Cracks are appearing

If this and this (both via Say Uncle) pass and the Feds don’t bring in their lawyers and thugs I hope they soon start selling variants built on this:

Picture also from Say Uncle.

California, Kansas (another H/T to Say Uncle), Washington State and many other government entities are in or near economic crisis mode. If the Feds think it is politically unacceptable to allow banks and automakers to go bankrupt what are they going to think about states going bankrupt? Bailouts for local governments must be in discussion behind closed doors if not openly.

But the Feds are broke too. It just doesn’t show up quite a readily because they own the money printing presses. President Obama says he “will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year” (H/T to Tam and pdb). That can mean little more than increased taxes. If history from other countries in similar situations is any guide when things get bad enough you can expect direct confiscation of your retirement funds and savings as well as nationalization of various industries who remain profitable. The rational used will be something along the lines of “the government must not fall so anything we do to prevent it is justifiable”. They have guns and they won’t be afraid to use them to take whatever they think they “must” have. The U.S. Constitution was written with enumerated powers granted to the government but court rulings early in the last century shattered those walls. The Federal government will attempt to get more and more “control of the situation”. More planning and “guidance” from the “central committee” such as the “car czar” and more regulations for the banks (which helped bring them down to begin with) will fail in a big way. Many of the politicians and “intellectuals” have no industry (real world) experience. They have been living off of the public dole where money is obtained via the point of a gun (taxes) and they don’t have a clue (see also this comment clues, lack thereof) as to how reality really works. Obama is believed to be the savior of the world (see the I Love You Obama Woman, the response from France, as well as all the other adoration such that we have never in our lifetime seen for a U.S. president–only dictators in other countries). To the best of my knowledge he is the most inexperienced president our country has ever known, he is facing the biggest crisis our country has seen in 80 years, he is a socialist, and his advisers are socialists. His solutions are all going to involve more power and control for the Feds. More power and control in the hands of those that have only the flimsiest of connections to the real world and no experience. It’s a recipe for disaster.

The only bright spots I see are some states, such as Montana, Tennessee (see the first two links in this post), Arizona, Washington, Oklahoma (via Sebastian), and New Hampshire (via Sebastian and email from hunter006) are thinking about going all Ninth and 10th Amendment on us. There could be some serious cracks appearing in the creeping Federal tyranny we have been experiencing. Within a few years we could be (almost for certain?) looking at some new form of government. What will it be? The Orwellian vision of a a boot stamping on a human face … for ever? Or something else as certain states and people take a successful stand against the socialists?

I’ve been thinking for a long time that the world is due a new form of government. Tribal leaders, witch doctors, kings, dictators, democracies, republics, and others have all had their day (and dark nights) in the limelight. But instantaneous communication and near instantaneous travel makes for some interesting thought experiments. I’m not sure The Probability Broach type world is practical but there may be something else that is. This crisis may be the impetus to figure it out.


10 thoughts on “Cracks are appearing

  1. Joe,

    There is no stable form of government, least of all our version of a republic. The very nature of our term limits makes long term goals unattainable. I am not in favor of life-time presidents, but you have to give the dictators some credit: they can maintain a position for decades where Bush/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Obama is essentially a reversal of position every four to eight years. The rest of the world doesn’t understand that we become a different country with every election. My prediction is that we will be socialists for at least four to eight years and after that fails we will reverse course.

    In light of instant travel, communication, and the power of the multinational corporation is the nation-state concept even relevant anymore? A corporation can comply (or not) with local laws in multiple jurisdictions and move operations as needed to remain profitable. Consider the incentives offered to Boeing over the years to retain jobs, voters, and a tax base within a region. Consider the Clinton administrations attack on Microsoft: millions of dollars in fines that didn’t even touch the stock price or profits. Google could relocate to Zimbabwe or the like and the local government would start doing back-flips to keep them happy.

  2. “The rest of the world doesn’t understand that we become a different country with every election.”

    That may be the case now to some extent, but if the constitution and its founding principles were taught, respected and enforced, this would remain very much the same country, regardless. In that case, the occupant of the Whitehouse would matter primarily with regard to foreign relations, and little else. Your life and your property would belong to you– not the state.

    mostlygenius; You didn’t mention the issue of human rights, which preclude any form of socialism/Fascism/totalitarianism.

    We have certainly not been going back and fourth as you suggest. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Obama hasn’t been a series of reversals. It’s been a constant march toward socialism, slow/fast/slow/slow/super fast. The problem you’re not putting your finger on is that there has been no effective opposition party and no respect for the constitution.

    I will not tire of pointing out that government-controlled education is an important component to this problem. The first amendment was on the right track, but I wish that the Crown had been attempting to run the schools as well as the church in colonial times, so that the Founders would have seen the importance of keeping government influence out of education.

    We can only hope that there will be enough backlash from the current president to form some true opposition. Who knows; maybe the Republican Party will for once become conservative, instead of quasi-socialists pandering to conservatives. What we need is a “revolution” of sorts, similar in scope to the socialist revolution of the FDR years, but in the opposite direction. I’m not holding my breath. I would require the elimination of dozens of federal institutions, layoffs of tens of thousands of government employees, etc.. That would be the fix, but when will we realize it? Before or after a major melt-down?

  3. Lyle, Thanks for taking the time to explain things. I was going to do it tonight when I had more time.

    On “the fix”. You and I were pretty sure what the fix was a decade ago prior to the melt-down. We realize it now and we are in the middle of the melt-down. More people will recognize it as the melt-down continues. But it will be a When Prophecy Fails type of situation. There will come a point when the data is so overwhelming even the blindest of the blind and the most clueless of the clueless cannot fail to see they were wrong and their response will not be to say, “I was wrong. You were right. Let’s fix the problem your way.” Instead they will proselytize even more. They will work harder and take even more extreme measures to prove themselves correct rather than admit the obvious. Those people will not be limited to the Welfare Queens, the dimwitted Hollywood celebrities, and the hippies. It will be well respected University professors, the talking heads of the media, and, most unfortunately, the politicians in power who got us into this situation to begin with. They will be in a position to prolong and deepen the melt-down even if it means destroying the country to prove themselves right–all for the best of intentions of course.

    I am convinced we will melt-down to a level that will be just as bad, if not worse, than the depression of the 1930s. What I wonder about is if the pile of slag and ash left will 1) have enough sustenance for the Phoenix gather strength and rise and 2) If the sustenance does exist will the socialist manage to kill and eat the Phoenix before it has sufficient strength to defend itself. How do you overcome the masses who believe that any disparity in wealth must be the result of something being “unfair” and requiring government intervention at the point of a gun?

  4. The 1st American Revolution occurred when the economic conditions and the future was brighter. The oppression was viewed as being the responsibility of The Crown across the ocean. The Crown was treating the colonies as resources for it’s own use which was resented. The 13 colonies developed an identity mostly separate from England rather than being part of England and the people of the colonies regarded themselves as much a Citizen of Virginia (for example) as a British Subject.

    In the current situation people, for the most part, identify primarily as U.S. citizens and not citizens of a particular state. Hence unless we get a tremendous increase in the identification with another political entity (such as the State of Idaho/Montana/etc.) and a corresponding decrease in identification with the Federal Government I don’t think a revolution will happen. It might be that the Federal and or some/many state Governments collapses and something significantly different replaces it but I don’t think it is too likely there will be a revolution overthrowing a weakened Federal government unless the Feds attempt overt oppression against some subgroup instead of “merely” oppressing everyone with the best of intentions–“Fascism with a smiley face”.

    If the Feds attempt to oppress or blame as a scapegoat some subgroup (gun owners being the most obvious to me) that has more backbone, power, and long building resentment than the Feds give them credit for then the situation could change.

  5. “The very nature of our term limits makes long term goals unattainable.”

    Sorry, mostlyg, but that just sticks in my craw for some reason. Who’s long term goals; ours or the government’s? In a condition of stable liberty and protection of property rights as the Founders intended, we can make long-term plans and investments. We could live through 10 administrations and nothing would change much with regard to our operating rules. We’d know that if we create, we benefit from it– if we build, we, not some gang of retards in the capital, decide how to dispose of the fruits of our labors. We’d know that if we screw up, we, and not our neighbors, pay the price, and so we are most careful. Productivity, innovation and vitality are thereby set free, and the best performers (those who best serve the wants and needs of their fellow Man) are the ones that, far and away, receive the most support.

    This would all be taught starting in kindergarten, in my America.

    To the Marxist, a free and vibrant society is seen a “problem” that must be “solved”. “All this progress taking place without my getting a shred of credit for it? Blasphemy!” The loser (who is of course smarter than everyone else around him) sits on the sidelines of the miracle that is human creativity, and he bitches. He blames his shortcommings on those he hates most– the successful innovators and the frivilous (as he sees them) and whimsical creators and producers. Getting rich and enjoying it while I sit here in my self-imposed, alienated misery? Unacceptable.

    When some know-it-all neo-Marxist decides to change the rules unconstitutionally, our plans can be damaged or destroyed in mid stream (which I maintain is the one and only true goal). Planning itself becomes a matter of guesswork, CYA measures, and posturing for government favors and protections. We’re reduced to looking over our shoulders, looking for special dispensations from the rulers, and hiding our resources from public view, resulting in the need for more rule-making. Action, counter-action, counter counter-action, in a downward spiral. Any and all failure, real or imagined, is embraced as the excuse for the next power grab. Investment finds another place to go (out of state, out of country, underground, or it teams up with government in return for special consideration) or it dries up. Productivity, innovation and vitality are thereby frozen out. Eventually, if recent history is our guide, people will start dying en masse, either through purges, starvation, revolt, or foreign invasion.

    If you’re talking about the long-term social engineering experiments that we’ve had foisted on us since the early 20th century, sure; you want a constantly Fascist government to carry on The Plan. That is exactly what we don’t need, exactly what got us into our current trouble, and exactly what the constitution was written so as to avoid.

  6. Anything government has a hand in ‘operating/managing’ is soon to be essentially destroyed or handicapped to total inefficiency. The automakers are doomed (at least those who have accepted cash from .gov).

    If (and I pray this never happens) we have a situation where this country gets shut off from crude oil, imported or domestic, the food supply chain will stop. Agriculture is driven by diesel and a tiny bit of bio-fuels. There are no family farms to speak of as there were in the thirties. Socialists cannot produce ANYTHING. Never have, never will. Socialists/communists feed off slaves. Socialism is a perpetual motion machine. As the ‘working’ class dies/starves, the perpetual motion comes to an end.

    The socialists/communists in this country live in a bubble. The proof is in everything they do and are doing. All old, failed policies. On a gigantic scale. They do believe we are stupid, ignorant worker bees to be managed for their needs. And never forget there is no “individual” in a socialist’s/communist’s mindset. Just the masses.

    Maybe, just maybe enough real Americans will see what is happening at warp speed to their (and my) country and start raising some real red-blooded hell.

  7. Lyle,

    Don’t begin to cast me as some kind of fascist sympathizer. Libertarianism/Objectivism, I get it.

    The nation has “goals” (we can argue if they are set forth by the people, the government, or the founding fathers.) At the national policy level the goals change with each election. The constitution doesn’t have a road map for foreign policy objectives or economic initiatives.

    “In a condition of stable liberty and protection of property rights as the Founders intended, we can make long-term plans and investments.” Except that for all of the founders good intentions they clearly did not create a condition of “stable liberty.” Clearly the corruption of both the government and the electorate has eroded the Utopian ideals of the founders.

  8. “The constitution doesn’t have a road map for foreign policy objectives or economic initiatives.”

    As for foreign policy objectives; if the founding principles of Liberty are embraced, and our enemies are kept in check (or crushed when necessary) we’re fine. The constitution places the president as commander in chief of the militia. As for economic initiatives, the government has no proper roll other than to make sure they are possible, i.e. staying the hell out of the way and minding their own, very limited, business.

    I wasn’t casting you as anything, but commenting on your choice of words, which I hear too often even from self-described conservatives. I believe words are critically important. If you’re saying that our fed gov should be in the business of “economic initiatives” however, I’m beginning to wonder. That assertion in itself (assuming you made it) is Fascist by definition and has no place in a free society. Once we allow that government has the power and proper authority to instate “economic initiaves” we’re assuming they should control us in our day-to-day business because we’re too stupid and incapable of “doing it right”. That’s is altogether anti-American right there.

  9. Lyle,

    I believe that we agree that the government has certainly overstepped it’s bounds in terms of the “founding principles of Liberty.” We can split hairs about if a (hypothetical) deregulation and return to free-markets would be an “economic initiative.”

    My point is that all forms of government constantly seek ever more power and control. While a system of checks and balances might slow the speed at which we arrive at totalitarianism we will eventually get there. Ironically, it would seem that the “principles of liberty” fail for the same reasons that socialism fails: “if we only had the right people running things…” Eventually self-interest trumps principles.

    Perhaps instead of trying to invent a government that is stable in some permanent sense, we should reconcile ourselves to the fact that governments have lifespans. The principles of liberty are a goal that we (capital “A” Americans) try to reach via government, and it worked pretty good for a very brief time. I am sure I would not have enjoyed living under any of the thousand-year empires, but as far as being “stable” they had pretty good track records.

    Truthfully though, Nature is not stable.

Comments are closed.