I think it will be a combination of all of the above (But mostly the loss of our freedoms)

i went with personal liberties. i tell ya, i think it already happened, though, it happened in the 2000 election. when a political party manipulates the courts to steal an election and angry throngs of right-wing supporters yell at the rest of the country to "get over it," you're pretty much already living in a happier, friendlier police state. the incredibly horrible and suspicious crap that went down AFTER this corrupt government seized power under suspicious circumstances, like 911, the anthrax attacks, and the phony war in iraq where nothing's real but the bodybags, all just put a bunch of exclamation points and double underscores on the fact that the government in america no longer has anything to do with her people's interests.

there are things to still treasure about america -- that i can still leave, for instance  :D, and that i can go on to the internet and download sept. 11 conspiracy theories to my heart's content, but phasing out freedom of speech and freedom to travel are gonna take a little longer. it's in the works, with the internet neutrality act and the national ID card/immigration flap (everybody seems to think that when they crack down on the borders it'll stop travel INTO the country only, but that's incredibly naive; it'll hamper people leaving the country as well, and already is if you're on a "terrorist watch list")... these freedoms are so intrinsic to the american ideals that it'll take years to phase them out. but the machinery's already in motion.

good thread. better start threads like this while we still can. ;)

I chose Corporate America since the biggest one is Wal-Mart.

In the 90's we had a strong economy with the internet. So many Internet Corporations sprung up at the time. (Remember Silicone Valley?) But when 2000 came, many Internet Corporations went bust (I think Enron was one.)

And because of the lead-paint scare in 2007, many people were afraid to buy stuff. It's okay to be environmentally friendly, but if you go extremely PC it's more dangerous as not being environmentally friendly.

The whole civil liberties thing has already been undone -- with the support of the American populace, we've already got a surveillance society that, 20-30 years ago, would have been the envy of Soviet Russia.

The police states of (1930s-40s Germany, 1920s-1990s USSR, 1960s-1990s Warsaw Pact, 1950s-1970s China) failed because they choked on their own paperwork.  Post-Tienanmen China, Putinist Russia, and Post-9/11 America have proven that a sufficiently automated surveillance state can maintain control over its population and simultaneously provide a decent standard of living for enough of its population that its government can remain in power, provided that it has a ready influx of capital.

China has a ready source of capital by means of the US consumer and Wal-Mart.  Russia has a ready source of capita by means of its oil sales to Europe. Post-9/11 America still has access to capital by means of taxing the US consumer and (to a lesser extent) by exporting the things we're still good at:  music, movies, microcode (software), and high-speed pizza delivery.

We're long past the point where the "government of the US as we (80s kids who grew up worrying about them nasty Commies) know it" has ceased to exist.  The question was what'll be the tipping point of the (US) government as it know it, not knew it, and that's a budgetary issue.  Whether Atlas shrugs and moves his capital to freer economies, or (vastly more likely) we simply turn into a more polite (but equally corrupt and violent) version of China remains to be seen. 

I consider myself lucky enough to have seen the high point of my culture.  We screwed it up, but we had a good run while it lasted.  Og the Caveman did it from Ook the Caveman.  The Greeks did it with the Egyptians and the Babylonians.  The Romans did it with the Greeks.  The Muslims did it with the Romans.  The Renaissance d00dz did it with the Muslims.  The Enlightenment picked up where the Renaissance folks left off.  We picked up the ball from the Enlightenment.  A few centuries from now, the survivors will pick up the pieces we leave behind, and try again. 

Forgive the cliche, but the meek will inherit the earth... and the rest of us will go to the stars.  Or we'll really screw the pooch and go extinct.  The universe doesn't care either way, and it's big enough that somebody (even if their skin is green and they're a hundred thousand light years from here, and the universe has to wait a few hundred million years) will pull it off. 

^i'm speechless. great post, foob, except for the ayn rand reference. ayn rand gives me hives. 8-P but other than that, very thoughtful and well-said. with people this smart running around, how'd we get in this pickle anyway?

I chose Corporate America since the biggest one is Wal-Mart.


You should see this documentary: Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. You can get it on Netflix.  For a long time I didn't understand why people targeted (NPI) Wal-Mart for boycotts. Now I get it! I am never setting foot in a Wal-Mart again.  I knew the company was evil, I just didn't know it was that evil!
http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/smiley_1.jpg
^The grin that murdered democracy,
The new face of fascism!




Forgive the cliche, but the meek will inherit the earth...

My siggie line used to say:  "The meek want to speak to a probate lawyer!"
I'm meek...well, no, I'm an azzhole...but if I was meek, I wouldn't want this joint handed down to me unless I could burn it for the insurance!
;D

I think it'll be a combination of thing.  Yes the economy will play a big role but I think what will happen will be the fear of an Authoritarian Government.  We had a taste of it with Bush.  Obviously it scares the heck out of both the "left, and the Right".  When Bush said he was "the sole decider" he was serious.  His willingness to go against the Constitution.  Go behind Congresses back in order to do things without any opposition . (reeks of Authoritarianism)  What happens when people distrust and fear their Government?  People start to demand change.  As we've seen votes don't count either.  It's been a while since Americans revolted against a tyrant Government.  Should be interesting.

I think it'll be a combination of thing.  Yes the economy will play a big role but I think what will happen will be the fear of an Authoritarian Government.  We had a taste of it with Bush.  Obviously it scares the heck out of both the "left, and the Right".  When Bush said he was "the sole decider" he was serious.  His willingness to go against the Constitution.  Go behind Congresses back in order to do things without any opposition . (reeks of Authoritarianism)  What happens when people distrust and fear their Government?  People start to demand change.  As we've seen votes don't count either.  It's been a while since Americans revolted against a tyrant Government.  Should be interesting.


That's why I mentioned the Second Amendment issue in that other thread.  The NRA guys cite the most important reason for gun rights is to protect us from a tyrannical government.  Talk is cheap!

That's why I mentioned the Second Amendment issue in that other thread.  The NRA guys cite the most important reason for gun rights is to protect us from a tyrannical government.  Talk is cheap!


Here's the thing.  Who are they going to aim the guns at?  The government is not just a few people it is a system.  Assassinating leaders doesn't do much good.  50,000 people marching on Washington has more effect. (The French have learned that well but have over used it.)

Here's the thing.  Who are they going to aim the guns at?  The government is not just a few people it is a system.  Assassinating leaders doesn't do much good.  50,000 people marching on Washington has more effect. (The French have learned that well but have over used it.)


That's why it's a lame-o argument.  Besides, the "right to bear arms" is already extremely limited.  You're not allowed to buy a tank or a fighter plane or a nuclear missile even if you can pay market price!
:D

That's why it's a lame-o argument.  Besides, the "right to bear arms" is already extremely limited.  You're not allowed to buy a tank or a fighter plane or a nuclear missile even if you can pay market price!
:D


Damn it where's my musket?  Them Airborne Rangers are in our back yard.  Yep, it's lame. :)

Here's the thing.  Who are they going to aim the guns at?  The government is not just a few people it is a system.  Assassinating leaders doesn't do much good.  50,000 people marching on Washington has more effect. (The French have learned that well but have over used it.)
well, to play devil's advocate, right now we're watching islamic militants fight the vaunted us military to a standstill using ak47s, improvised explosives, RPGs, in some cases a willingness to take heavy losses and in some other cases a willingness to commit abysmal atrocities. the effectiveness of the technological warfare thing is a bit overblown. it's more of a moneymaker i think, the whole high-tech war thing, than an actual effective way to wage warfare. what actually happens when they start a war is, they create a tasty visual spectacle out of it, then meanwhile behind the scenes they destabilize the nation enough that no large-scale organized resistance can form that would mess up their media game. because really the challenge is not to win the war -- they don't go to war with countries they might lose to, they go to war with countries that have been choked by sanctions for 12 years. their real fear is that the public will turn on them the way we did in vietnam.

short version is, an armed population might actually be a good bulwark against a tyrannical US government, and i think recent events have shown the possibility of such a government isn't a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. i don't mean that as an endorsement, i dont own guns and have no interest in getting any, but i do want a government that fears the people rather than the other way around and the idea of an armed population seems like it scares the government so...

A combination of continual warmongering, deficit spending, and further restrictions on freedoms...

In other words...  we're in the right direction for it....

^i'm speechless. great post, foob, except for the ayn rand reference. ayn rand gives me hives. 8-P but other than that, very thoughtful and well-said. with people this smart running around, how'd we get in this pickle anyway?


Oh, that was easy.  Most of the smart folks, myself included, sold ourselves out to the bad guys years ago.  Why change the world; it's been pretty good to me.  I've got a big screen in front of my face, a fridge full of leftover pulled pork, a tasty beer in my hand, and I just finished watching "Ow!  My Balls!" on the Violence Channel.  Not bad. 

(Somewhere in Ethiopia there's a guy saying "Hey, I don't have to work 8 hours a day like those crazy Peace Corps guys do.  I just spend a few hours hanging out with my friends getting grain, my wife spends a couple of hours with her friends grinding it into flour, and after that, we all get together to sing songs around the campfire, tell stories, share our extra food with our friends who are running short, or get food from our friends when we don't have any, and most of the time we've all got enough flour to keep everyone fed for the next couple of days.  Not bad.")

Rand's long-term vision falls on two points:  First, that dizzying spiral of technological awesomeness isn't sustainable in the long run without fresh cheap resources. Ultimately, you gotta deal with thermodynamics and physics. There's only so much useful energy you can extract from a planet-bound economy, even if you coat every square inch of the planet's surface with 100% efficent solar cells.  No space migration, no offworld colonies, eventually the species hits a resource wall. 

Second, and perhaps more importantly: That same dizzying spiral of technological awesomeness that makes it possible for your cell phone to have more computing power than the computers that landed man on the moon, designed the first nuclear bombs, and designed the SR-71 blackbird... when applied to things like biolochemistry and materials science, eventually lead to it being possible for any lone whackjob to create some Very Bad Things.  For that, you'll have to read Vernor Vinge.  One way or another, that dizzying spiral of technological awesomeness will drag the species to the Singularity.  Problem with the Singularity is that it's impossible to predict whether it's a utopia where everyone who wants to can have immortality at the flip of a switch, or something worse than The Terminator and The Andromeda Strain combined; there probably aren't any in-betweens.

China has an interesting model.  Rand never foresaw that you really could have a centralized authoritarian government and economic productivity.  You just needed enough technology to automate oppression to the point that it didn't bring the entire government down under the weight of its own paperwork (in this regard, the East Germans failed harder than the former USSR from whom they drew their inspiration).  Orwell was onto something with 1984 -- you don't have to give people that dizzying spiral of technological awesomeness that gets unleashed by free markets and capitalism... you just have to give them enough victory gin and prolefeed to survive and feel OK about it.  And since you're thinking long-term (centuries, not decades) and your goal is stability (not growth), you avoid the problems that come with the prosperity cycle.  Keep 'em asleep, keep 'em distracted, keep 'em working, and above all, keep 'em too busy to take over.  The object of power is power.  Just because he wrote it as a warning doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid functional specification.

well, to play devil's advocate, right now we're watching islamic militants fight the vaunted us military to a standstill using ak47s, improvised explosives, RPGs, in some cases a willingness to take heavy losses and in some other cases a willingness to commit abysmal atrocities. the effectiveness of the technological warfare thing is a bit overblown. it's more of a moneymaker i think, the whole high-tech war thing, than an actual effective way to wage warfare. what actually happens when they start a war is, they create a tasty visual spectacle out of it, then meanwhile behind the scenes they destabilize the nation enough that no large-scale organized resistance can form that would mess up their media game. because really the challenge is not to win the war -- they don't go to war with countries they might lose to, they go to war with countries that have been choked by sanctions for 12 years. their real fear is that the public will turn on them the way we did in vietnam.

short version is, an armed population might actually be a good bulwark against a tyrannical US government, and i think recent events have shown the possibility of such a government isn't a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. i don't mean that as an endorsement, i dont own guns and have no interest in getting any, but i do want a government that fears the people rather than the other way around and the idea of an armed population seems like it scares the government so...


The key word is Islamic.  In Middle Eastern countries like Iraq picking up a gun isn't something unusual.  Different society than the U.S.  Our stomachs are too weak for it.  Well except for a few NRA guys and Chuck Norris.

The key word is Islamic.  In Middle Eastern countries like Iraq picking up a gun isn't something unusual.  Different society than the U.S.  Our stomachs are too weak for it.  Well except for a few NRA guys and Chuck Norris.
i hear that some places like iraq you can get an ak47 for dirt cheap. in palestine they're more expensive. but around here affordability is an issue, obviously the laws are as well. not much chance of getting an RPG if you live in north carolina. ;D but the ied thing seems to work, if the s**t ever went down here in the US i think a lot of people in the montana secessionist crowd and so forth would be focusing on things like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM


I heard about that.  This terrorism thing has turn into some really drastic paranoia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM


  Sweet, a bill that we can use to send Bush and Cheney to prison...

  Seriously,  I don't like laws which leave so much interpretation to the discretion of prosecutors.  Vague language, etc.  Prosecutors have already used "terror" in a drug case involving an effort to scare off a witness.  Same sort of deal as what's happened to RICO, or to the Fourth Amendment in this War on Drugs...

  It's simple: No, I don't trust government to act in my best interest...
 
  Where do Sens. Clinton and Obama stand on this?  Or McCain?  (Given McCain/Feingold, I doubt that McCain is concerned about First Amendment issues...)








 

  Where do Sens. Clinton and Obama stand on this?  Or McCain? 


Let me put it delicately:  no matter who we vote for, the government wins.

Let me put it delicately:  no matter who we vote for, the government wins.


Clinton could care less, when push comes to shove Obama would go with the majority (mostly conservatives and moderates)  McCain would just love the ideal of thought censorship.  Kinda makes me wish Ron Paul had more say in things.

Let me put it delicately:  no matter who we vote for, the government wins.


  Not very reassuring because, not so delicately, ain't nothing gonna change.  This I know.  The voices told me...

  The decline of the US?  Maybe a lack of creativity.  We’re running really low on creativity today.  Our corporate scandals are the direct result of the fact that the only creativity our corporations exhibit any more is in their accounting (I stole that line from somebody.)  Our government now consumes a full 40 percent of our GDP and hasn’t accomplished anything noteworthy (at least not anything positive and noteworthy) in years, has it..?

  What’s the reason?  Has the government’s school system turned our children’s brains to mush..?

You should see this documentary: Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. You can get it on Netflix.  For a long time I didn't understand why people targeted (NPI) Wal-Mart for boycotts. Now I get it! I am never setting foot in a Wal-Mart again.  I knew the company was evil, I just didn't know it was that evil!
http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/smiley_1.jpg
^The grin that murdered democracy,
The new face of fascism!


Did you happen to watch any of the extras, Maxwell? There were some clips from Wal-Mart's international activities, and there is one that deals with the closing of a Wal-Mart here in the city where I live. They closed the Wal-Mart because the workers voted to unionise.

But truth be told, as heartless of a corporation as Wal-Mart is, it isn't all bad. There are a few advantages to it as well. It does provide jobs (not the world's greatest ones, but jobs nonetheless) to people without higher education or high school diplomas. It also gives people who don't make a lot of money the chance to save money on essentials like clothing and groceries (albeit at the price of the US' trade deficit).

But here in Canada, Wal-Mart is not such a bad job because workers are already covered for health care by their provincial health plans, and the minimum wage is over $8 in every province . Not to mention, most provinces have Sunday shopping laws which limit the hours a store can be open on a Sunday (usually 12 - 5 p.m.). But even though Canada (as an exporting country) runs no trade deficit, I still don't think it's an ideal place for the conscientious Canadian to shop. First off, most of tthe profits flow right south of the border to Arkansas. Secondly, they will use those profits to f*ck things up in the States in the long run, which is not good for Canada or the rest of the world because so much depends on the US economy's health.