Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Common sense plans for an uncertain future.

Rate this topic


wilicyote

Recommended Posts

I don't agree with you. This is pure rationalism and any argument based on such assumption if further more rationalism.

I don't want this situation to exist. And I respect that you don't agree. From my point of view, I'm taking what actions I deem necessary in a world gone completely mad. Multi trillion dollar bailouts, the FED, Obama, the glorification of forced altruism, stripping rights and arms from citizens, debt monetization, it's all completely insane. I hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Isn't the American sense of life vastly different from that of the rest of the world, though? And with lots of private gun ownership, I can't help but wonder if Americans won't let themselves be pushed as far as people of other nations. Rand seemed to think that America has a unique sense of life, so perhaps that would lead to a unique situation when Americans are pushed to their breaking point??

This might have been the case. Sadly, I think the Americans Rand was referring to are a dying breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am placing my bid on neither.

I lived in a country which went through a drastic economic and political change and:

1) it never got violent to the point that you would need to protect your life and property

2) there was no food shortage

3) no any kind of social collapse

With all due respect, there is a lot of emotionalism going on lately here.

I think the important difference is that (I am making a small assumption here, forgive me if I am wrong) the time you refer to in Poland was when it threw off the oppressive shackles of dictatorial rule by Russia, became a free and democratic country, and embraced capitalism. In that case the country was moving from a bad situation to one that was better, no?

In the United States today we are moving from a moderately crappy situation to one that is worse, some would argue much worse. It stands to reason then that the response by the population would be markedly different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the important difference is that (I am making a small assumption here, forgive me if I am wrong) the time you refer to in Poland was when it threw off the oppressive shackles of dictatorial rule by Russia, became a free and democratic country, and embraced capitalism. In that case the country was moving from a bad situation to one that was better, no?

In the United States today we are moving from a moderately crappy situation to one that is worse, some would argue much worse. It stands to reason then that the response by the population would be markedly different.

The fact that Poles were fighting against a dictatorship (no freedom of speech) would have made the possibility of a physical confrontation more likely - not less. In America, current changes are the result of views and desires of the majority.

I am not arguing against preparing for harder economic times but .... social collapse and armed rebellion? I see this as likely in America as Christ's second coming. It also would not be a good idea... Armed rebellion results in loss of lives, property damage, overall disruption of economic activity, and massive looting - just to name a few. But most importantly it legitimizes the use of force over intelectual dialogue (when the second is still possible). To attempt to achieve the good by physical force, when intelectual persuasion is possible, is to reject reason as means with which men should deal with one another. Armed uprising must be thus considered as the last resort - when the process that lead to rights violation can no longer be reversed via non-violent means - when you no longer have the freedom of speech.

Also such uprising (even if you could gain some type of control over the country) would be futile in the long run without an ideological change. Similarly, even if an Objectivist president took office tomorrow and started making real changes toward freedom, given current ideology of American population, those changes would have been very short lived. I am afraid there is no short cut to this long process of intellectual shift. Even your Constitution, eventhough it was drafted with that purpose, did not prevent the loss of freedom. If more was done toward educating people about the validity of those ideas... Many, seems to me, were not convinced from the start and thus slow deterioration took place.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the reasons why I recommend educating oneself about the great depression. Although some will disagree, I find the likelihood of us reaching at least this state of economic decline better than 50%. For that reason I have done extensive research on the subject.

For the most part people behaved in a reasonably civilized manner. There seemed to be an attitude of "we are all in this together." There were some isolated riots in the streets of a few major cities, but for the most part people just knuckled down and did the best they could. I believe that will be the most likely response for the majority of Americans this time around too. But the major cities are going to have a bit rougher go of it this time. We just watched several days of riots in the streets of Oakland because of an incident of police brutality on the BART subway system. Cars were flipped over and torched, shop windows were smashed, and some looting occurred. Street riots have become "the thing to do." The anarchist movement has refined it to a science, a military science. They have very organized counter-intelligence and security operations when they show up and they want, and get chaos.

To admit that these things are a very real probability is not "emotionalism", it is an observation of present reality. In my case these observations are not just pertaining to present day America. When I was ten I stood at the windows of a hotel in Thailand and watched while an angry mob moved down the street pulling people from their cars and beating them to death. When I asked my Mother why they were doing this, she said it was because they HAD cars. I will be the first to admit that this experience left me with an impression that I will never forget. I am careful not to assume that every group walking down the street wants to beat people to death. I understand the importance of context. I will also not pretend that it could not happen here. Given the right context, it not only can, but will (or have we already forgotton the Rodney King riots and Reginald Denny being pulled from the cab of his big-rig, beaten and then shot at close range with a sawn off shotgun on national TV). Whether we are setting up such a context here and now is a subject reasonable people can debate if they choose to, without deserving the brand of "rationalism" or "emotionalism". Others are equally free to choose not to debate the issue.

There are points "ers" makes that, within the context of a stage three meltdown, are quite correct. I am curious to know if he has any plans besides a strong defense, I suspect he does. Whether we get to Stage three is open for reasonable men to debate. I, for one, think it will take a "perfect storm" of things going wrong at the same time to get us there. This is why I place the liklihood of that happening at a low 20%. If I see storm clouds rising on both horizons, I don't have a problem revising that because I am not wedded to it emotionally.

Edited by wilicyote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing against preparing for harder economic times but .... social collapse and armed rebellion? I see this as likely in America as Christ's second coming. It also would not be a good idea... Armed rebellion results in loss of lives, property damage, overall disruption of economic activity, and massive looting - just to name a few. But most importantly it legitimizes the use of force over intelectual dialogue (when the second is still possible). To attempt to achieve the good by physical force, when intelectual persuasion is possible, is to reject reason as means with which men should deal with one another. Armed uprising must be thus considered as the last resort - when the process that lead to rights violation can no longer be reversed via non-violent means - when you no longer have the freedom of speech.

I can accept that, although I am not sure that anyone here has advocated armed rebellion (the closest would be a question regarding the likelihood of a state splitting from the union, even then I didn't here anyone advocating for it). Several here have argued in favor of manitaining thier ability to defend themselves, vigorously if necessary. They are two very different things.

I know some people who are a lot further out on the edge of the "its the end of the world crowd." Interestingly even these people want only to pack up their stuff head for the hills and defend their families. It is an incorrect stereotype that people who are armed and trained to defend themselves are chomping at the bit for the first chance to start a civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an incorrect stereotype that people who are armed and trained to defend themselves are chomping at the bit for the first chance to start a civil war.

I don't think that is the case. But we are discussing here arming up in the context of the claimed likelihood of a civil war. If you want to own and learn hot to shoot a gun - fine - that is not under the discussion here.

There are points "ers" makes that, within the context of a stage three meltdown, are quite correct.

"Ers", some time ago, if memory serves me well, was making predictions about Islamic dictatorship in America in 50 years if something is not done.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that is the case. But we are discussing here arming up in the context of the claimed likelihood of a civil war. If you want to own and learn hot to shoot a gun - fine - that is not under the discussion here.

Wow, my eyes must be going bad, old age and all. I have read this entire thread over again (third time now), and I can't find where anyone said we should all arm up and prepare for an impending civil war. Would you be kind enough to point me to it?

Even if "ers" said the moon was going to turn into green cheese next week, what bearing would that have on the validity of a point or two he made in his post here? That would be like saying that because my niece is only six and still believes in the tooth fairy that I must disregard her emphatic pronouncemenet that 2 plus 2 equals 4. I find it is better to just take each statement that someone makes here and evaluate it on it's merits. I then respond accordingly. Now if I was planning on entering into some sort of extended relationship with a member of the forum I would naturally do a little digging to see if their character held up. Here, we are just talking, exchanging ideas. Some of mine are better than others. Some of yours are better than others. I am really most interested in the ideas.

Edited by wilicyote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, my eyes must be going bad, old age and all. I have read this entire thread over again (third time now), and I can't find where anyone said we should all arm up and prepare for an impending civil war. Would you be kind enough to point me to it?

Post #19 (which sparked my first response) started with:

I'll throw in my two cents, for what it's worth. Bear in mind that in my humble opinion, America is about to experience either a social collapse or a 2nd revolution, or both. (If you want me to justify my reasons, send me a message or we'll start a new thread).

which provided the context for his suggestions that followed.

I was responding to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ers", some time ago, if memory serves me well, was making predictions about Islamic dictatorship in America in 50 years if something is not done.

That sounds like something I would have said. :lol: I'm not fond of Islam. And I'll stand by it, as well. Sharia is not compatible with freedom as we know it, and allowing it to infiltrate our society and courts would more or less turn us into an Islamic dictatorship. It's already happening in Europe; take a look at Geert Wilders, who lives in a supposedly Western, modern country. The man is being prosecuted because he "insulted" Islam. The gravity of that should make every freedom loving individual sick and worried.

Sophia, like I said, you can think what you will about my views, it doesn't really matter to me. I am preparing for worst case scenarios by training myself, storing food and ammunition, as well as living more prudently. In the process I'm having fun and resting a bit easier at night knowing that if SHTF, I will be better prepared to care for my family.

Armed uprising must be thus considered as the last resort - when the process that lead to rights violation can no longer be reversed via non-violent means - when you no longer have the freedom of speech.

I agree 100%. I just think that we differ on how soon that situation will come about.

Edited by ers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the right context, it not only can, but will (or have we already forgotton the Rodney King riots and Reginald Denny being pulled from the cab of his big-rig, beaten and then shot at close range with a sawn off shotgun on national TV).

Your example is irrelevant to the current discussion of possible widespread societal disruption in America.

3 out of 4 people responsible for this crime had previous criminal record which included auto theft and robbery. One was a member of a gang who is now serving a 40+ sentence for murder he committed 8 years later. These people did not have a respect for the law regardless and this event was only an excuse for their criminal behavior.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your example is irrelevant to the current discussion of possible widespread societal disruption in America.

3 out of 4 people responsible for this crime had previous criminal record which included auto theft and robbery. One was a member of a gang who is now serving a 40+ sentence for murder he committed 8 years later. These people did not have a respect for the law regardless and this event was only an excuse for their criminal behavior.

It is totally relevant. Do you think people with prior criminal records are just going to disappear and not play their typical role in a chaotic environment. They are a part of the fabric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think people with prior criminal records are just going to disappear and not play their typical role in a chaotic environment. They are a part of the fabric.

Yes, which was part of my argument for choosing the use of physical force as the last resort.

However, what you called in your first post as "meltdown of society as we know it" requires an otherwise law abiding men choosing, from among the available options, to use physical force - which as we have been discussing has its consequences. Civilized people understand the implications. The existence of criminals in a civilized society (objective laws + accountability+overall respect for the law) does not make such society "held together by very fine threads" (if I may use ers statement).

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The existence of criminals in a civilized society (objective laws + accountability+overall respect for the law) does not make such society "held together by very fine threads" (if I may use ers statement).

Well, first off, we don't have anything close to what could properly be called "objective law," at least in the U.S. I don't agree with or like the fact that I have to pay property taxes that largely fund public schools. I don't even have any kids, and if I did, I wouldn't send them to a public school. But I do pay my taxes, because if I don't, the police will come to my house and use force against me. This is not a desirable outcome, because I don't wish to go to jail. I suppose this is what you are referring to when you say accountability and respect for the law. Yes, civilized people weigh the consequences of their actions, and order is maintained.

The reason why any man would obey laws he does not morally agree with is the threat of force. And many would-be criminals are held in check by the fact that police exist and do their job daily, not by their morals (or lack thereof). These are the fine threads I speak of.

A "meltdown of society as we know it" doesn't actually require law abiding men to consciously choose to stop obeying laws and to begin using physical force. Yes, it's one option, that a majority of people decide that the government has become too corrupt so they organize a violent resistance. But other scenarios are more likely; such as the destruction of our currency or the absence of police.

If an average person's buying power is nullified and they cannot purchase food for their family, what do you think is going to happen? Sure, there are some moral people out there who will try to barter for food. More than likely, especially in larger urban areas, there will be riots with large scale destruction of property. And the paid protectors, the police, do you really think that they will continue to do their jobs and accept backed-by-nothing fiat money from the government that isn't worth the paper it's printed on? Do you think they'd risk their own lives out some sense of moral duty?

I guess if you don't want to acknowledge that hyperinflation as at least a possibility, then just ignore everything I've said. I'm not saying it's definitely going to happen, or that it's even likely. I'm saying that this isn't the 1930s, and we are not the rugged, self-reliant people we once were. Our jobs have become very specialized; most of us have never been hunting or even know how to sew. A lot of us have never shot guns and don't know how to properly defend ourselves. America's population at large has become severely reliant on the government to protect us and provide for us. So I watch the news, and I worry. I don't want to be one of the ones caught with my pants down if something bad does happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first off, we don't have anything close to what could properly be called "objective law," at least in the U.S. I don't agree with or like the fact that I have to pay property taxes that largely fund public schools.

True. However your laws are better than in most places in the world. You are closer than most and far away from laws being useless. Basic structure of civilized society is present.

The reason why any man would obey laws he does not morally agree with is the threat of force.

And many would-be criminals are held in check by the fact that police exist and do their job daily, not by their morals (or lack thereof). These are the fine threads I speak of.

That is not the primary reason rational men obey the law they don't agree in the context of American society.

I have touched on this in one of my previous posts. It is in recognition that the government is an enforcer of all the laws, and it is not in your or anybody's best interest to allow people to choose which laws they find convenient to obey. If one does not agree with a particular law one ought to fight it on ideological level and not by civil disobedience. Selective compliance undermines the integrity of the entire legal system.

What distinguishes (and assures its survival) a civilized nation from from a barbaric one is the sanctity of the legal system.

A "meltdown of society as we know it" doesn't actually require law abiding men to consciously choose to stop obeying laws and to begin using physical force.

Yes it does.

Your other two proposed factors are not reasonable in the reality of America (and both would be a problem only if the above factor was present). Short of a drastic widespread natural disaster both are very unlikely. I have not even seen it in a socialist dictatorship in which most people were used to government handouts and experienced shortages of goods for two generations. Economic hardships do not turn civilized people into savages.

I have no interest in going through a list of unreasonable assumptions, and explaining why they are not reasonable, that make up such doom scenario predictions. I am out.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your other two proposed factors are not reasonable in the reality of America

I disagree. And I understand why you don't want to discuss it.

Economic hardships do not turn civilized people into savages.

I also, respectfully, disagree. They can, and especially so during chaos.

Edited by ers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sohpia,

I think there is a refusal to accept the basic fact that the things you claim won't happen in America, have happened on numerous occasions in the recent past. Each time someone cites one of them you dismiss it merely by claiming it is not relevant.

America is a landscape of great variety. There are rural communities where, no matter what hardship, people would never even consider inappropriate behavior. And there are cities where the vast majority of the population would not hesitate to help each other maintain social order no matter what the circumstance. There are also cities in this country where no opportunity to behave badly is passed up. Los Angeles, Oakland, New Orleans, Detroit... to name a few.

We live in a country where most people will happily wait in a civilized line for hours for a free breakfast at Denny's (where I would suggest they are getting what they paid for), but where other people will trample to death a Walmart employee trying to save a pregnant woman, because they wanted the XBox 360 on sale. And worse, express outrage that they were told they would have to leave the store before they had found all the sales merely because someone had the audacity to die in the middle of their shopping experience.

I love this country, mostly because I have lived a substantial portion of my life in several others, so I know first hand just how much better it is than any other. I wish very much that it were not true that a whole chunk of South Central decided that running as mobs through the streets, burning buildings and looting all the stores was the proper way to respond to a verdict they did not like. Where even the paremedics and firemen had to wear bullitproof vests because they were being shot at while trying to rescue that community from itself. Or that in the immediate aftermath of a hurricane, the first thought in some peoples minds was that they now could have that 45" flat panel TV they had always wanted, simply because nobody would stop them from stealing it. But pretending it is not so will not change the facts.

All that would be required for things to get really ugly in one of our major cities is a breakdown in transportation lasting a week. I know this because this is my career. I run the transportation operation for a grocery store chain. Trucking is the Taggert Transcontinental of our age (if it stops, everything stops) I know exactly how much food is in the pipline, at the warehouses, and in the stores, and exactly how long it will last (not nearly long enough). I know this because its my job to know. I also know this because I hold a degree in Homeland Security from AMU and have spent days in seminars and conferences in Washington with State and Federal authorities working to develop response plans for just such disasters. Because I know first hand what our real situation is, I know that you are wrong. The potential for social order to break down in our major population centers is frightening. The real capicity for our government to respond effectively is almost as frightening.

The reason that it is so much more critical in this present crisis is that it is not a local event. The economic meltdown is global. In a local crisis, surrounding communities, or even nations can lend a hand. When everyone in the entire world is in the same boat, where do you suppose the help is going to come from?

Does this mean that I have turned my basement into an armory, staked out my fields of fire from my rooftop, and taught my children how to load ammo clips while being shot at? NO, of course not. Have I sat down with my young adult daughter who lives in San Francisco and had a frank discussion about how to spot dangerous mob behavior, and what to do in such situations? Of course, I love my daughter. There is nothing wrong with encouraging the ones you care about to think through these things in advance. It is, in fact, the reason why I started this thread.

It would be really great if we could return to that purpose, for some it could be beneficial. If you don't think it applies to your situation, I will not be offended, but please don't try to tell me that it doesn't apply to mine.

Edited by wilicyote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...