Part Tres: the Beginning – Where to lay the Foundation

The vast majority of the People are stuck in denial or the complexity of the reality of the situation and its inevitable consequences are simply too large for them to comprehend.

The mindset of the American mass mind is, in one word:

Clueless.

If there is any doubt at the futility of expecting that the American public will somehow “wake up” before driving off of the precipice, the arguments made in Reflections should have put that expectation to rest permanently.

Harsh? Not considering the stakes.

But where others maybe clueless creates opportunity for the observant.

I am unaware of any fiscal year since 1790 where  Federal employment and Federal spending took place, (other than after a major war when the soldiers were de-commissioned and taxes were cut)- if we are talking about civilian employment by the Federal government – which includes those receiving any form of welfare and entitlements – I am unaware of any permanent reduction, ever.

Yes, “they” still dream.

There should come a time when the victims of a myth should figure out that they are the victims of a rich and powerful ruling class, which then hires teachers and selects the textbooks, picks the “candidates” and the “issues” for the voters to keep the voters docile.

But this dawning of enlightenment has yet to come to many.

I can’t change people. I can only encourage the ones who understand the inescapable problem of Public choice doctrine and the Iron Law of Politics to not be frivolous with their thinking and their time.

Frivolous with the former (the thinking) wastes the latter (time), and there is a finite supply of the latter (time).

We need not spend anymore words on why efforts in Washington must be abandoned. Now the efforts have to lead to the creating the necessary foundations on which to rebuild.

For the few that have kept on, we must wave goodbye to those do not follow.

To focus on the situation:

Federal government will go bankrupt.

The State governments are in far worse shape then the Federal government.

The Municipalities are in far worse shape then the State governments.

Problem scenario (1) – Hyperinflation;

The reason the State and Muni political entities are in worse trouble is that they cannot print digital money. The ability of the Federal government to do such a thing is a clear and dangerous threat – they by their action can destroy the money and thus the entire economic system of the Western world.

I do not believe the Federal government will allow money to die as the consequences are utterly devastating. However, it still exists as a possibility.

Problem scenario (2)  – Decentralization to the States

To avoid hyperinflation, the Federal government will default.

Before it itself defaults completely, it will withdraw financial support for the States and Muni’s – indeed, it will exasperate them by transferring responsibility for a significant part of the Federally assumed entitlements and tasks and put them right onto the backs of the States, who are in no shape to carry them. There will be no bailouts down stream.

Importantly, it is likely to assume that with the transfer of responsibilities will also transfer a significant suite of Federal powers as well, such as perhaps tax powers such as excise and duties or even to coin money. The likely list of power transfers would need to be thought out.

Also, consideration that this transfer of responsibility and power may not be necessarily voluntary by the Federal government – they may actively work to retain the power while divesting the responsibility which will creating vacuums, gaps, confusion and struggles – whirlwinds and tornadoes that will confuse and confound. Strategies need to be worked here.

Problem Scenario (3) – Decentralization to the Muni/County

The decentralization is unlikely to stop at the State level as it is in no better (and probably worse) shape then the Federal government. The States may simply pass the buck and declare many of the responsibilities carried by the State and the Federal government be assigned to local communities.

With such things as Social Security and Health Care. it is quite conceivable that the Feds and the States simply announce that Social Service care is best handled locally and hence forth, no longer a Federal/State responsibility.

Quickly -almost over night- the Muni/County governments would be saddled with providing basic Social services abandoned by the Feds and the States.

The elderly, the homeless and unemployed  in your town would no longer be the Fed’s/State’s problem -it would by your problem.

But importantly, again, a transfer of responsibility will also transfer significant government power that would have been exclusive to the Federal government or the State government. Conceivably, a tremendous amount of legislative and executive government power could appear in the hands of a mayor.

This raises significant questions, such as how  and in what form would these powers manifest in a much more localized structure.  Also as with the Federal decentralization, there may be actual resistance in this transfer of this power by the State.

However, you can most certainly see where I am leading here.

I believe the exercise of power the was once the exclusive and traditional domain of the Federal and/or State government will suffer the downhill slide of economic bankruptcy and force the distribution of these domains upon local administration.

Think: de facto (but not de jure) City States.
(De facto – in fact but not in law; De jure – in law but not necessarily in fact)

The entity called “the United States” is unlikely to disappear. However, its overt federal governance is most likely to disappear. It would probably retain de jure powers, but unlikely capable of exercising most of them.

It is likely -to me- that the USA will evolve into a loose  Confederation of de facto Independent Governing Entities within the de jure structure of the United States- yep, a bit  like Russia.

I point to Russia because it is a real, historical example of such decentralization (to a point – there are other core differences between the two countries that would create dis-similar circumstances and divergences).

But back to point, the decentralization has no brakes – there is nothing particular at the State political level (other than a political philosophy) that would gel and coalesce a political entity. The State is as feeble as the Feds.

Thus, the political power decentralization will move to the next lowest point of the political action – local politics.

Though the Muni’s are financially bankrupt, the condition of such bankruptcy are different.

First the amount of funding is orders of magnitude smaller – millions and the occasional billion – not hundreds of billions and trillions. Financing would mostly come from the local constituency themselves and not some international money bag-men – creating direct and local responsibility to the lenders. Though government has no ability to measure profit and loss, the local lenders do. The lenders would keep a lean government wallet. Since the funders are local, they are capable of making some economic measure of local government. Though defaulted on past bonds, the Muni/City might be able to raise funding locally – much like your brother-in-law who defaults on loans to the bank, you might front him a few bucks to get him by because you know him better than the bank does ….

This – at the mundane, basic level of Muni\County politics – is where the Remnant must act.

No one is seriously looking here. It is a greenfield of political action.

There is no political party organization of significance sitting in the way. The barriers to entry are very low.

It is unglamorous. It does not get air time or much press. This is good.

The elite are not interested in unglamorous activities. They like reading about themselves. They believe being a County School Board Trustee is … boring and mundane. This is a huge advantage. They do not participate at this level.

Establishing credibility at the local level is key. The “School Trustee or Dog Catcher” strategy is powerful – for example, the Colonel either by design or by chance has already begun this strategy in his area. With coherent strategy and planning and time, he could easily place himself in position ready to accept the decentralized powers transferred along with the political responsibilities abandoned by the Feds/State.

Sun Tzu:

Defend what cannot be attacked.
Attack what cannot be defended.

Any consciously organized, disciplined group acting in alliance across the nation – whose focus is the grassroots, greenfield political arena of local Muni/County politics – would redefine the American political landscape. To actively begin occupying this level of government NOW coherently across the entire country, one enclave, city or county at a time while the political elite’s eyes are unfocused and competition does not exist – is key.

About these ads

Comments

  1. Unfortunately, BF, out of this entire article only that last paragraph made any sense at all to me.

    This is being and has been done for quite a few years here in AZ. The county in which I live in the last few years has ousted most of the long time incumbents and have elected grassroots conservative (aka tea party) candidates. With the exception of the “City State of Phoenix” level headed thinkers have moved into the political arena in most of the municipalities. Although we are still getting heavy resistance from the progressive Obamatrons, we are making a lot of headway.

    • Papa,

      Short version:
      Fed-level government powers will be decentralized to local government.

      Take local government posts in advance of this, while the fight for such positions is light.

      • Here is another thought;

        The federal government operates only on its ability to tax the populace. I know that the following is nothing but a pipe dream, but the fed could be rendered impotent overnight if everyone in this country decided to NOT pay taxes.

        Never gonna happen, but we can dream, can’t we?

        • Papadawg,

          A tax revolt has been -historically- an incitement for revolution.

          1776 comes to mind.

          It is possible that in its efforts to forestall collapse, the government overtly increases its taxes. As I pointed out, the highest rate during WW2 was 95% – but the war effort was the excuse.

          Would the people accept the bailout of the banks as a satisfactory excuse for 95% tax rate?

          I do -eventually- see very high tax rates, but over time (major war an exception), but not “over night” as in 5 years- thus not enough to mitigate default.

          Further, even at a tax rate of 100%, it barely cover the budget … this year, in a year or two, not even.

          It has gone beyond recovery; hence my series of posts.

          • What was that saying? . . . if you owe the bank $100.00 and can’t pay it, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $100,000,000,000.00 and can’t pay it, then the bank has a problem. Maybe that is why the feds keep borrowing above and beyond our capacity to repay? What happens when Communist China wants to be paid back?

            Chaos.

            • Papadawg

              The saying is irrelevant in the case of nations.

              What will happen if China cannot redeem the T-Bills?

              Do you believe they will invade?

              Or, what else?

              • Sun Tzu;

                “Defend what cannot be attacked, attack what cannot be defended”

                If we repeal the Second Amendment, they will invade because we would not be able to defend ourselves. If we don’t, we cannot be attacked because potentially they would be facing a defensive force of over three hundred million well armed defenders.

                If they cannot invade – (and have you read about their military buildup and modernization efforts recently? Google it) – they will try and destroy us financially so that we will no longer be able to defend ouselves as a united country, which leads to Sun Tzu’s other military wise advice . . . Hit and run, take your enemy apart one small piece at a time . . . “Divide and conquer”. Once we are not a United States, but a gaggle of individual states, they can attack the individual states and destroy us that way.

                And THAT is why Lincoln risked so much to keep the Union together, and THAT is why we need to get it together and keep this great nation intact. Enough of this divisiveness, we need to stand up for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA as one nation united.

                Anything else is pure suicide.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Good work Flag!

    When lloking at this, once the responsibility level drops, say for example to counties, there should also be an effective plan to withhold taxes that are collected for the Feds and States and keep them where they are needed most, in the county.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      We already see what happens with the Department of Education (for example) where the Federal Government takes HUGE chunks of money, wastes an inordinate amount, and THEN ships the money BACK TO THE STATES to pay for “education”. There is no reason that money should not stay right at the local level to begin with, it would be far more efficient.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good Morning Peter,

        I agree, until we can remove the barrel of the gun from our heads, we are kinda stuck with it.

    • Gman,

      The purpose of this article is to present a location for political effort.

      Part Quad will address the foundational strategies that one will need to undertake to be successful at this political location.

      Your comment here will be a vital and important addition to Part Quad.

  3. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    If everything devolves to the local level (which could very well happen as outlined here), there are a lot of places that you are NOT going to want to be (Chicago for example). Anywhere that has had a long history of “Machine Politics” already has HUGE barriers to entry into local politics, and the policies of these cities are usually highly in favor of the supporters of the machine. Cities such as this are going to have to either severely reform (which will be met with a lot of resistance) or are going to have to come up with reasons why productive people want to be there, in spite of ridiculously high costs.

    Chicago has already experienced an exodus of talent, although a somewhat manageable one so far. Many of the productive people have moved to Du Page, Lake, Will, and even Kane counties in order to be close enough to Chicago to work there, but also in order to be outside of Cook County where the taxes and fees are exceptionally high. This trend would (in my estimation) accelerate wildly if power we decentralized all the way to the local/municipal level unless significant (and highly unlikely) changes were made in Cook County itself. Chicago would have to come up with a way to convince the “tax base” that there was some advantage to staying there as opposed to the neighboring counties. Either that, or they would have to propose merging all of the surrounding counties into a giant city-state of Chicago, and imposing the same tax rules across the entire region (something which I strongly suspect they would certainly try for).

    This is one of the reasons that I personally suggest owning physical assets such as silver and gold. If you live in Du Page County, and it suddenly looks like it is going to become part of the “Chicago city-state” and your costs are going to go through the roof, you may well want to have the resources available to be able to get the heck out of there and relocate to somewhere else. Far more people than you think are going to end up stuck in localities which will end up having tremendous costs just for staying there. They will barely be able to afford to stay, but will not be able to afford to leave. Don’t let yourself get caught in that situation.

    • PeterB- So if we live in an area with “machine politics” or the “good old boys network”, we would be better off moving to a smaller or less connected area? If we were to do that, why not just go the whole total isolation theory instead? Many of my nearby “smaller towns” are already isolated. Move there and attempt to reach the sensibilities of the local government as to how to prepare for the decentralization?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Well, in my Chicago example, the four counties I mentioned are far better off financially than Chicago (Cook County) is. As such, Chicago would most certainly try to annex them in BF’s scenario. This would not make Chicago much better off in the long run, but it would make the surrounding counties much WORSE off in both the short and the long run. The Chicago machine has not taken over these counties yet, so that may well be a good place for a “Chicagoland” person to focus.

    • Peter,

      Yes, not all cities will be able to be addressed. They are the size of some small countries on their own and suffer the same diseases as Fed or State politics due to their size.

      But they will crumble for the same reason.

      As you noted, going into the County maybe a more powerful move – to resist take over by the city and, ironically, provide less resistance to your political force.

    • I think the mega-cities will be hit harder. The larger the city, the worse it’s situation will be, at least for a while. I would bet on a 40% population loss fleeing, looking for something to do that lets them survive as trade is reestablished.

  4. Damn Flag, a little negative. Couldn’t you have put some smiley faces in there somewhere? A lot to take in, back later.

  5. Mr. Flag,

    You make an interesting case here.

    I’m curious though how this plays out in your mind. Everything you have said is plausible, even if I do not see it as likely. That said, let’s imagine that what you’re predicting happens.

    The problem is that the federal government has a huge financial liability (debt). Even if they divest the drivers of the debt (SS, Medicare, etc) to the states/munis, it will still have to service the huge existent debt.

    However, in your scenario, it has given away almost all of it’s powers in tandem with almost all of it’s obligations. To that end, it seems to me unlikely that it would be able to force taxation to service (A) the debt or (B) nation defense* – which I see as unlikely to be distributed.

    *I use the term defense here, though we both know full well that defense is only a tiny part of the focus of the national military-industrial complex.

    I do not, however, see it as likely that, given the choice, politicians on the federal level would prefer to give up power and control rather than default. I see it as more likely that they would wield an old adage:

    “When you owe the bank a million dollars and cannot pay, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a billion dollars and cannot pay, the bank has a problem.”

    I see it as more likely that the US would, under these circumstances, force the world to give us a pass on much of our debt obligations on the grounds that they would get nothing at all if we default. But even if that didn’t happen, I think to many of the power-mad lunatics, default is preferable to loss of power. But this is a different debate – what I really want is your take on the first part of this post.

    PS: Thank god it’s Friday!

    • Mathius

      The problem is that the federal government has a huge financial liability (debt). Even if they divest the drivers of the debt (SS, Medicare, etc) to the states/munis, it will still have to service the huge existent debt.

      Who says?

      Or I say this “You and whose army is going to come and collect?”

      Government debt is worthless. They will not pay it off.

      They will default.

      China will use their T-bills for toilet paper, and China knows it.

      The consequence: a period of time where the government must live on the tax income.

      Further consequences: think WW2- economic scenarios
      -higher taxes, perhaps up to WW2 level of 95%.
      -less government services.
      -massive shortages.
      -rationing.

      And one day, the idiot rich will again buy government bonds. They always have, and they always will. Then the circle starts again.

      However, in your scenario, it has given away almost all of it’s powers in tandem with almost all of it’s obligations.

      The other way around.

      One government default does not transfer the debt to another government.

      But beecause it defaults, the FedGov no longer has access to lent money. It cannot give money it does not have (unless it prints it, but we have set aside this scenario (#1) as unlikely.)

      If it cannot pay, it cannot do.

      If it cannot do, something else will. It will take the responsibility and the power with it.

      To that end, it seems to me unlikely that it would be able to force taxation to service (A) the debt or (B) nation defense* – which I see as unlikely to be distributed.

      Debt will not be repaid. There will be no more loans. Now start from here….

      I see it as more likely that the US would, under these circumstances, force the world to give us a pass on much of our debt obligations on the grounds that they would get nothing at all if we default.

      Same difference…. a refusal to pay=default.

  6. “When you owe the bank a million dollars and cannot pay, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a billion dollars and cannot pay, the bank has a problem.”

    Bingo …

    • I originally heard that attributed to The Donald, but The Google seems to think it was J. Paul Getty. Either way, a great quote.

      So is this one, a new favorite of mine:
      “You don’t want another Enron? Here’s your law: If a company, can’t explain, in ONE SENTENCE….what it does….it’s illegal.” – Lewis Black

      • Mathius,

        Your answer:
        “Make money” :)

        • You and Charlie will appreciate this..

          The Ruthless Executive

          A young, ruthless executive died and went to hell. When he got there, he saw a sign that said Capitalist Hell, and another that said Socialist Hell. In front of the Socialist Hell was an extremely long line, while no-one was in front of the Capitalist Hell. The executive asked the guard, “What do they do to you in Socialist Hell?”

          The guard replied, “They whip you, boil you in oil, and then put you on the rack.”

          “And what do they do to you in Capitalist Hell?”

          “The same exact thing,” the guard answered.

          “Then why is everybody in line for Socialist Hell?”

          “Because in Socialist Hell, they’re always out of whips, oil, and racks.”

          • bada-boom, bada-bing.

            still waiting for yous guys to comment on the 60 Minutes bank fraud episode last week. If that wasn’t enough to start a revolution (alongside/after the bailouts), you can rest assured nothing will be happening in the good old US&A for a long time to come … probably a nuclear war first (and that may solve everything).

            As to BF’s projected scenario … it may well happen, although I doubt it (I’m more in line with the bank being the one in trouble at those #’s), but either way, only one class of people will suffer (as always) … the ever expanding lower class (what used to be middle class).

            • Charlie,

              you can rest assured nothing will be happening in the good old US&A for a long time to come … probably a nuclear war first

              You need to explain where the money for the FedGov will come from.

              • From the printing presses?

              • Mathius,

                Printing Press

                Thus, you are advocating Scenario #1 – Hyperinflation.

                If this is the case, it will not take “that long” to occur (contrary to Charlie’s contention), however, Charlie is ironically correct, its consequences will impact society like a nuclear war – millions will die.

                If this is what you think -printing money- then this is the scenario you must prepare for.

                PS: No matter how much you prepare, if you live in a city, you will most assuredly die.

              • I will survive. When, in a post-apocalyptic world, SUFA is re-instituted, you will see me there.

                The same cannot be said for Buck, unfortunately. New Jersey will turn to cannibalism within a day or two.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I have no qualms about eating another.

  7. BlackFlag says:

    A funky way to get emails to my own article…. 8)

  8. BlackFlag says:

    8)

  9. The major political parties exert strong control over local politics. This fact must be recognized along with how that control is maintained.

    To gain a seat at the local level a “Remnant” would have to lie about who they are in many cases. The deceit will then begin to erode the character of even the strong. This is not a task for the light hearted.

    The States will not pass most of these programs to the local level but will deal with them at the state level. There is legal as well as cultural precedence for this. Some things might be passed down, like education, but others, like medicaid/medicare, will be handled at the state level.

    • JAC

      I do not agree at all

      Here is a real example: The candidates for Billings, Montana.
      Nowhere is there “party” politicking.

      Some Wards have but one candidate who will win by acclamation.

      http://billingsgazette.com/app/candidates/city-primary/index.php

      To gain a seat at the local level a “Remnant” would have to lie about who they are in many cases.

      Why?

      The States will not pass most of these programs to the local level but will deal with them at the state level.

      Where will they get the money?

      Who will lend them the money?

      They are already in far worse shape then the FedGov.

      You must answer this question
      How do you think they will fund themselves?

      There is legal as well as cultural precedence for this.

      This is true.
      I will address this point in more detail in either Part Quad, or if it requires much detail, I’ll write Part Trois Demi.

      • BF

        Do not confuse lack of competition with lack of party influence.

        Many times the lack of competition is in fact the result of party influence. Some Wards and Precincts can not get a Dem or Rep to run because the other party ALWAYS wins.

        And despite the supposed “non-partisan” nature of many positions, everyone knows which party each candidate belongs to, you just have to see who is supporting them.

        I will grant you this, the rule does not apply to ALL municipalities but it certainly applies to many if not most.

        Where Parties control the local politics the Remnants will have to play the game to get elected today. That is a fact of life today. It might break down later but believe me, anyone pushing even a “Libertarian” approach locally will stand little chance in most town and county elections. A certain amount of subversion is required if one wants to get a position today.

        States will fund themselves the same way they do now. TAXES. States also have statutory control over many resources within the state. This will be used to increase funding or economic activity.

        Major infrastructure is more State or multi-state in nature. Such as electricity production and transport. Thus the State will maintain the primary role.

        Do not get me wrong here. The States, will shed much of the expenditures to balance their books. This will cause the local govts to deal with the fall out. But the State will not simply push costs of programs downward like the Feds will do to the States.

        The actual response will depend of course on the laws and culture of each State. Some will do just fine and others will crumble.

        • JAC,

          Prove it using Billings, Montana.

          There is no competition.

          As I said, some Wards are won by acclamation. Show me one State seat won the same way -ever- in your State history.

          States will fund themselves the same way they do now. TAXES.

          Name those taxes.
          Income tax? Will have to compete with the FedGov, who will consume 95% (as they did in WW2). The State is going to take the last 5%? And the people will get zero? Nope, nothing here. The States will starve here.

          Sales tax? The economy is in a depression. There is little money in the economy. There will be very little economic activity. The State will starve here.

          Property tax? Nope. Not allowed. That is the jurisdiction of County/City, not the State. There is zero money here.

          So you must explain where the State will get its money, and if you believe via taxes, the States will starve.

          The States will starve, JAC and that is my point.

          The economic decentralization will continue unabated past the States to even more local political entities.

          States also have statutory control over many resources within the state. This will be used to increase funding or economic activity.

          Name what control, what resources, and how you expect them to tax or claim economic payback, and by what amount capable of funding.

          If your claim was correct they would be using this strategy right now as they are starving to death right now

          To argue that these things “somehow” are available in the future, when they are impossible to get right now begs a fantasy.

          • BF

            Lets start with your claim of winning by acclamation.

            No such thing is possible except perhaps when filling a seat vacated during a term.

            There is no such thing as winning by acclamation in an open race. A person wins the seat via an election. And that win occurs with a majority vote. If running unopposed they still must get a majority, which is done when they vote for themselves.

            Those running unopposed in the primaries are declared the the winner of their “party” nomination or the winner of the seat via the fact they got a majority vote.

            I do not need to prove anything with Billings. I have my own example right here and in the surrounding counties.

            Your argument that the two major parties do not control local politics is absurd. It totally depends on the locality and in most cases they do exert great control.

            By the way, PROPERTY TAX falls within the authority of the STATE of Montana as it is in many States. Local towns and counties may use it as their primary funding source but the fact is that part of those taxes go to the State and it is the State which authorizes the tax in the first place. Along with procedures on how it is calculated and limitations on how it can be imposed locally.

            • JAC

              Lets start with your claim of winning by acclamation.

              No such thing is possible except perhaps when filling a seat vacated during a term.

              You win by acclamation if there are no other candidates other than yourself.

              Billings Ward 1

              http://billingsgazette.com/app/candidates/city-primary/?race=ward%201

              This is unheard of in any election for a seat in the State, Senate or Congress or White House.

              It is often the case in the county or city.

              Please note: I randomly picked a city in a random State for my example. I did not hunt for it

              It was this easy to demonstrate.

              I do not need to prove anything with Billings. I have my own example right here and in the surrounding counties.

              Put them up.

              Your argument that the two major parties do not control local politics is absurd. It totally depends on the locality and in most cases they do exert great control.

              That is not my argument.

              Unlike FedGov or StateGov, you do not need party to gain a county/city seat. It is irrelevant.

              The barriers to entry are small. People do not vote for you in your Ward because you are Democrat.

              They vote for you because you live with them and know them.

              By the way, PROPERTY TAX falls within the authority of the STATE of Montana as it is in many States.

              JAC, you are absolutely incorrect. No State – not one – collects Property taxes.

              Here is the list of State Taxes
              Taxes by State

              State Sales Tax
              All states except Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon, collect sales taxes.

              Fuel Tax
              Every state collects excise taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel and gasohol.

              Cigarette Tax
              Several states are continuing to raise excise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products in order to increase revenue.

              Personal Income Tax
              A total of 41 states impose income taxes.

              Inheritance and Estate Taxes
              Some states impose a separate tax, called an inheritance tax, on a deceased person’s property.

              [But.....]

              Property Taxes
              They are not imposed by states but by the tens of thousands of cities, townships, counties, school districts and other assessing jurisdictions.

              The state’s role is to specify the maximum rate on the market value of the property, or a percentage of it, as the legal standard for the local assessors to follow. The local assessor determines the value to be taxed. You can’t escape property taxes in any state. But you can find significantly low rates in certain parts of the country.

              • The Montana Department of Revenue was
                established in 1972 and has several major
                responsibilities. The department:
                ▲ administers more than 30 state taxes and fees,
                including income taxes, natural resource taxes,
                corporation taxes and miscellaneous taxes,
                ▲ establishes values for taxable property,
                including agricultural land, residential real estate,
                commercial real estate, forest land, business
                equipment, railroads and public utilities,
                ▲ supervises the operation of the state liquor
                stores and agencies, and administers the laws
                governing the sale, taxation and licensing of
                alcoholic beverages, and
                ▲ returns unclaimed property to its rightful
                owners.

                The LOCAL assessor in Montana works for the STATE. The Governor is currently being sued over the recent property tax assessments for violating STATE law in conducting the process.

                Property taxes are collected by the County not the city. These taxes are then distributed per laws governing such. And guess what my friend, some of it goes to the State and some to the City and a bunch to the School District which is not controlled by the City, or the County but is controlled by the State.

                I am still not sure what Billings is supposed to prove in your mind. And it is not that unusual to have a State office with only one candidate.

                You seem to be making claims of an absolute nature here that are simply not absolute.

                Is it easier to win a local seat without party support than say a state or national seat? Yes. But the fact remains that the Parties still exert great control at the local level.

                Truly independent candidates elected because their neighbors know them are vary rare. They usually win because one party or the other is able to get out their vote.

              • JAC

                establishes values for taxable property,

                No argument.
                The State does not -nor ever- nor can – collect property tax

              • JAC

                I am still not sure what Billings is supposed to prove in your mind. And it is not that unusual to have a State office with only one candidate.

                Billings was a test. I absolutely randomly picked a city. 2 of the Wards will be won by acclamation.

                The point: the barrier to entry at the city/county level is very low. It is achievable by anyone at SUFA IF and only if they effort is NOW. Later, the “party” politics MAY infect.

                Re: State acclamation
                I have found no such examples. Please provide.

  10. DUH !!!

    From CNN.com

    Here’s the real reason that professional politicians should do whatever they can to avoid a shutdown: After a few days of living without government, many Americans might just decide they don’t really miss it and could live with a lot less of it.

  11. Mathius

    I will survive. When, in a post-apocalyptic world, SUFA is re-instituted, you will see me there.

    You will not.
    There is no place to run. It will affect the entire world, but the suffering will occur worse in the most advanced economies – that is, the West.

    Zimbabwe survived – because they were not advanced. They were mostly rural. They survived because most were close to the land already, and they had a very low division of labor economy.

    The highly industrialized West are vastly urban. They are very far from the land. Their food must be delivered to them by trucks who deliver to stores. You cannot barter diesel for your truck in Florida with shirts made in New York – when you live in Chicago. The truck will stop. Food will stop. People will run out of food in two days. They will begin to starve in a week, die in 3, be wiped out in 6.

    If you do not have 120 days of food, you will not make.

    If you cannot defend your 120 days of food from 100,000 starving people, you will not make it.

    Mathius, you will not make it.

    • Mathius says:

      I bet you my gold coin that I will survive if your apocalypse occurs.

      • Mathius,

        I will not be alive either to collect the coin from your cold, bone shriveled dead hand.

        • Mathius says:

          That sucks for you. Truth is that there’s really no reason for anyone to start to death. It may be unappetizing, but insects are plentiful and very nutritious.

          You’ll need fresh water, but I have a well – all I have to do is remove the well-cap and lower a bucket (I have buckets and plenty of sting. You’re welcome to come stay with me – we can play poker for who has to go fetch water.

          Heat seems like it would be a problem, but only because people are spoiled. I live in the north east, and it would be very unpleasant, but entirely survivable with enough layers and/or blankets. (A fire is a dangerous idea since the smoke might single you out for the roving cannibal from New Jersey).

          Scurvy would be an issue, actually, which is why when everyone is trying (stupidly) to loot the gun shop, I’ll be looting the vitamin store. I can defend my home with an axe just fine. Plus, after the first I kill the first few would-be looters of my home, I would have a decent arsenal – no need to go get guns, they’ll come to me.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Hi Matt!

            You do have a great sense of humor! An ax? I live nowhere near a city and have a full arsenal. I’d suggest you city flok stay in the city. :lol:

            Gold $1475

            • Actually an axe is extremely effective for home defense, at least the one I have is. It is not effective against organized bands of attackers, but it is very good against the average thug or two. I am accurate to 30 paces with it, and it looks mean, mean enough to strike similar fear to the sound of a shotgun pump.

          • Mathius,

            You may fantaize as you wish in your comedy.

            But I am not joking.

            The disaster of hyperinflation will destroy civilization as we know it.

            If you happen to be the 1 in 100,000 that makes it out, the society that is now will not – in any manner – exist.

            My comment is not personal – it is systemic.

            Hyperinflation will destroy Western Civilization.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Flag,

          WTF! You’ve known of this for two years that I know of, yet you give yourself no chance to survive? What is it you need to put yourself in a better position?

          • Gman,

            I live in the city like 95% of the rest of Western Civilization. If you live in the city, the odds are 100,000 to one – regardless of preparation. Though I may eat for 120 days, but I will not win a war of holding my little bastion vs. 100,000 starving masses remaining in the city.

            If you are the luck 5%, you have less than a 20% chance, regardless of your preparation.

            If you are lucky, the first winter will kill you next.

            Hyperinflation is the destruction of Western Civilization.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Dang Flag, I’m not just the 5%, I may be the 2% who won’t get bothered. You already know how that will come to be, I believe. If your East of the Mississippi, your not far from me, West, well that’s a problem. I’m 9hrs from St Louis, 11 hrs from Atlanta, 5 hrs from D.C. You can Email me if your within driving distance, I have a safe place to stay if needed. :)

  12. Truthseeker says:

    I two questions.

    1) If the USA was to declare bankruptcy, would that illegitimize the Presidancy since it will start to lose authority and power over the people?

    2) What is the likelyhood of another country attacking us when there is a collapse of power and leave us at our weakest?

    • Mathius says:

      1. Illegitimize might be the wrong term, but it will certainly weaken the office.

      2. No. You’d have to be a total idiot to attack America, regardless. We have nukes and someone will keep his finger on the button. Even if we didn’t, you’d have a very hostile, very armed, populace to deal with. This would not end well for the invader. (Think Afghanistan x 1,000,000).

    • TS,

      A government does not go bankrupt like you go bankrupt.

      A government cannot be forced to pay, unlike you.

      A government goes into default.

      And yes a government default severely damages its legitimacy.

      No country on earth would actually invade the USofA. North America being invaded and conquered is militarily impossible.

      • Truthseeker says:

        I am I am sure others would no longer wish to give the FedGov any more money if they indeed default. Since FedGov would not be in possition to force anybody to give up their money, wouldn’t that be a way to no longer recognize the FedGov and them lose all their power?

        • TS

          Since FedGov would not be in possition to force anybody to give up their money

          Dangerous assumption.
          They still own an army.

          There are very good reasons Jefferson declared that a standing army is the most dangerous entity against the People’s freedom.

          wouldn’t that be a way to no longer recognize the FedGov and them lose all their power?

          FedGov is premised on the expression of violence from a center (the center being Washington).

          This will contract – but not necessarily disappear.

          • Truthseeker says:

            They won’t own an army they cannot pay for. Since it is currently a volunteer army, it is possible that once the checks stop and all the benefits get slashed, people will leave in droves. I do not believe a volunteer army will attack its own populace because people are not paying taxes to the FedGov. It cost money to buy bullets and if people are not going to make them…

            • TS,
              What happens to a set of highly trained mass killers who do not get paid.

              …they go independent “contractor”.

              The FedGov will pay their army – absolutely everything else will be defaulted, but the army.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Falgster,, Good stuff today! This is a lot of concern within our military yoday, due to the possible govt shutdown. Both sides are using the fact that the military won’t get paid if the govt shuts down it’s almost sickening. The govt is rather immaterial, but Reagan (I’m going from what I had heard on the idiot box) signed an executive order that if there was a temporary govt shutdown, the military would still get paid. Every President since has signed a similar executive order, except…..you guessed it, Obama. Those in the military don’t forget, and the fact that this budget wasn’t done when it was supposed to, last year, we wouldn’t be talking about the military not being paid. After this stunt, Obama will not have the military on his side. The young guns won’t have it. Just a thought.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Do you forsee any countries following us if we go down economically? I am pretty sure a lot of other countires relly on us for a lot of things. Espescially the aide we give.

  13. :| for comments

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.kitco.com/ind/Summers/apr082011.html

    Gee, this guy sounds like me… (although he isn’t!)
    :)

    • “The plain facts are right in front of us. The US is broke on every level: Federal, State, Local, and individual/ consumer. We all know this, but we don’t want to admit it because doing so would likely mean wiping out at minimum 30% of what we have today.”

      Doesn’t sound like you to me Pete. I do not think the US is broke in the fiscal sense. We are currently spending at a level which is not sustainable, but can change course and recover. The US has more energy reserves than any other nation, for one example. All it takes is for us to reduce our spending even to Clinton era levels and we will recover. If we were to start drilling for our oil and cut exports(maybe even export some) we would start another boom economy.

      • LOI,

        There is no question the US can earn (be productive) itself back to sustainable prosperity.

        The point: It will not do so until a systemic economic collapse.

        The People have been taught that free lunch exists. The line up for such lunch is long and getting longer and demanding steak instead of broth soup. This will not change until the soup kitchen closes and people become hungry.

        When people get hungry, they do “something”.

        That is the trigger point. Who will point them to their new future?

        A Marx?
        or
        A Mises?

        • C. A Trump. Watch video, no I’m not serious.

          http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/08/conan-trump-trashes-himself/

        • The leaders of the two largest political parties in the U.S. say they don’t want a government shutdown. As that outcome becomes more and more imminent, the Libertarian Party, America’s third-largest political party, has thrown its support behind making the shutdown a permanent fixture of the federal government.

          “Just think how a permanent government shutdown would allow so many Americans to regain the blessings of liberty,” Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict said in a statement.

          The Libertarian Party, whose slogan is “minimum government, maximum freedom,” wants to end programs, agencies and other federal activities not authorized by the nation’s founding document. The Constitution explicitly enumerates powers to Congress and to the president, but libertarians contend that that is where federal power should stop.

          “We’re not talking about eliminating the federal government … we want to cut everything else as much as we can,” he said.

          Benedict made several suggestions for curbing the enormous amount of money the federal government spends — this year $3.8 trillion. He proposed dismantling the Department of Education and its “one-size-fits-all centralized mandates.” U.S. forces would be withdrawn from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, he said, and the War on Drugs would cease.

          Americans would no longer be chased down every April by the Internal Revenue Service, which he called “byzantine and oppressive.”

          Best of all, Benedict said, “Americans would once again be free of unjust and unconstitutional violations of their unalienable rights,” referring to the warrantless wiretapping program, among other things, the Bush administration started and the Obama administration has continued.

          “Things are going the wrong way — fast,” he said.

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/08/libertarian-party-not-afraid-wants-permanent-shutdown/#ixzz1IxzO53MR

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    By the way,

    Gold $1475
    Silver $40.75

    • Indeed.

      This bodes crisis – dangerous opportunity.

    • Those who took my warnings to heart are smiling.

      Those who did not – do not delay; this is not the “top” nor the “end” nor a “bubble”. Do not regret even more your lack of action in the past – act now.

      “Better late than never”

      • Birdman says:

        Black Flag,

        Please remember to e-mail me when you think it is time to get out — if there ever is a time to sale my gold and silver.

        I think I am going to buy more food.

  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  17. I think that what most people do not understand also is the fact that when you speak of a rich, ruling class, you’re not talking about the ones who make over 250 grand a year or a million or so. Even though these folks are vilified as stingy monsters by the poor, socialists, and the media.

    The rich, ruling class, is talking about the George Soros and Warren Buffets, The Super-Rich. Those who combine their vast wealth with power and politcal ambitions.

    One reason for this may be because some cannot comprehend riches of that kind, much less coupled with a lust for power.

  18. Geez, BF seems to know it all. How did the world survive before him? What will it do when he passes?

    Buddy (BF), you really need to take it down a notch. Whenever people are that sure of themselves, the only thing you can’t count on is that they’re almost always wrong.

  19. TruthSeaker,
    Mathius’ nose will bleed profusely….because he is correct.

    The US -right now- is the center pin of the global economy for many reasons.

    It’s sickness will infect everyone.

    As I said to Mathius earlier, there is no where you can run and hide.

    Mises said it best when he was empowering his Remnant to take action:

    “Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others.

    And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping toward destruction.

    Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle.

    None can stand aside with unconcern; the interest of everyone hangs on the result.

    Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.”
    — Ludwig Von Mises

  20. Interesting article, BF. A little food for thought. Texas has solved its deficit ( around 24 bil )…..Sacred Cows are on way to slaughter house.
    1) State entitlements to education have been cut significantly. High school football long thought to be untouchable…have been touched. Some school districts losing as much as 40 million. There are school districts that have reporyed that as many as 1,000 high school football positions will be cut. Not jobs but slots for players…jobs will follow. Thousands of teachers to be laid off or taken early retirement in an unfunded plan.

    2) NO increase in state taxes and no implementation of state income taxes are proposed in this legislature.

    3) State medicare and medicaid has not been increased and will be decreased by 22%.

    4) State unemployment is not going to be increased and the legislature has no plans to increase unemplyment taxes to industry. Unemployment is a pay as you go fund and when it is out of money, it does not pay. It cannot go to deficit by Constitution.

    5) All entitlement programs under review and new regulations have been proposed to verify resident status as well as stronger regulations and stricter guidelines to ensure that those who are collecting are indeed the truly needy and infirm.

    6) The rainy day fund, which has billions in it, is prohibited for use in budgetary items and will not be raided to fund pet projects and bail out underfunded programs and departments.

    7) The creation of accounting procedures per each department and allocated resources. When they are out of money, they are out of business. There will be no borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

    There are others but you should get the gist. Maybe Texas is plannong on being a Republic again. We do not even need Federal troops….we have 30,000 of our own that are state paid.

    Under intense pressure to use rainy day funds to pay the teachers unfunded liabilities, the legislature has said no. Under intense pressure to use rainy day funds for teacher salaries to prevent layoffs, the legislature has said no. Under intense pressure to use the rainy day funds for unemployment extensions, the legislature has said no.

    Perhaps Texas has seen what was coming….not accepting Fed funds with conditions of continuing…..to start its own austere programs….but this is an interesting legislature and is full of new young conservatives that believe in living without deficits. Texas is the 14th largest economy in the world. Perhaps our own currency? Interesting.

    • D13,

      There is much about Texas that provides great leadership. Your own participation at the local level is noted in my article.

      However, Texas is Texas, and unfortunately, few other States follow. I can see the mid-West; Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Utah … in varying degrees …. capable as Texas.

      I do not wholly discount “State” power. But in 42 States, they are completely SOL financially, politically, and fundamentally. These will fall to the localities of county or city

      I would argue Texas would be even stronger with such a decentralization as well, though I can accept arguments that Texas State is spiritually stronger than most other States and could survive.

      • Thank you for the mention, btw. I saw that and was remiss in mentioning same. We almost lost Texas a few years back. Most Texas democrats are moderate to conservative anyway but we had a time period where it leaned heavily towards this liberal trend but it did not last long. Ann Richards tried to push it left but it did not work very well because of the rancher mentality…that fierce independent streak. But, I agree with your assessment on most states..and we, Texas, does not have the monopoly on being a great state but we are big enough and solvent enough to be on our own. Size does matter in your worse case scenario, I think. (Size not being geographic but economic)…we can and have taken some hard lumps but we are financially strong despite the msm spin. We are not high on the list in per capita income but we are within our means and are a happy state. It is interesting to note in your scenario, that most states that claim to pay the highest wages, have the most freebies and benefits and entitlements…..the states that are liberal bent and the states that have high union participation…..are broke. Those cities that are the social/urban experiment are the highest in unemployment and crime. Interesting. Very interesting.

        One thing about Texas that I really like…..we have basically no one hungry. Our charities are very good on the street. I wonder how that compares to the other “broke” states.

    • WOW. I wish Georgia would try some of that. The part I like best is the not accepting Federal funds with conditions. That is one thing I have long been against. Even before the current crisis.

  21. When news stories offer commentary on the coming “hyperinflation”, it is key to remember some salient points.

    These authors have done no more than a cursory understanding of hyperinflation only from a single perspective – that is a MODERN consumer.

    Very, very few understand our modern economic society and what it means to have a “high division of labor” that makes our society so prosperous.

    Just like Charlie and his anarchistic freedom, the consumer does not understand the sea in which he swims. The Consumer’s perspective is that a store is merely a provider of “barter with special privileges” and does not really understand the underlying requirements necessary to provide the goods and services.

    A high division of labor economy is fragile at its point of transaction. No one ships without receipt of money. If the money dies, so does the shipping Hyperinflation kill money. There is no shipping. A modern economy lives within two days or so supply chain. After two days, the supply is zero.

    The chain-reaction will stop the economy to such a degree that though it only took two days to stop, it may take months to start.

    These authors have not done the critical analysis necessary. They have measured historical examples – but all of them are faulty. There never has been a highly industrialized, high division of labor economy fall into hyperinflation (except as a loser of a major war)

    Israel came close, but was rescued by the USA.

    There is no one who can rescue the USA.

    When you measure these author’s comments, remember where their ignorance is profound.

    Adjust their conclusions equally.

    • PS:
      Every President of the Federal Reserve Banks completely understands my point. With them there is no ignorance about hyperinflation and its disaster.

      I believe they will never allow hyperinflation to occur for the USA.

      It is possible that Congress may revoke their charter and nationalize the FED and hyper-inflate anyway. Congress are ignorant of economics, however, as a counter-point, I do not believe they will allow Western Civilization to implode.

      I suppose my position is two-fold:
      (1) I do not think the powers that be will allow the destruction of Western Civilization as they would be the biggest losers.

      (2) I am whistling past the graveyard and praying because if (1) is wrong, I’m dead anyway …. as you are. So the alternative is praying for (1) not happening, because if it does, the whole rest of everything doesn’t much matter, no matter what you do.

  22. BF

    While I agree with the need to get involved in “local” politics I will not yield on the key points of our argument today.

    I am simply feeling testy and you are, well how do I say this, WRONG. And it is important for those who take your advice to understand the game they play in its entirety.

    First, there is NO SUCH THING as winning by ACCLAMATION in a US primary or general election. You do not get to impose your own definition on the use of the term relative to U.S. elections. Sorry!

    In fact, most local elections I am aware of provide for right in votes. This means an “unopposed” candidate could in fact lose the race to an undeclared person. Voiding the concept of “acclamation” entirely.

    Wikipedia
    “An acclamation, in its most common sense, is a form of election that does not use a ballot. “Acclamation” or “acclamatio” can also signify a kind of ritual greeting and expression of approval in certain social contexts in ancient Rome.

    The most frequent type of acclamation is a voice vote, in which the voting group is asked who favors and who opposes the proposed candidate. In the event of a lack of opposition, the candidate is considered elected.

    This form of election is most commonly associated with papal elections (see Acclamation in papal elections), though this method was discontinued by Pope John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis. It is also sometimes found in the context of parliamentary decisions, or United States presidential nominating conventions (where it is often used to nominate the running mate and incumbent Presidents).”

    Point two, it was your claim that party politics is “IRRELEVANT” at the local level. YOU ARE WRONG. It is very RELEVANT in many if not most cases. The existence of someone running “unopposed” is NOT evidence of lack of party influence. It can and often is evidence of just the opposite. You used Billings as an example of two running unopposed. One was the incumbent and another a previous party candidate.

    Those who want to work to help resurrect the nation need to understand how the “political parties” work at the local levels and determine how to counter their domination. OR, use that domination to your favor. Remember my advice long back about taking over a party at the local level.

    The Progressives did it, the Tea Party did it and that is how the VDLG can do it. Or you can start from scratch.

    This is not intended to discourage “remnants” or “patriots” from acting. Just don’t expect to get elected because you have a few hundred friends and submit your name for dog catcher, or the school board.

    D13 made a very relevant comment a week or two ago relative to this issue. Think local but also think about the right people. We have the wrong people running. The RIGHT people are usually someone who is already somewhat of a community leader but disdains politics.

    So the goal here is to get the message to the existing leaders and convince them of the need to step up. This may be much faster than establishing your own credibility among enough of your neighbors to win a local election.

    Another strategy is to befriend those already in power (elected). They appreciate practical, hard working and “non partisan” help from citizens. Get their ear, tell the story. Present ideas that do not sound CRAZY and explain why and how this could prevent calamity. When the Flit hits the Shan they may call YOU to help them with ideas and a plan.

  23. JAC

    First, there is NO SUCH THING as winning by ACCLAMATION in a US primary or general election.

    I never did say this either.

    I do give a flying f-rt about US Federal or State politics, for a reason.

    The game is rigged in a manner that prohibits any systemic change to itself. This has been a constant and consistent message of mine to SUFA since my original post here.

    You do not get to impose your own definition on the use of the term relative to U.S. elections. Sorry!

    I have not, in fact, if you merely google, you will find ample articles showing “elected by acclamation” for city, and county positions all over the place, from Canadian mayors to Missoula County offices.

    I do not need your definition when I have fact.

    Point two, it was your claim that party politics is “IRRELEVANT” at the local level. YOU ARE WRONG. It is very RELEVANT in many if not most cases. The existence of someone running “unopposed” is NOT evidence of lack of party influence. It can and often is evidence of just the opposite. You used Billings as an example of two running unopposed. One was the incumbent and another a previous party candidate.

    It is wholly irrelevant.

    Again, using my random example of Billings:
    There are 5 candidates for Mayor.

    The fact there are 5 of them destroys your theory of “party politics” – the State and FedGov have TWO (and rarely 3) for any post.

    That is the difference, JAC.

    Party politics at the local level is irrelevant – it does not matter

    The barrier to entry is low.

    The five men running for Billings mayor agree that the next mayor will be the face of Bilings, working as an ambassador for the city at home and away.

    So the goal here is to get the message to the existing leaders and convince them of the need to step up. This may be much faster than establishing your own credibility among enough of your neighbors to win a local election.

    While this may be a strategy, and could be pursued, the question remains:
    Why are they not doing it themselves right now

    You can sing a song to other people but that does not equal at all you listening to your own song and acting. This guarantees action because it is your own feet moving.

    Do not depend on other people moving their feet. This is how it got screwed up in the first place.

    A quick google:

    Canada – Mayors by acclaimation
    ….cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/11/15/bc-081115-acclaimed-mayors.html

    USA Missoula County Board by Acclamation
    …..co.missoula.mt.us/mcboards/boardmemberdetails2.htm

  24. TexasChem says:

    Good thing we have all this “un-rest” and political struggle amongst the shiites and sunnis’ going on in the middle east…I mean to say, I just so very much enjoyed paying 140.00 to fill my truck up in diesel yesterday.

    We had a death in the family a week and a half ago and I have been out of the loop until yesterday. My wifes father passed away.

    I turned on the news yesterday evening and every single channel FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN had a story running about the middle east and how the Iranians are trying to expand their influence of control.

    Given the raising prices of fuel, the raising price of food, the rising price of everything if you look at the big picture and I am quite safe in venturing to say there will be more conflict in the middle east and Africa in which the U.S. of A. is going to be very much involved in. The U.S. populace is begining to feel the tightening of the belt and in my opinion it has been engineered in a manner to add support for more war. What better way to boost an economy! Do I agree with it? No, but it seems inevitable to me.

    BF the US economy is not going to collapse. Imperial America is not going to allow that to happen. Ever. The entire world economy would collapse. Restructured yes, probably. Collapse, never.

    • No State has ever lasted forever; why assume the US will be the first in the entire history of the world?

    • TexChem:

      “America is not going to collapse”

      First, what do you mean by ‘collapse’ – I have explained what I mean by it.

      If you are using my explanation, then you have to provide your rational of how such a thing will be avoided, and not merely provide some comment based on an inarticulate, unreasoned opinion.

      Analogy: Listening to a man who is continuing to walk toward a cliff proclaiming “I won’t fall” is denying reality – not that he is falling now, but the reality that he will fall off the cliff is being denied. If you argue he will not fall when he walks off the cliff, you must provide some reason – does he have a helicopter strapped to his belt??

      Same here. Your proclamation is baseless. I’ve provided detailed reasons, whose conclusion is unavoidable.

      You can disagree – but baseless disagree = mental state of denial

  25. I must say, BF, it is truly striking, when you think about it, just how much influence the local dog catcher or school administrator has when those above him are removed. A person of integrity that is in a position of leadership at the time of collapse will be looked to as a leader by a great many people in need of such leadership. It is a massive responsibility, any who are considering it should remember to pursue it with the same philosophical consistency, integrity, reason, and passion that you would if you were in charge of your whole county. Because if things truly go sour, you will be.

  26. I wanted to take a moment and say good bye-I really care about you guys-but I have come to the conclusion that I simply don’t belong here anymore. The moderate voices on the right have gone away or have gone silent-at least for the most part. And I came to the realization that I think the anarchist/almost anarchist, atheist, delegitimize the government voices are as dangerous as the true socialists. So I am gonna go take some time and think, because right at this moment, I cannot stand, with what this site is promoting. God Bless and I wish you all the best.

    • V.H.

      I hope you change you mind about leaving. I intend to stick around awhile and consider myself to be moderate(boring anyway). I haven’t been posting as much mainly due to time demands at work. And like this article, Flag has made his thoughts clear, and I have already responded over the past months that I don’t agree with him and why.
      Nor do I agree with you that this is what USW is promoting by giving Flag a place to throw out his ideals. I like what Flag has presented and the challenge of examining it for myself and deciding if I agree with part or any. I hope you will forgive me for not tying up with the Flagster. I just did not see any reason to spend the time. At the end of it, he and I would both be unmoved.

      Flag, “The US is doomed!”
      LOI, “I don’t think so!”
      Flag, “Prove it!”
      LOI, “I’m still here. You?”
      Flag, “I didn’t mean right this second.”
      LOI, “So this is one of those things nobody can “prove” until it does happen? As long as we keep not falling, nothing is proven?” Boring.

      “And I came to the realization that I think the anarchist/almost anarchist, atheist, delegitimize the government voices are as dangerous as the true socialists.”

      An interesting thought! I think it might make for a good article. Will explore that later this week, today is about to get busy for me. Hope you enjoy our sunny day. Looks like a rainy Monday for us.

    • V.H.

      Lets talk. You can reach me at justacitizen1787@gmail.com

      Happy Sunday
      :) :)

    • No way V! this makes me sad though I can totally relate as I’ve been having the same thoughts myself. Seems the groups you’ve listed have taken a strong hold here and the lefties have grown louder and hardly go unchecked, or if they do it’s through jokes then the discussion fizzles.

      You have no clue how your posts have helped me unscramble the thoughts in my head. I have enormous respect for you and sure hope that JAC CAN WORK SOME MAJIC WITH YOU!

      USW: If V agrees please send her my address also and–
      LOOKS LIKE THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT.

    • V, this makes me incredibly sad, I sincerely hope that you reconsider or at least return after you have gathered your thoughts. I have always appreciated your perspective and the polite manner in which you present it.

      I understand your sentiments, I think things have polarized a lot lately because of Flag’s ultimatum. I know that it made me think about what I was really hoping for, and what I hope for really is a long shot. Getting enough people to wake up and unite to change the current system from within is incredibly unlikely.

      That said, I do not really think Flag’s prediction of financial collapse will happen either, at least not as smoothly and universally as he seems to present. I am more inclined, unfortunately, to think we will end up in a civil war. I think enough will awaken to rouse the anger of those in power and we will end up with serious unrest, possibly a fractured nation.

      Now maybe I am just being a large a doomsayer as Flag, maybe things will stabilize. Maybe what I think will happen is still decades off, and there really is time to make changes. I do not know.

      As far as atheism and anarchy, I am not either, nor are many others on this site. I do press for a removal of religious morals from government, but that is seperate from personal beliefs. Maybe personal beliefs should be mentioned more. I am no anarchist either. I think people can function a lot more without government than many realize, but Flag’s ideal world is as great a long shot as changing the system from within into a “good government”. I know I am just one of many here, but perhaps others, like me, have been talking a lot about this stuff because it seemed pertinent, but are not necessarily thinking along the lines you perceive. We will see.

      If you go, you will be sorely missed. If you stay, then I will rejoice. Either way, keep thinking, and keep in touch, those are the most important things.

      • I thank you guys for the nice words and I will be keeping tabs but I need a break from all things political. I also was not in anyway trying to shut anyone up or to tell USW how to run his blog. Anita , USW can give you mine-or yours to me. See you guys later. :)

        • gmanfortruth says:

          V.H.

          Taking a break is not a problem, sometimes things get so nuts, it’s best to walk away and get a mental break. I’ve been there and done that. Just peek in once and awhile and let us know your alive and well! :)

        • I get the break thing too. I took a break from politics a year or so ago and was rarely here for that period. I think it is a healthy thing. Keep your mind healthy VH! It is a good mind. :)

      • Dear Jon Smith, LOI, and BF is possible:

        Could someone please direct me to the writing that has caused such a stir here? I live for these days of intellectual excitement and openly, I’d love to read who got so many so in to it. Thanx and Cheers!!

        • I’ll take this one if you other guys don’t mind..

          Jon-Paul,

          BF has articles written in the March archives on the 4th 15th & 29th.

          FTR: BF..I don’t personally see you as a problem here. If I was your wife I might suggest some Prozac occasionally :) but you’ve changed my thinking tremendously over the time I’ve spent here and for that I’m very thankful. Doesn’t mean I agree with you all the time though! CHEERS!

    • V.H.

      I refer you back to my post above quoting Mises.

      Government – as an evil force of violence – will not hold its legitimacy forever.

      You want something from such evil, but I do not know what it is you want from it. Perhaps it is like those born under Stalin, they cried when he died for they knew nothing else and perhaps stability even if it is evil provides some of this …. but is stability better than freedom?

  27. TexasChem says:

    @-Everyone!

    I have to say that I agree with VH’s opinion of the direction a lot of the minds have travelled here at SUFA.
    I am not implying that the discussion of dissenting voices upon various issues is not healthy but, I do see some have been influenced negatively. I have to say that I have seen others influenced positively as well though.
    My beef with some posters is that it seems as if the PC culture has silenced their common sense and analytical thought process in various directions. exempli gratia: “What gives you the right to determine what is right or wrong?”
    “Who are you to judge?”
    In my minds eye it reminds me of lemmings following each other off a cliff. It seems as if your concious is lost in your psyches Id and needing help to return somehow.
    As most of you are already aware my particular idealogical base is influenced by the teachings and wisdom of Judaism from a historical point of view, the teachings of the Christ Jesus and quite a dose of Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy on Natural Law.
    My question therefore; back to those who ask these particular silly questions is what knowledge or wisdom influences your decision to ask that question of me in your ignorance of fact and lack of analytical thought process? I mean cmon’ people…Duuuuhhhrrrr…be honest with yourself and accepting of the fact that as we say in Texas on occasion…it is OK to let your cajones drop and deny the propoganda laden ignorance when faced with undeniable FACT!

    As I have stated numerous times before it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the stupidity of tossing aside generations of wisdom because of the ruthlessness of greedy men that have twisted that wisdom to their own benefit.

    All human behavior is influenced from knowledge learned.This is a fact that can never be denied. We are not born super-computers. We are not born knowing right or wrong but we are born with free will to choose a path for ourselves. By accepting the PC rhetoric being taught and denying any standard to draw from you are by default accepting and therefore condoning and teaching by example…negative social behavior. I give you the most family unfriendly city in the states San Francisco as an example. Don’t take my word for it though people. Research its decline for yourself.

    While I do think a lot of you guys are crazy as a betsy bug… I would like to thank all of those that have challenged my thought process which has encouraged me to study philosophy, religion, ideaology, politics and history to the lengths I have. It really has allowed my mind to grow and I appreciate that FACT about SUFA! :)

    God bless you all!

    • TEX

      Re: Judging.

      I have noticed and cringed at those types of comments as well. In fact I have been procrastinating on an article dedicated to the value of “judging”.

      The basic questions are judge “what” and “how”.

      I hope that you do realize that what you consider as indisputable fact is at times disputable. That is it is subject to the judgment and interpretation of others. As such you are going to get differing results.

      Lets start with a basic question based on your post.

      How do we determine what is “negative social behavior”?

      And for the record, San Francisco is not a city completely full of deviants. It certainly has some areas that deserve to be dropped into the ocean. But there are large areas of regular working folk. They just have an obvious left wing bias.

      • TexasChem says:

        JaC stated:”The basic questions are judge “what” and “how”.

        I hope that you do realize that what you consider as indisputable fact is at times disputable. That is it is subject to the judgment and interpretation of others. As such you are going to get differing results.

        Lets start with a basic question based on your post.

        How do we determine what is “negative social behavior”?”

        TC: Judge what: anything that has an impact upon myself or what I consider my family, friends and people.
        Judge how: accordingly… :)

        Negative social behavior is anything detrimental to my society based upon my standards.

  28. TexasChem says:

    @-VH

    As the days of spring arouse all nature to a green and growing vitality, so when hope enters the soul it makes all things new. It insures the progress which it predicts. Rooted in faith, growing up into love; these make the three immortal graces of the Gospel, whose intertwined arms and concurrent voices shed joy and peace over our human life. —James Freeman Clarke

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers

%d bloggers like this: