How to Defeat Your Government, by Robert Gore
There is surprisingly little written about attacking the government at its weakest point: its financial dependence (see, however, “Revolution in America,” SLL). An offensive would require a mass movement far less massive than that required for armed revolt, and its tactics would be legal. A few million simultaneous phone calls and requests via websites for the withdrawal of balances from banks, money market funds, and stock and bond mutual funds would precipitate a financial panic. None of those institutions keep enough cash on hand to meet a tsunami of redemption and withdrawal requests. They’d have to sell their assets to raise cash. The prices of those assets would drop, begetting further selling; negative crowd psychology and wealth effects would kick in as markets crash, and debt and economic activity would contract.
The biggest loser in all this would be the government. As prices for bonds drop, interest rates rise, increasing its debt service. As economic activity contracts, tax receipts drop, safety net spending rise, crony capitalists must be bailed out, and deficits expand. Except for interest on government debt rising (it was perceived as a safe haven) all of this happened during the last financial crises. A massive increase in government debt and central bank debt monetization forestalled complete disaster last time. Even some of their proponents admit that those palliatives are now exhausted. During the next crisis, interest rates will rise on government debt to reflect its increasing credit risk.
This is an excerpt. For the rest of the article, please click the link above.
The biggest loser in all this would be the government. As prices for bonds drop, interest rates rise, increasing its debt service. As economic activity contracts, tax receipts drop, safety net spending rise, crony capitalists must be bailed out, and deficits expand. Except for interest on government debt rising (it was perceived as a safe haven) all of this happened during the last financial crises. A massive increase in government debt and central bank debt monetization forestalled complete disaster last time. Even some of their proponents admit that those palliatives are now exhausted. During the next crisis, interest rates will rise on government debt to reflect its increasing credit risk.
This is an excerpt. For the rest of the article, please click the link above.
SOURCE URL: http://straightlinelogic.com/2016/02/07/7105/
If you aren't familiar with already, check out 'An Enemy of the State' by F. Paul Wilson. A somewhat similar plot and mechanism.
Here is how I understand the claims:
- Taxes are not voluntary – I disagree with this. If you ask people if they supporting having a huge military, improving the roads, imprisoning more people than almost any other country, paying for their aging parents' medical care, most people want gov't doing some of those in large way. That makes me think people do support taxes. They support having an IRS so people don't free ride.
- Gov't borrowing rests on loose monetary policy and controlling the reserve currency of the world. – I agree with this. It would be harder and more expensive to borrow using some other medium of exchange.
- Gov't existence rests on borrowing – I disagree. If it can't borrow, it has to raise taxes or cut services. Maybe the tax hikes would make citizens think twice about spending programs. But gov't would not cease to exist if it had to live within its means.
- People selling Treasuries and other assets in unison would cause a crisis. - I agree.
- If the crisis were big enough to collapse the entire monetary system, it would lead to “reinstating liberty”. - This did not happen with the monetary collapse on the Weimar Republic.
I agree with the general idea that undermining the monetary system puts stress on the gov't, but I don't agree that the stress pushes gov't in a positive direction. You talk about “[promoting] more foreign military intervention, domestic spending, taxation, redistribution from the productive to the nonproductive, and economically destructive regulation,” with the idea that it will undermine the gov't and lead to a better world. This reminds me of the religious fanatics who want to destroy the world to hasten the arrival of the end times. This crops up throughout history; there is a human proclivity to feel like a great flood would wash away the decadence in the world, making room the righteous to build a better world. I reject any suggestion of trashing this world to make room for a better world to come.
The examples just tell us that people are in favor of many things that cost money and they want more as long as other people pay.
If you add to each expenditure question, the extra amount that has to paid as tax, or the amount already being paid that would otherwise be refunded, the answer will be quite different. So to use one of the examples, I could say, stuff tax to pay for other people's aged parents, I struggle to support my own, and that is how it should be.
I know. I wish they had them tied together. So as soon as they passed something, the withholding tables would be updated and your next paycheck would go up or down.
Oh, now I get it. Some people say that seriously.
The present system of gov't cannot be meaningfully reformed in any manner significant to freedom and individual rights.
I don't have the formula to reform or reboot, but I think what we have is amazingly better than most people in most of history. We set aside a third (half for those of your who earn more) of our profits for state and federal income taxes. That's not to mention all the other little fees and sales taxes. Despite this, freedom to keep what you earn, do your own thing, and not have to worry about your safety while you do it is amazingly good compared to history.
As to the % we have taken for income taxes, that's a drop in the bucket to what we really pay. If you follow the trail of raw material through each stage of producing, transportation, intermediate processings, warehousing, resales, etc., etc., to final usage in a product, plus those same taxes applied to the consumable goods, machinery, land, buildings, etc., etc. necessary to accomplish each step, continuing on until final sale to a consumer; realize that at each and every step taxes are applied which are included in the cost of goods with sales tax added, and in some cases, taxed again annually if you maintain ownership---you can then begin to grasp the true taxes (pyramidal) that the US, state, and local gov't imposes on it's citizenry. And then they still have to borrow and saddle the rest of us and our children with future, unpayable levels of debt. All of that taken under threat of Gov't force up to and including the use of deadly force. I'm not sure I agree to 'amazingly good' compared to history. It sounds a whole lot like slavery to me.
A harsher slavery is the norm. That certainly does not make it okay. I'm just saying we've made so much progress in respecting the rights of people to do what they want keep what they make; we should keep going.
In my opinion the complete collapse is maybe 20 to 40 years away.
Those smarty pants in power have no concept of what is going on because they are having what the consider success in gaining more and more control over us.
This plan to starve the government involves killing the economy, the life-blood of society. That's worse for the patient than the disease.
I can think of two ways to reform government without destroying society:
1) Mass civil disobedience.
2) War, backed by strong popular support, so the fighting can be targeted at the worst holdouts.
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy, by Michael Hudson.
Too early in reading to say if the book is based on reality though. Seems to favor socialist solutions if early summary is indicative.
I favor civil disobedience and consumer strike on non essentials, with local preparation to produce essentials. There will be a significant response against any disobedience or strike, and those essentials are the weakest point.
The second, would be natural forces such as a high magnitude earthquake, the Yellowstone cauldera detonating, and weather damaging a major section of the country.
collapse the government (at least not now, even
if it were possible). Then some Mideast country
could attack us. If things got desperate enough,
maybe I would agree with it. But as yet, we can
try to convert enough people. We're not com-
pletely censored yet, for instance. There's still
time.
I expect it to lead to all sorts of quite horrific things like massive civil disorder, martial law, strong man thug rule at various levels, persecution of all remotely wealthy, calls for mass nationalization, blaming our "arrogance and back to religious fundamentalism drives and all to easily to countries blaming one another and all out war.
I predict gigadeaths. If there is any other workable choice then please push with all you have for that instead. We have far more to lose than we are at all likely to gain.
It would be better to seek to gather like minded people and put together a real Gulch preferably in international waters or buy buying out a woebegone country. Generally it is better to create than to destroy.
Therefore, we need to bear in mind that we shouldn't seek to eliminate the government, but rather to properly frame its powers, keeping the good stuff.
.