The song is right, but it, like our posts are 20/20 hindsight.

>> ^kceaton1:

Sorry, that's not what I meant it to sound like. I meant that the "no war" dichotomy would fail in the modern world as humanity has failed on every level to ever follow a specific ideology. What they said may be very correct and it is something we should teach and spread, that will cause what I said above "a lull".

I suppose your point then is that the hippies don't have foolproof ways of creating their desired utopia for humanity? Who does?

>> ^kceaton1:
But, as a species until you can "breed" out arguments that spill out of the brain we will always have the same issues, though they may be mitigated. What they did was not in vain, it's still being fought for and argued for.

I don't really think trying to engineer people to fit into some utopian ideal is much of a solution to anything. That sounds like a really, really scary dystopia to me.

Letting people have the ability to engineer themselves, on the other hand, sounds like it might enable us to fix some long-term societal problems by letting us have more conscious control over who we are. Or it might just make us even more factionalized and give us an even better excuse to dehumanize those we disagree with...

I tend to figure that Capitalism works on a presumption of universal greed / motivation to obtain assets (liquid assets, property, etc.). It has some failings, particularly when it fails to account for other human motivations, but the reality is that it works quite well (witness its history, including the low points) even though or perhaps because it is focused on that single premise.

Marxism tempered into communism or held in a more "utopian" unaltered state seems to me to suggest that it would work on a presumption of a benevolent, fair guiding entity/group/motivator that keeps society moving forward to universal benefit. Its failing, by my estimation, is that it doesn't account for the corruption that such power will inevitably create when left in the hands of one or few.

Capitalism takes a dark, selfish element of human nature (but one that is definitely there) and attempts to turn it in a positive direction. Marxism seems to postulate on how great things would be if we didn't have those selfish elements in our nature, at the expense of acknowledging real human nature.

Then again, I'm by no means an expert or even particularly well informed -- perhaps I am merely falling prey to the American culture of pro-Capitalist propaganda. In any case, I thought the video was very interesting and informative, but not in a way that persuaded me to doubt Capitalism as our correct path moving forward -- particularly not enough to replace it with any variant of Marxism.

@blankfist, I take from your lack of response that you have no answer.

These shouldn't be hard questions if what you have is what you say it is -- a solution to all the problems of military hegemony and individual rights.

They're very hard if what you actually have is what DFT and I say you have -- an unworkable utopian ideal that doesn't solve problems, just describes a world where problems magically cease to exist.

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.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think that's a key point. When the US has eschewed "socialist" welfare state programs as it has generally done over the last 30 years - in favour of free enterprise and privatisation - the result has been to concentrate wealth at the top of the spectrum with the country club set. I don't see any free enterprise solution to this.

Victorian England had a lot of concentrated wealth at the top, and a huge pool of poor workers and very little regulation. That led to work houses and rampant pollution. It also (thankfully) led to a strong labour uprising that redistributed that wealth with a progressive tax system, creating a large middle-class. Bad for the rich? Absolutely. Vastly better for the whole country? Definitely, yes.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, you offered the following as your utopian idea for new government:
1. regulated market.
2. welfare state
That's exactly what we have now. Exactly. Government regulates every single industry. Every one. We have a massive welfare state. Our economy is also going to shit and entrepreneurs cannot stay afloat with all the regulations in order to create more jobs. It's a recipe for failure.
Why not give free market Capitalism a chance? Your regulated markets and welfare state spending simply is not sustainable.

I'm starting to get curious, do you ever read my comments all the way to the end?
Maybe I need to be less whimsical. My point was that today's flawed reality is a utopia compared to your utopian proposals.
As for "why not give free market capitalism a chance", I may as well say "why not give Marxist Communism a chance"? I mean, obviously real communism has never been tried -- just ask the modern communists.
There's been no radical boost to growth during America's 30-year march to the right, and shrinking the welfare state and dismantling unions hasn't boosted the median income, so why would we ever keep marching on until we get to the ultimate extreme?
The modern progressive movement isn't on a march towards communism, it's trying to optimize society through an iterative scientific process. We look at things that have failed, or things that have worked elsewhere, and try to learn from them, and build a better mousetrap.
I don't really know what the end-state of modern liberalism looks like. I think it will always be looking to change and evolve over time as new problems and new solutions present themselves.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, you offered the following as your utopian idea for new government:
1. regulated market.
2. welfare state
That's exactly what we have now. Exactly. Government regulates every single industry. Every one. We have a massive welfare state. Our economy is also going to shit and entrepreneurs cannot stay afloat with all the regulations in order to create more jobs. It's a recipe for failure.
Why not give free market Capitalism a chance? Your regulated markets and welfare state spending simply is not sustainable.


I'm starting to get curious, do you ever read my comments all the way to the end?

Maybe I need to be less whimsical. My point was that today's flawed reality is a utopia compared to your utopian proposals.

As for "why not give free market capitalism a chance", I may as well say "why not give Marxist Communism a chance"? I mean, obviously real communism has never been tried -- just ask the modern communists.

There's been no radical boost to growth during America's 30-year march to the right, and shrinking the welfare state and dismantling unions hasn't boosted the median income, so why would we ever keep marching on until we get to the ultimate extreme?

The modern progressive movement isn't on a march towards communism, it's trying to optimize society through an iterative scientific process. We look at things that have failed, or things that have worked elsewhere, and try to learn from them, and build a better mousetrap.

I don't really know what the end-state of modern liberalism looks like. I think it will always be looking to change and evolve over time as new problems and new solutions present themselves.