America 2.0, by Robert Gore
Let’s assume everything collapses. The skyscraper of cards tumbles; parasitic, unsustainable governments fail; chaos reigns. For all its flaws, living today, especially for those of us in the more advanced economies, is a lot easier than during any prior time. As late as 1900 US life expectancy was less than fifty years. However, there are reasons to root for collapse; it would present a huge opportunity to keep the good parts of the present age and build upon them, while at the same time changing the things that will have been manifestly responsible for the collapse, i.e., the incompetence and corruption of governments. However, to avail ourselves of the opportunities, it is necessary to consider what will replace that which has failed. SLL will kick off the process with a few modest proposals.
This is an excerpt. For the full article, please click the link above.
This is an excerpt. For the full article, please click the link above.
Firstly, I agree with most of your article SSL. db's additional comments are also both good and perceptive. Lastly Herb, CG, RR, and the dino have a point that we are looking at a perilous cost-benefit ration, where much of the population has been conditioned against freedom and there is no guarantee that our viewpoint will be the 'winner' if a catastrophic collapse occurs. I am inclined to suggest that a few incremental improvements in tech may improve the survivability of independent people more likely, which would argue for delaying the crash a bit longer.
Where I disagree with SSL's excellent article is in the defense of allies. I want a future world that is varied (as opposed to a world gov), but that means that if other philosophies help each other but our philosophy does not, we will be losers in the evolutionary race. I would also argue that for there to be some provision for the support of people who genuinely cannot take care of themselves (institutionalized) is more rational that declaring it to be 'someone else's problem'.
Jan
There is a Russian phrase that pertains to what it will be like if the "Rationals" decide to get in the arena, "struggle is our brother." If the world is in ruins, it doesn't mean it will be easy to pick up the pieces and put them together, hopefully in a better way.
Jan, tends by its mechanical and impersonal nature to bring about
the increase of their numbers.
I contend that small groups should provide, and no government
entity except the military and the court system should cover
the whole of those less fortunate. . with small groups covering
the less fortunate, there are two huge benefits:::
1 monitoring and encouragement to leave the group as it may be possible, and
2 the spreading of the less fortunate across the nation, avoiding huge clots
where crime and drugs and self-perpetualization abounds.
just my thoughts, fervent thoughts. -- j
.
When I think of 'how I wish the world would work' I agree with you. When I consider 'how it would actually function', I think that it would probably be necessary for the ever-engorging State to take care of the castoffs of society. I can't think of any examples of totally private/religious institutions actually doing this job. It might be possible; it would be nice if it would work for private institutions to do this, but I feel that it might be a "too many cattle on the Commons" situation, only in this case it would be a "taking care of these people is someone else's problem".
I completely agree that this would be an opening for the State to increase in size and the number of people taken care of to expand. Perhaps if one required that the people taken care of be institutionalized it would help limit the numbers...? I am really only referring to people who are in comas, have IQ of 60, etc.
Jan, not sure
which are carried by handouts from the govt. . I find this
depressing, that humans are relegated to such a condition.
the way out? . I have long thought that making it illegal
for the govt to do this would work. . it's a Heinlein kind of
thought -- society will find a way. . I do hope so. -- j
.
Jan
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
.
1) I agree that Social Security and Medicare are likely to be the straw that breaks the camels back
2) I am not sure that people in the US are ready to adopt freedom after a collapse. Freedom is ultimately based on reason and even among people who say they are for freedom, many think it can stand alone.
3) I have occasionally argued that import duties if small (2-3%) and uniform are not a coercive . The importer can avoid the tax, by just not selling in the US. However, I am not completely convinced of this argument.
In a country as you describe private interests would fund many great civic projects as they did in the 19th century.
4) War. I am not sure that the cold war could have been fought under the terms you describe. However, I have argued that if Hoover and Roosevelt had not screwed up the economy there would not have been any World War II and therefore no Cold War You are absolutely right that war is the biggest destroyer of freedom and the public purse.
Ron Paul argued that it would have been cheaper to buy out the slaves in the south than the cost of the civil war. The press laughed at him, however I did a back of the envelope calculation and Paul was right. You could easily have paid twice the market value of each slave and still been significantly less expensive than the direct costs of the war (this does not include property destruction, loss of life, etc.)
There is no guarantee that collapse of them monetary system would lead to less costly and intrusive gov't. I would rather strive for reform directly, skipping the collapse of the financial system.
Such a collapse would only give some Marxist like our imperial "I'm not an emperor" actor a much desired excuse to seize dictatorial power with an "emergency" martial law declaration.
But I'm afraid such a collapse is unavoidably inevitable.
What will really matter is who is in the White House when that collapse happens.
Probably good for another couple of centuries... Somehow the ability to suppress the irrepressible urge of some to dominate others and dictate how all should live seems beyond our means.
Everybody wants to be King.
Respectfully,
O.A.
You know that "to be left alone" is to be "king" of your own domain. Liberty requires no more... You possess the philosopher's stone.
My use of the word "everybody" was a bit of hyperbole. I too have no desire to rule, only to be left free to rule my own destiny.
Trade: a flat, 10% tariff on ALL products and services in international trade. NO subsidies of any kind, either domestic or international.
Immigration: A fixed number of immigrants each year, on a first-come, first served basis. NO refugees or other immigrant status.
Funding: Fees for all government services, rather than taxes.
Money: Only gold and silver (or scrip backed by gold and silver), with a 25% reserve requirement.
Debt: Only in time of war, to be paid back with a special flat 10% income tax on every household until the war debt is paid off.
War: Let's not quibble. It's not defense, its WAR. There will be no rules of engagement other than smashing the enemy as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Then go home.
Redistribution: There will be no such thing, except for voluntary donations to charity.
Voting: Only property owners will be allowed to vote. That means, people owning real estate or productive enterprises, which would include stocks, bonds and other forms of ownership shares in businesses. To ensure that this includes most of the population, there should be a homestead act 2.0, in which 40 acres will be given to each household that's currently considered "poor." The majority of such transfers would be for agriculture or some type of artisan work, and it would ensure that there will be no justification for a welfare system. Everyone will have a roof over his head, and food on the table. Every military veteran will have earned a right to vote, merely by participating in such service.
Freedom: With the economy shifting to small scale industry, driven by technologies that are shrinking economies of scale, we are being driven back to a high tech version of an economy that existed before the so-called Robber Barons. That means that entrepreneurship will be the mantra, not a job. This suggests a shift in what needs to be taught in the educational systems that will be established.
The Constitution is not the problem...let's focus on fixing the government. The rest should fall back into place.
I assume that government would impose some "services" that were not voluntary.
If so, I would want an opt-out provision for every person, so that any person or people who thought that the government was not acting in a way that was acceptable, the person could withhold consent and be placed on a pay for service basis for all government "services." This would encourage free market options to all government action. If government can't provide service that "customers" want to pay for, then it should go out of business.
Government is just a tool, and if there are better tools available, then government should cease to exist.
But also remember that Conscious mankind is not the problem here. It is those of our species that have never or perhaps chosen not to, become a conscious being. It's pretty clear that those that are at the root of this evil is 180° opposed to what we know to be right, good and successful. They are brain only with no self control, conscience, subconscious nor any remote connection to a mind. The evolution of the mind was natures way for us to control our brain and the forces of nature with in it without fear.
We can not have Liberty without control of self.
in (their) laws and welfare processes!!! -- j
p.s. the book is unsustainable::: http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-T...
.
in and between the States.
the executive branch will place no decisions nor regulations
into effect which have not been approved by two-thirds
of the representatives in both houses of congress.
things like this, IMHO. -- j
.
.