Food prices are rising. There are food riots in the third world, and food rationing of certain items in the United States. Various analysis pundits are trying to figure out exactly where to place the blame.
This is a real concern, as due to the economic collapse in the United States the prices of many commodities both at home and abroad will be rising. The Federal Reserve insists there is no recession yet, posting a 0.6% growth for the previous quarter, but Shadow Stats begs to differ. There is a possibility that food will become a more scarce commodity, which is why it is important for people to ensure a proper food supply through urban and suburban farming. But we aren’t at the crisis point yet.
Many people blame ethanol, and rightly so. While those who know what foods we should eat enjoy telling us that it takes many pounds of grain to enjoy one pound of beef (based on acreage) any acreage devoted to ethanol cannot be consumed as grain or beef. This has had a direct impact on the price of corn and corn products, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.
Unknown News author Mahdi Abdul Finke blames the current situation on another speculative bubble. With the Dot Com bubble a distant memory, the Housing Bubble still deflating, and the source of them all, the Currency Bubble, not being reported, other bubbles will of course sprout. Until the Currency Bubble finally pops, pressure will be relieved by venting into other markets, creating bubble conditions there until the subsidiary bubbles pop.
All of the bubbles making headlines are subsidiary bubbles. The reason why various government agencies cannot address the cause of the subsidiary bubbles is because they will not address the root cause of the subsidiary bubbles. As long as the Federal Reserve is not looked at as a cause, as long as it is looked at as a cure, then there will be no way to stop these bubbles from growing in the first place.
This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a food crisis looming. There is, but the early signs of it are being exacerbated by the Federal Reserve.
Rising fuel prices are at the root of the real aspect of the food crisis. It takes fuel to power farm equipment, and fuel to transport food from growers to consumers. The fuel crisis has two roots. One root is environmentalist policies that restrict drilling for oil, restrict the construction of refineries, and mandate the use of ethanol (it takes 120 barrels of oil to create 100 barrel of ethanol). The other root is the insane policy of aggression towards countries that produce oil, such as Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela.
Since it is more expensive to grow food and to ship food, prices are rising. Since the economy is in a recession and the Housing Bubble has thrown people into panic mode, this hysteria is taking that rise and turning it into a bubble.
While it is an excellent idea to prepare for upcoming food shortages, it is not yet time to panic. It is, instead, time to plant a garden while stocking up on durable food stores.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Bugger the TSA
The Transportation Security Administration has a blog. It is intended to facilitate communications between the flying public and the TSA administration. There are a few problems with the blog as it is presented though.
They do not answer questions.
Actually, they do answer some of the questions posted in the comments. They answer the softball questions. They answer the easy questions. They do not answer any of the difficult questions people have been posing to them since the day the blog was introduced.
Here's a good list of questions to bother the TSA with. The blogger team seems intent to let statist commenters handle these questions on their behalf. The goal is to get one of the actual bloggers address these issues.
Dear Blog Team,
1.The demonstrations about imaging technology only shows an image of a man from the rear as proof that frontal images will not show any intimate details. To further support the promise that intimate details are not shown, the viewing screen used by the TSA is carefully protected from view by the public. Given the track record of the TSA on "just trust us" issues, do you really feel yet another "just trust us but don't verify" is a way to increase public trust in the TSA? What measures are being taken to ensure that images from your new advanced technologies are not overly invasive and do not ever leave the TSA?
They finally posted front and rear male and female pictures, so people can individually judge if the process is too invasive.
2.Every chemist who has been asked has answered that there is no scientific basis for the 3-1-1 rule, a binary liquid explosive that is undetectable, stable, and can be easily turned into an explosive. Yes, we know about the London plot, with some guys who had no equipment and no knowledge and no plans beyond the "gee this would be a neat idea" stage, but the fact is that science has refuted both their plot and your rule. We know that the TSA has some data that contradicts the scientific facts, that they have research that contradicts scientific laws, but the TSA research is "classified" and the message from the TSA is "just trust us" with regards to a rule that violates the laws of nature. It's obvious that the TSA itself knows the rule lacks any scientific basis by the free mixing of liquids in an unshielded trash can at the check point. Given all of that, why do you keep the 3-1-1 rule?
They finally answered this one too. It's not a binary liquid, it's a liquid and a powder. The problem is that the concentration of hydrogen peroxide needed to make this work is so very strong that bomb sniffers would always detect it. The 3-1-1 rule is still an unnecessary encumberance.
3. It is TSA policy that TSOs do not have the authority to deny someone the right to fly. It is also TSA policy to not give additional screening to someone as a punishment for complaining. Note, the order of events in that statement is not extra screening leading to complaint, but complaint leading to extra screening. This question has nothing to do with avoiding extra screening by complaining about it - this question has everything to do with getting extra screening because one dared to complain about the TSA. Given that TSOs still hold complainers for extra screening, and given that holding someone for extra screening until after their plane is in the air is de facto denial of flight (although apparently not de jure), is there any plan in place to dicipline screeners to conduct retaliatory screening and de facto denial of flight?
4. Given that nipple rings are clearly not deadly weapons, clearly not disguised weapons, and that a visual inspection was actually offered as a means to solve the alarm situation, why was the traveler with the nipple rings forced to remove them?
5. In the near future, when REAL ID is implemented, the TSA has determined that the only valid IDs for flying are IDs that conform to REAL ID requirements. Several states have announced that they are either delaying or outright denying the REAL ID requirements for their drivers licenses.What plans does the TSA have to give additional screening to 100% of the travelers from those states? Have additional personnel requirements and additional space requirements already been analyzed? Given that one of those states is Arizona, with several major national and international hubs, do you think that the insistance on REAL ID instead of a regular drivers license is overly onerous a burden?
Oh boy did the ever answer this one, in part.. The answer is that every single person from a state that doesn't conform will get the additional screening. They won't budge on the rest and don't care about the intrusiveness. The plan is to blame the state and get the voters angry at their state government instead of the TSA. That is unlikely to work.
6. The biggest security hole is after the TSA inspects baggage and before the baggage is put on the airplane. Since the luggage is all either unlocked or bearing a TSA approved lock that can be easily defeated, and the TSA specifically denies any responsiblity for the baggage after screening, what is to stop a baggage handler from either stealing from the bags or planting a dangerous item in the luggage?
7. What measures are being taken to ensure that terrorists themselves do not infiltrate the TSA with the objective of becoming TSOs and therefore bypass security to get deadly devices planted on airplanes? If you cannot answer that for security reasons, can you tell us if any measures are in place at all?
8. Given that this blog is about facilitating communication, why does nobody on the blog team ever answer comments in any but the most recent entry? Why are these very questions occasionally censored?
The common theme in these questions is that the TSA has an institutional impediment to admitting error. The closest you ever come is "we are reviewing policies." Even the TSA knows the 3-1-1 rule has no scientific backing, but to repeal that regulation is to admit they did something wrong. They cannot admit they did something wrong. Therefore the rule cannot be repealed. The more I question them about their obvious mistakes, the harder it is for them to avoid admitting you made a mistake. They can, and do, make mistakes. They erred on the 3-1-1 rule, they erred on the piercings, they are going to err on REAL ID.
The common theme in the answers previously given is that not even the TSA believes what the TSA tells the public. It would be insulting if you thought your official statement ware meant to be believed. If you actually thought that statements were serious you would be showing contempt for our intelligence. Instead you are simply showing contempt for us. That is beyond insult. It shows you do not care enough about us to even insult us.
They do not answer questions.
Actually, they do answer some of the questions posted in the comments. They answer the softball questions. They answer the easy questions. They do not answer any of the difficult questions people have been posing to them since the day the blog was introduced.
Here's a good list of questions to bother the TSA with. The blogger team seems intent to let statist commenters handle these questions on their behalf. The goal is to get one of the actual bloggers address these issues.
Dear Blog Team,
1.
They finally posted front and rear male and female pictures, so people can individually judge if the process is too invasive.
2.
They finally answered this one too. It's not a binary liquid, it's a liquid and a powder. The problem is that the concentration of hydrogen peroxide needed to make this work is so very strong that bomb sniffers would always detect it. The 3-1-1 rule is still an unnecessary encumberance.
3. It is TSA policy that TSOs do not have the authority to deny someone the right to fly. It is also TSA policy to not give additional screening to someone as a punishment for complaining. Note, the order of events in that statement is not extra screening leading to complaint, but complaint leading to extra screening. This question has nothing to do with avoiding extra screening by complaining about it - this question has everything to do with getting extra screening because one dared to complain about the TSA. Given that TSOs still hold complainers for extra screening, and given that holding someone for extra screening until after their plane is in the air is de facto denial of flight (although apparently not de jure), is there any plan in place to dicipline screeners to conduct retaliatory screening and de facto denial of flight?
4. Given that nipple rings are clearly not deadly weapons, clearly not disguised weapons, and that a visual inspection was actually offered as a means to solve the alarm situation, why was the traveler with the nipple rings forced to remove them?
5. In the near future, when REAL ID is implemented, the TSA has determined that the only valid IDs for flying are IDs that conform to REAL ID requirements. Several states have announced that they are either delaying or outright denying the REAL ID requirements for their drivers licenses.
Oh boy did the ever answer this one, in part.. The answer is that every single person from a state that doesn't conform will get the additional screening. They won't budge on the rest and don't care about the intrusiveness. The plan is to blame the state and get the voters angry at their state government instead of the TSA. That is unlikely to work.
6. The biggest security hole is after the TSA inspects baggage and before the baggage is put on the airplane. Since the luggage is all either unlocked or bearing a TSA approved lock that can be easily defeated, and the TSA specifically denies any responsiblity for the baggage after screening, what is to stop a baggage handler from either stealing from the bags or planting a dangerous item in the luggage?
7. What measures are being taken to ensure that terrorists themselves do not infiltrate the TSA with the objective of becoming TSOs and therefore bypass security to get deadly devices planted on airplanes? If you cannot answer that for security reasons, can you tell us if any measures are in place at all?
8. Given that this blog is about facilitating communication, why does nobody on the blog team ever answer comments in any but the most recent entry? Why are these very questions occasionally censored?
The common theme in these questions is that the TSA has an institutional impediment to admitting error. The closest you ever come is "we are reviewing policies." Even the TSA knows the 3-1-1 rule has no scientific backing, but to repeal that regulation is to admit they did something wrong. They cannot admit they did something wrong. Therefore the rule cannot be repealed. The more I question them about their obvious mistakes, the harder it is for them to avoid admitting you made a mistake. They can, and do, make mistakes. They erred on the 3-1-1 rule, they erred on the piercings, they are going to err on REAL ID.
The common theme in the answers previously given is that not even the TSA believes what the TSA tells the public. It would be insulting if you thought your official statement ware meant to be believed. If you actually thought that statements were serious you would be showing contempt for our intelligence. Instead you are simply showing contempt for us. That is beyond insult. It shows you do not care enough about us to even insult us.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The War on Education
The governments' policy with regards to education could easily be called “The War on Education” in the sense that the War on Drugs was supposed to eliminate drugs and the War on Poverty was supposed to eliminate poverty, except that unlike the other two this particular war has been successful.
California has done much in recent years to bring the whole conflict on education to the fore, because while other states are quibbling about stilly attempts to insert creationism into the science curriculum California has been arguing the basic premises of the educational system, and coming to the wrong conclusion.
Many people are familiar with a recent ruling against Home Schooling as issued by the California Judicial System. It is bad, but it was bad before the ruling as California has always been hostile to home schooling. The only people who are actually authorized to home school are credentialed educators. The rest have been using a loophole in the law that allows parents to declare their home a private school and thus private school the children at home. While the ruling has prompted potential reform of the law in a way that might increase liberty, it also has the potential to close the loophole instead.
But this needs to be viewed in light of a slightly older ruling issued by the California Judicial System. In the city of Palmdale the students in the elementary school were given very sexually explicit surveys. When parents protested, the courts decreed that parents had no right to protest what the school teaches once the child is handed over to the government schools.
These two items taken together help paint a more full picture of the nature of the problem. Parents cannot withhold their children from government schools, and once parents deliver their children to government schools they have no grounds on which to protest what the schools decide to teach.
Now combine that with the statement of the judge in the home school case
A parent must send their child to school, the school is there to teach loyalty to the state, and parents have no grounds on which to protest any topic the school decides is necessary for the education of the children.
It’s bad enough that the schools fail to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, but to have to pay for this alternative education really is modern tyranny. That is not an exaggeration. When this is combined with programs such as DARE, where children are encouraged to tell school officials if parents have drugs or guns, the situation is positively frightening.
California has done much in recent years to bring the whole conflict on education to the fore, because while other states are quibbling about stilly attempts to insert creationism into the science curriculum California has been arguing the basic premises of the educational system, and coming to the wrong conclusion.
Many people are familiar with a recent ruling against Home Schooling as issued by the California Judicial System. It is bad, but it was bad before the ruling as California has always been hostile to home schooling. The only people who are actually authorized to home school are credentialed educators. The rest have been using a loophole in the law that allows parents to declare their home a private school and thus private school the children at home. While the ruling has prompted potential reform of the law in a way that might increase liberty, it also has the potential to close the loophole instead.
But this needs to be viewed in light of a slightly older ruling issued by the California Judicial System. In the city of Palmdale the students in the elementary school were given very sexually explicit surveys. When parents protested, the courts decreed that parents had no right to protest what the school teaches once the child is handed over to the government schools.
These two items taken together help paint a more full picture of the nature of the problem. Parents cannot withhold their children from government schools, and once parents deliver their children to government schools they have no grounds on which to protest what the schools decide to teach.
Now combine that with the statement of the judge in the home school case
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,"
A parent must send their child to school, the school is there to teach loyalty to the state, and parents have no grounds on which to protest any topic the school decides is necessary for the education of the children.
It’s bad enough that the schools fail to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, but to have to pay for this alternative education really is modern tyranny. That is not an exaggeration. When this is combined with programs such as DARE, where children are encouraged to tell school officials if parents have drugs or guns, the situation is positively frightening.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
A proposed solution
There are many proposed ideas on ways to repair the government. The problem with all of these ideas is that none of them have a prayer of passing.
As more and more stories about police abuse appear in the media, as police get ever more abusive, the constant theme going through each of these stories is the severity of the punishment the offending police receive: they really aren't punished. Many of them are suspended with pay. Most of the rest are suspended without pay. A few are actually fired. How many spend time in jail?
The same goes for misbehaving prosecutors, the other half of the offensive power of government, as the police lack the power to convict (in theory, as when pain compliance via taser is administered it is clearly conviction and punishment). When Michael Nifong so severely raped the North Carolina Justice System that it was inescapable that he be disciplined, he spent one whole day in jail.
Obviously there is a major disconnect with the officials of the government policing itself. The police and the prosecutors not only fail to act against offenders within their own ranks and each others ranks, they also fail to act against offenders in other departments of the government.
In England and Australia there is a law that, while seldom used, would be useful to remedy the situation in the United States. The people have the authority to file criminal charges. Given how much more lawsuit happy the people of the United States are, this could easily get out of hand so as an introductory step the people of the United States would better be given the authority to fire criminal charges against government officials.
There would have to be a few conditions on this os as to keep this from getting out of hand. First, the person filing the charge must pay for the initial filing - a successful conviction will warrant reimbursement from the government. Second, prosecutors are not able to take over the prosecution without agreement from the filing party. This will prevent the prosecutor from taking over simply to move that the charges be dropped with prejudice. Third, government attorneys other than those already designated as public defenders may not act as the defense for accused government agents, and only if the government agent passes the means test to qualify for free public defense - which they will not.
No government attorney should be allowed to defend the accused. That would be a conflict of interest.
Given that when a prosecutor accuses a person, if the person successfully defends himself the government does not reimburse the defense, so when a person accuses a government agent the agent should expect no reimbursement from either the government or the filing party. This is quite unlike the loser-pays system of civil suits, and much more like the government's idea of justice ... only applied to the government.
Too bad it has no chance of passing.
As more and more stories about police abuse appear in the media, as police get ever more abusive, the constant theme going through each of these stories is the severity of the punishment the offending police receive: they really aren't punished. Many of them are suspended with pay. Most of the rest are suspended without pay. A few are actually fired. How many spend time in jail?
The same goes for misbehaving prosecutors, the other half of the offensive power of government, as the police lack the power to convict (in theory, as when pain compliance via taser is administered it is clearly conviction and punishment). When Michael Nifong so severely raped the North Carolina Justice System that it was inescapable that he be disciplined, he spent one whole day in jail.
Obviously there is a major disconnect with the officials of the government policing itself. The police and the prosecutors not only fail to act against offenders within their own ranks and each others ranks, they also fail to act against offenders in other departments of the government.
In England and Australia there is a law that, while seldom used, would be useful to remedy the situation in the United States. The people have the authority to file criminal charges. Given how much more lawsuit happy the people of the United States are, this could easily get out of hand so as an introductory step the people of the United States would better be given the authority to fire criminal charges against government officials.
There would have to be a few conditions on this os as to keep this from getting out of hand. First, the person filing the charge must pay for the initial filing - a successful conviction will warrant reimbursement from the government. Second, prosecutors are not able to take over the prosecution without agreement from the filing party. This will prevent the prosecutor from taking over simply to move that the charges be dropped with prejudice. Third, government attorneys other than those already designated as public defenders may not act as the defense for accused government agents, and only if the government agent passes the means test to qualify for free public defense - which they will not.
No government attorney should be allowed to defend the accused. That would be a conflict of interest.
Given that when a prosecutor accuses a person, if the person successfully defends himself the government does not reimburse the defense, so when a person accuses a government agent the agent should expect no reimbursement from either the government or the filing party. This is quite unlike the loser-pays system of civil suits, and much more like the government's idea of justice ... only applied to the government.
Too bad it has no chance of passing.
Friday, April 04, 2008
A new plan to advance liberty
The reason for the delay in this entry was because of the need to confer with financial aid counselors on the feasability of the project described herein.
It is often said that the Libertarian Party or the libertarian ideology has the best product and the worst marketing. Various proposals have been put forward as to how to remedy this situation. One person went so far as to suggest wealthy libertarians pool their resources to create a not-for-profit newspaper with nationwide distribution.
The problems with that situation are numerous, including but not limited to: getting better name recognition by purchasing an established newspaper, newspapers are fading from the scene as national news resources, and actually getting people to read the newspaper in the first place.
Libertarian material is already available in greater quantity (and quality) than ever before. All a person has to do for free literature is visit any near-by Libertarian Party meeting, and the visitor will receive more than ample information to take home and read. It is all over the web, and there are journals available in print such as Reason magazine.
The question of how to reach the people was put to someone who has no experience in marketing, but great experience in problem solving, an engineer with a liking for philosophy. After months of pondering the problem a conclusion was reached:
How can the Libertarian Party, or any other libertarian organization, get the people to the message? How did the socialists do it?
The Socialist Party has never won major elections. There has never been a Socialist Party president. Yet for all of that, their platform has, to a large extent, been passed.
They did it through education. They became teachers, and year after year molded the opinions of future leaders and future teachers. Each generation brought the country a step closer so that while the United States was still fairly free at the beginning of the 20th century, it certainly wasn’t at the beginning of the 21st.
That is why there is one region of the Libertarian Party, a small region, planning on doing something about it.
The Antelope Valley Libertarian Party is starting a scholarship program. As a small region with a small budget, they will only be able to afford one scholarship a year, and not a large scholarship either. Once the program is started it is expected to grow, to eventually offer more and larger scholarship.
This scholarship will be available to anyone who fulfills three requirements.
The location was chosen because that is the closest college to offer education as a major. The major was chosen after much deliberation to pick the one major that will, in the long run, increase liberty.
It is a long term investment that won’t see a return for a long time, but as a long term goal this may be the best way to bring people to the message.
Pledges to the fund can be made by contacting the Chair of the AVLP.
It is often said that the Libertarian Party or the libertarian ideology has the best product and the worst marketing. Various proposals have been put forward as to how to remedy this situation. One person went so far as to suggest wealthy libertarians pool their resources to create a not-for-profit newspaper with nationwide distribution.
The problems with that situation are numerous, including but not limited to: getting better name recognition by purchasing an established newspaper, newspapers are fading from the scene as national news resources, and actually getting people to read the newspaper in the first place.
Libertarian material is already available in greater quantity (and quality) than ever before. All a person has to do for free literature is visit any near-by Libertarian Party meeting, and the visitor will receive more than ample information to take home and read. It is all over the web, and there are journals available in print such as Reason magazine.
The question of how to reach the people was put to someone who has no experience in marketing, but great experience in problem solving, an engineer with a liking for philosophy. After months of pondering the problem a conclusion was reached:
The problem isn’t that the material isn’t out there. The problem isn’t getting the material to the people, the problem is getting the people to the material.
How can the Libertarian Party, or any other libertarian organization, get the people to the message? How did the socialists do it?
The Socialist Party has never won major elections. There has never been a Socialist Party president. Yet for all of that, their platform has, to a large extent, been passed.
They did it through education. They became teachers, and year after year molded the opinions of future leaders and future teachers. Each generation brought the country a step closer so that while the United States was still fairly free at the beginning of the 20th century, it certainly wasn’t at the beginning of the 21st.
That is why there is one region of the Libertarian Party, a small region, planning on doing something about it.
The Antelope Valley Libertarian Party is starting a scholarship program. As a small region with a small budget, they will only be able to afford one scholarship a year, and not a large scholarship either. Once the program is started it is expected to grow, to eventually offer more and larger scholarship.
This scholarship will be available to anyone who fulfills three requirements.
1. Pays Libertarian Party Dues.
2. Attends Libertarian Party meetings.
3. Is studying to be a High School History Teacher.
4. Is attending California State University at Northridge.
The location was chosen because that is the closest college to offer education as a major. The major was chosen after much deliberation to pick the one major that will, in the long run, increase liberty.
It is a long term investment that won’t see a return for a long time, but as a long term goal this may be the best way to bring people to the message.
Pledges to the fund can be made by contacting the Chair of the AVLP.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
How to prepare for a total economic collapse
In my first blog entry on economic collapse, I made the assumption that basic goods and services will still be intact, that there are jobs still available, goods and services can still be purchased, just with higher prices and higher unemployment. In this one I explore an even gloomier, although less likely scenario, the complete and utter collapse of the economy.
Although it is unlikely, the weakened state of the United States economy could result in a complete and total collapse of all systems and infrastructure. Unfortunately that is a lot harder to prepare for, as basic law and order may even break down.
There are signs that the coming depression may go that far. Already in some communities in Syracuse, NY, the banks themselves are abandoning foreclosed properties, and shanty-towns are springing up around Los Angeles, CA. These properties, without any owners, are being taken over by vandals and criminals.
Truckers are finding they are making a loss on each trip due to the rising price of fuel, and if this trend continues, interstate shipping will no longer occur. There is already talk of a nationwide trucker strike, and basic economics will force an end to shipping if a strike does not occur.
The crisis could also be triggered is if the government does initiate war with Iran. That will dry up fuel supplies and may easily be escalated to a nuclear conflict, which would lead to counter measures by the rest of the world.
The worst place to be in the event of a complete collapse is inside a city. The first problem would be the food crisis. The larger cities have only a few days worth of food inside them, which would prompt a very hasty and dangerous exodus from the city. Smaller cities can last longer, but eventually the inability to transport food from the farms to the cities will cause panic, mayhem, and eventually starvation.
Meanwhile, out in the rural areas of the country, food panic will not be a problem because that is where the food is grown. Farm towns will not receive fuel for the farm equipment, but at least the food itself will be there. In the country people are also more likely to own large livestock that can be used as alternative means of transportation.
A necessary item to own in the worst case scenario is a firearm, preferably several of them. In a panic and riot it happens that not only are those who have stockpiled resources the subject of looting, but innocent people are often assaulted or killed in random acts of violence. Law enforcement will be too busy combating the population to provide any security, leaving it the job of the individual instead.
For those who do live in the city and want to prepare for the worst, the best advice to give is to purchase an RV, preferably a Class A or Class C (the motorized RVs.) In the event of a crisis the owner of an RV can leave in a hurry. Some people are thinking about acquiring property in remote areas, outside of easy government control. The advantage of an RV is that one can more easily transport the family to those areas, and can also move again if worried about discovery. A place to live is guaranteed no matter where one travels, the only difficulty being the effort to find sufficient fuel and fresh water. If necessary the grey and black tanks of an RV can be dumped anywhere, not just in an authorized drainage facility.
A collapse of this scale will destroy certain concepts of ownership, due to massive property abandonment and the dislocation of the population. There will be a new round of homesteading, recognized primarily by common law instead of government. Those who still maintain ties to the government, such as agents of the Bureau of Land Management or Internal Revenue Service, will find their intrusion to be far less welcome than is currently the case. Conflicts between homesteaders and the military may occur, destroying some communities, but ultimately most areas will be considered beyond the reach of the government.
Those who live close to the ocean can also take advantage of a slightly more expensive, but ultimately more versatile, alternative, and get a yacht. While commonly considered a recreation for the rich, they can also be dwelling places for middle class ocean enthusiasts. With a yacht, one can quickly leave the territorial waters, and simply moving away from the dock enables the owner to avoid any riots that may be happening on the shore. Once in international water, the owner can travel to any country that has a beach to seek safe harbor, or can go to any wild beach and life off the land as a farmer or hunter.
The hope is that events do not grow this bad, but if another war starts or a domestic police state with price controls is established, this does become a possibility.
Although it is unlikely, the weakened state of the United States economy could result in a complete and total collapse of all systems and infrastructure. Unfortunately that is a lot harder to prepare for, as basic law and order may even break down.
There are signs that the coming depression may go that far. Already in some communities in Syracuse, NY, the banks themselves are abandoning foreclosed properties, and shanty-towns are springing up around Los Angeles, CA. These properties, without any owners, are being taken over by vandals and criminals.
Truckers are finding they are making a loss on each trip due to the rising price of fuel, and if this trend continues, interstate shipping will no longer occur. There is already talk of a nationwide trucker strike, and basic economics will force an end to shipping if a strike does not occur.
The crisis could also be triggered is if the government does initiate war with Iran. That will dry up fuel supplies and may easily be escalated to a nuclear conflict, which would lead to counter measures by the rest of the world.
The worst place to be in the event of a complete collapse is inside a city. The first problem would be the food crisis. The larger cities have only a few days worth of food inside them, which would prompt a very hasty and dangerous exodus from the city. Smaller cities can last longer, but eventually the inability to transport food from the farms to the cities will cause panic, mayhem, and eventually starvation.
Meanwhile, out in the rural areas of the country, food panic will not be a problem because that is where the food is grown. Farm towns will not receive fuel for the farm equipment, but at least the food itself will be there. In the country people are also more likely to own large livestock that can be used as alternative means of transportation.
A necessary item to own in the worst case scenario is a firearm, preferably several of them. In a panic and riot it happens that not only are those who have stockpiled resources the subject of looting, but innocent people are often assaulted or killed in random acts of violence. Law enforcement will be too busy combating the population to provide any security, leaving it the job of the individual instead.
For those who do live in the city and want to prepare for the worst, the best advice to give is to purchase an RV, preferably a Class A or Class C (the motorized RVs.) In the event of a crisis the owner of an RV can leave in a hurry. Some people are thinking about acquiring property in remote areas, outside of easy government control. The advantage of an RV is that one can more easily transport the family to those areas, and can also move again if worried about discovery. A place to live is guaranteed no matter where one travels, the only difficulty being the effort to find sufficient fuel and fresh water. If necessary the grey and black tanks of an RV can be dumped anywhere, not just in an authorized drainage facility.
A collapse of this scale will destroy certain concepts of ownership, due to massive property abandonment and the dislocation of the population. There will be a new round of homesteading, recognized primarily by common law instead of government. Those who still maintain ties to the government, such as agents of the Bureau of Land Management or Internal Revenue Service, will find their intrusion to be far less welcome than is currently the case. Conflicts between homesteaders and the military may occur, destroying some communities, but ultimately most areas will be considered beyond the reach of the government.
Those who live close to the ocean can also take advantage of a slightly more expensive, but ultimately more versatile, alternative, and get a yacht. While commonly considered a recreation for the rich, they can also be dwelling places for middle class ocean enthusiasts. With a yacht, one can quickly leave the territorial waters, and simply moving away from the dock enables the owner to avoid any riots that may be happening on the shore. Once in international water, the owner can travel to any country that has a beach to seek safe harbor, or can go to any wild beach and life off the land as a farmer or hunter.
The hope is that events do not grow this bad, but if another war starts or a domestic police state with price controls is established, this does become a possibility.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The police state cannot happen without the police
{After reviewing last week’s post, I felt the topic of the police needed to be explored in much greater depth. If we have a police state, it will be the police who make it possible.)
There are two problems with law enforcement: sins of commission and sins of omission. A crime of commission is when individual officers themselves are guilty of offenses against individual members of the population they are supposed to serve and protect. A crime of omission is when fellow officers do nothing to restrain those officers who are guilty of the crime of commission.
People are being conditioned to not resist the government. That is why the police lately favor an “overwhelming show of force” – sending out a swat team to arrest a single individual. Often these raids occur in the dark of the night, when the targets of the raids are likely asleep and therefore disoriented and unable to react quickly to the raid by doing things such as asking to see a warrant or identifying the assailant before attempting to defend their own home. On services such as YouTube, examples of police brutality are becoming increasingly common and these examples are getting increasingly greater coverage and exposure.
But even swat raids aside people get abused in individual encounters with the police, as in the case of a motorist in Utah being tasered, or a victim of an assault being forcibly stripped in a jail cell, or many other similar incidents which may ultimately cause the police to stop allowing their actions to be videotaped.
All these incidents are good for convincing people of the futility of standing up to the police. While it is the law that if the police officer is acting in an unlawful manner civilians have a right to resist the police, exercising that right would most likely be futile. The only check remaining on police activity is civil (never criminal) cases against the police, which often stick the department (and therefore the city) with the bill. In the most egregious cases officers are disciplined, in that they are suspended (sometimes with pay, sometimes without) or fired for activities that would get anybody else arrested.
Those incidents are crimes of commission. The remainder of the problem is crimes of omission. When an officer commits one of the above offenses, fellow officers should remember that they are supposed to serve and protect the public, but instead rally behind the officer in a show of solidarity. This is often known as “the blue wall of silence”, and any attempt to punish offending officers runs up against a problem: only the government can launch criminal proceedings against those who should be so prosecuted, and those in the government doesn’t do that against their own as often as they should. Only when it becomes so blatantly obvious that government officials are protecting each other that public outcry is impossible to ignore do government officials get targeted, usually a single sacrificial lamb to protect all the rest.
Internal investigations too often clear offending officers, and district attorneys too seldom file criminal charges against criminals with badges. An honest and upright officer should arrest a fellow officer if that officer is also an offender. That is a crime of omission.
There is more to the issue of crimes of omission, an aspect rarely explored but of greater importance. In a divided government such as the United States government, the theory is that any portion of the government can impede the execution of an unjust law. Congress can fail to pass a law, the president can veto a law, and the judiciary can nullify a law. The president can also fail to enforce a law, a principle seldom examined. It is the executive branch that is charged with the task of enforcement. All front line representatives of the government are executive branch agents, whether the agent is a health inspector, a clerk handing out a welfare check, or an officer of the law. Some are representatives of the federal executive, some are representatives of the state executive, and some are representatives of the local city or county executive.
The only way laws are ever enforced is through the actions of executive agents. This is true of both good laws and bad laws. Whether enforced by a single officer or by a swat team, there is no enforcement without the action of executive agents. That applies to citations issued, arrests made, and prosecutions filed.
When onerous or odious laws are passed, it is up to the police to enforce them. Unfortunately too often the police do enforce them, as it is their job – and their job is to do their job. Suggestions that certain laws not be enforced are anathema to many people. Whether the topic is officer nullification or jury nullification the objection is always that the law, no matter how bad, must be obeyed and if one disagrees with the law there are channels within the system to change the law. That a law might be so bad that it should not be enforced is increasingly regarded as a fringe view.
The most common objection to legal nullification is framed as the nullifiers “making up the law”, which is the exact opposite of nullifying a law. When a law is made up, it means the officer or jury is creating a law from scratch to enforce. When an officer can “make up” laws it becomes possible for an officer to say “I will arrest you for the crime of depositing money into your own savings account even though no legislative body has passed such a law.” Nullification is the opposite. Nullification is the officer saying “I will not arrest you for depositing money into your own savings account even though a legislative body passed such a law.” The law is made up by the proper procedure, it is simply not enforced. There is no law creation in nullification, either by the officer or the jury.
The other objection is that the police officer might fail to arrest for actual crimes because the criminal is a close friend. That happens already. That happens every time an officer fails to arrest a fellow officer and every time a district attorney fails to file charges against an officer. It is impossible to completely eliminate all corruption from the system. If the ability of a good officer to ignore bad laws is eliminated, it has absolutely no effect on a bad officer to ignoring good laws, an argument parallel to the self defense argument of “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” That objection is no reason to prevent an officer from being allowed to actually think, actually make conscientious decisions regarding the laws they are called upon to enforce.
Politicians actually do not enforce any laws. Some of them, before their political careers, were in the military or the police, but currently none of them lift a finger to actually enforce laws. Many leaders of dictatorships are accused of “killing millions”, but in truth they personally killed very few people – they only ordered others to kill. None of the commanders in a war actually kill enemy soldiers; they rely on their own soldiers to do so for them. President Truman did not drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a pilot did. Without the police, politicians truly are impotent. The police state is truly dependent upon the police. That is why in any conflict between any officer and anyone outside the power structure, the government sides with the officer.
Those who desire a police state have two things to fear, an informed jury and an informed officer. Those who fear a police state have one thing to fear, an unthinking officer. When the police state arrives, it will be due largely to the sins of omission of the officers involved, without whom the police state would be impossible.
There are two problems with law enforcement: sins of commission and sins of omission. A crime of commission is when individual officers themselves are guilty of offenses against individual members of the population they are supposed to serve and protect. A crime of omission is when fellow officers do nothing to restrain those officers who are guilty of the crime of commission.
People are being conditioned to not resist the government. That is why the police lately favor an “overwhelming show of force” – sending out a swat team to arrest a single individual. Often these raids occur in the dark of the night, when the targets of the raids are likely asleep and therefore disoriented and unable to react quickly to the raid by doing things such as asking to see a warrant or identifying the assailant before attempting to defend their own home. On services such as YouTube, examples of police brutality are becoming increasingly common and these examples are getting increasingly greater coverage and exposure.
But even swat raids aside people get abused in individual encounters with the police, as in the case of a motorist in Utah being tasered, or a victim of an assault being forcibly stripped in a jail cell, or many other similar incidents which may ultimately cause the police to stop allowing their actions to be videotaped.
All these incidents are good for convincing people of the futility of standing up to the police. While it is the law that if the police officer is acting in an unlawful manner civilians have a right to resist the police, exercising that right would most likely be futile. The only check remaining on police activity is civil (never criminal) cases against the police, which often stick the department (and therefore the city) with the bill. In the most egregious cases officers are disciplined, in that they are suspended (sometimes with pay, sometimes without) or fired for activities that would get anybody else arrested.
Those incidents are crimes of commission. The remainder of the problem is crimes of omission. When an officer commits one of the above offenses, fellow officers should remember that they are supposed to serve and protect the public, but instead rally behind the officer in a show of solidarity. This is often known as “the blue wall of silence”, and any attempt to punish offending officers runs up against a problem: only the government can launch criminal proceedings against those who should be so prosecuted, and those in the government doesn’t do that against their own as often as they should. Only when it becomes so blatantly obvious that government officials are protecting each other that public outcry is impossible to ignore do government officials get targeted, usually a single sacrificial lamb to protect all the rest.
Internal investigations too often clear offending officers, and district attorneys too seldom file criminal charges against criminals with badges. An honest and upright officer should arrest a fellow officer if that officer is also an offender. That is a crime of omission.
There is more to the issue of crimes of omission, an aspect rarely explored but of greater importance. In a divided government such as the United States government, the theory is that any portion of the government can impede the execution of an unjust law. Congress can fail to pass a law, the president can veto a law, and the judiciary can nullify a law. The president can also fail to enforce a law, a principle seldom examined. It is the executive branch that is charged with the task of enforcement. All front line representatives of the government are executive branch agents, whether the agent is a health inspector, a clerk handing out a welfare check, or an officer of the law. Some are representatives of the federal executive, some are representatives of the state executive, and some are representatives of the local city or county executive.
The only way laws are ever enforced is through the actions of executive agents. This is true of both good laws and bad laws. Whether enforced by a single officer or by a swat team, there is no enforcement without the action of executive agents. That applies to citations issued, arrests made, and prosecutions filed.
When onerous or odious laws are passed, it is up to the police to enforce them. Unfortunately too often the police do enforce them, as it is their job – and their job is to do their job. Suggestions that certain laws not be enforced are anathema to many people. Whether the topic is officer nullification or jury nullification the objection is always that the law, no matter how bad, must be obeyed and if one disagrees with the law there are channels within the system to change the law. That a law might be so bad that it should not be enforced is increasingly regarded as a fringe view.
The most common objection to legal nullification is framed as the nullifiers “making up the law”, which is the exact opposite of nullifying a law. When a law is made up, it means the officer or jury is creating a law from scratch to enforce. When an officer can “make up” laws it becomes possible for an officer to say “I will arrest you for the crime of depositing money into your own savings account even though no legislative body has passed such a law.” Nullification is the opposite. Nullification is the officer saying “I will not arrest you for depositing money into your own savings account even though a legislative body passed such a law.” The law is made up by the proper procedure, it is simply not enforced. There is no law creation in nullification, either by the officer or the jury.
The other objection is that the police officer might fail to arrest for actual crimes because the criminal is a close friend. That happens already. That happens every time an officer fails to arrest a fellow officer and every time a district attorney fails to file charges against an officer. It is impossible to completely eliminate all corruption from the system. If the ability of a good officer to ignore bad laws is eliminated, it has absolutely no effect on a bad officer to ignoring good laws, an argument parallel to the self defense argument of “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” That objection is no reason to prevent an officer from being allowed to actually think, actually make conscientious decisions regarding the laws they are called upon to enforce.
Politicians actually do not enforce any laws. Some of them, before their political careers, were in the military or the police, but currently none of them lift a finger to actually enforce laws. Many leaders of dictatorships are accused of “killing millions”, but in truth they personally killed very few people – they only ordered others to kill. None of the commanders in a war actually kill enemy soldiers; they rely on their own soldiers to do so for them. President Truman did not drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a pilot did. Without the police, politicians truly are impotent. The police state is truly dependent upon the police. That is why in any conflict between any officer and anyone outside the power structure, the government sides with the officer.
Those who desire a police state have two things to fear, an informed jury and an informed officer. Those who fear a police state have one thing to fear, an unthinking officer. When the police state arrives, it will be due largely to the sins of omission of the officers involved, without whom the police state would be impossible.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Shining Lights on Bad Practices
For one brief shining moment there was a website where bad police officers could be publicly exposed. The website in question, Rate My Cop, lasted only a few days before government complaints shut it down. Go complain to the hosting company.
There are many websites that purport to expose bad practices in certain demographics, such as Rate-My-Teacher, Rate-My-Neighbor, and the very good Source Watch. Rate My Cop is directed at government, much like Source Watch or Project Vote Smart. The difference is, this is directed at those who actually enforce the rules.
Yes, the police, they are a very special group. They are the ones who actually enforce the laws. Elected officials do not enforce laws. Without the police (and other agents of the executive), there is no police state, and the elected officials become nothing more than caricatures of themselves, blustering impotently about their own importance.
Those who show ire to the police do so knowing that the police are the front line of the government. Anybody who despises police does so knowing, at some level, that the oppression is the result of the police, and that if one is driven to actually resist governmental injustice it will be the police who are the individuals involved in the struggle.
The police are often given the special defense of “just doing their jobs”, as if that were sufficient defense when they enforce bad laws. Suggest that the police should decline to enforce bad laws and the reaction is a furious (and frightened) clamor as people demand to know if that means the police can make up the law on the spot. The fright isn’t so much that police would be able to create law, but that some law somewhere might go unenforced.
To make things perfectly clear, suggesting that the police decline to enforce a law has nothing in common with suggesting that the police can create law.
That website was treated as a threat to the police. Threats to police are threats to the entire power structure of the government. The crimes that are most harshly enforced and punished are crimes against the government, and any equivalent crime without the government as a victim has a less severe punishment.
That being said, the website was not a threat any more than YouTube videos are threats.
That being said, the police are becoming increasingly reluctant to release videos to the public.
All the website did was shine light upon the police and their activities.
So now this brings up another topic, that of essential privacy rights. Some try to make an argument of equivalence between giving officers privacy and giving civilians privacy. The difference is that police officers should be held to a higher standard, instead of the current practice of holding them to a lower standard. Instead of saying “if anyone else did that it would be a crime” the mode of thought should be “for civilians that would be acceptable behavior but you are a cop.”
In the performance of their duties, police should not expect, should not even ask, for privacy. A reluctance for their activities to be exposed shows that they know they should not be doing what they are doing.
There was a time when police were considered public servants. That time seems to be forgotten. Instead it seems the laws apply to everyone except those in power, and of course the front line.
There are many websites that purport to expose bad practices in certain demographics, such as Rate-My-Teacher, Rate-My-Neighbor, and the very good Source Watch. Rate My Cop is directed at government, much like Source Watch or Project Vote Smart. The difference is, this is directed at those who actually enforce the rules.
Yes, the police, they are a very special group. They are the ones who actually enforce the laws. Elected officials do not enforce laws. Without the police (and other agents of the executive), there is no police state, and the elected officials become nothing more than caricatures of themselves, blustering impotently about their own importance.
Those who show ire to the police do so knowing that the police are the front line of the government. Anybody who despises police does so knowing, at some level, that the oppression is the result of the police, and that if one is driven to actually resist governmental injustice it will be the police who are the individuals involved in the struggle.
The police are often given the special defense of “just doing their jobs”, as if that were sufficient defense when they enforce bad laws. Suggest that the police should decline to enforce bad laws and the reaction is a furious (and frightened) clamor as people demand to know if that means the police can make up the law on the spot. The fright isn’t so much that police would be able to create law, but that some law somewhere might go unenforced.
To make things perfectly clear, suggesting that the police decline to enforce a law has nothing in common with suggesting that the police can create law.
That website was treated as a threat to the police. Threats to police are threats to the entire power structure of the government. The crimes that are most harshly enforced and punished are crimes against the government, and any equivalent crime without the government as a victim has a less severe punishment.
That being said, the website was not a threat any more than YouTube videos are threats.
That being said, the police are becoming increasingly reluctant to release videos to the public.
All the website did was shine light upon the police and their activities.
So now this brings up another topic, that of essential privacy rights. Some try to make an argument of equivalence between giving officers privacy and giving civilians privacy. The difference is that police officers should be held to a higher standard, instead of the current practice of holding them to a lower standard. Instead of saying “if anyone else did that it would be a crime” the mode of thought should be “for civilians that would be acceptable behavior but you are a cop.”
In the performance of their duties, police should not expect, should not even ask, for privacy. A reluctance for their activities to be exposed shows that they know they should not be doing what they are doing.
There was a time when police were considered public servants. That time seems to be forgotten. Instead it seems the laws apply to everyone except those in power, and of course the front line.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
A post-mortem of RonPaul2008
It’s often said by libertarians that if only their message could reach the public it would be accepted, even welcomed, by those who don’t know that there are options beyond the standard two parties. Some say that the libertarian party simply needs better marketing, having the best product but the worst sales team. The apparent elective failure of Ron Paul to secure the Republican Party nomination for President has thrown that into doubt.
Is it appropriate to doubt? Is it truly the case that the product – libertarianism – has been presented and rejected? Arguments could be made either way at this point.
It is undisputed that for the first time since Goldwater there was a candidate that clearly and succinctly desired reduced government in all areas. He averaged about ten percent in the primaries while other candidates soared ahead until the nomination was secured by John McCain whose philosophy is quite antithetical to that of Ron Paul.
The message wasn’t delivered. Even a week before Super Tuesday, I was knocking on doors urging people to vote for Ron Paul, and people were still unfamiliar with him. Those who get their news through the internet were familiar with him. One person I spoke with had no internet connection at all and had never heard of him, after he twice broke fundraising records.
The message wasn’t getting through.
Although included in all but one debate, the time allotments were slanted against him as well, and the choice of questions was manipulated by the moderators. News reports were edited to remove his name before included in newspapers. The evidence is available to anyone who can read the raw stories on the internet.
The one place were Ron Paul was strongest was the internet. The internet was the one place where the message did get through, and it was the one place where he got the bulk of his support.
It is no longer a given that if only the message could get through it would be accepted, but it is not to be rejected yet either.
Is it appropriate to doubt? Is it truly the case that the product – libertarianism – has been presented and rejected? Arguments could be made either way at this point.
It is undisputed that for the first time since Goldwater there was a candidate that clearly and succinctly desired reduced government in all areas. He averaged about ten percent in the primaries while other candidates soared ahead until the nomination was secured by John McCain whose philosophy is quite antithetical to that of Ron Paul.
The message wasn’t delivered. Even a week before Super Tuesday, I was knocking on doors urging people to vote for Ron Paul, and people were still unfamiliar with him. Those who get their news through the internet were familiar with him. One person I spoke with had no internet connection at all and had never heard of him, after he twice broke fundraising records.
The message wasn’t getting through.
Although included in all but one debate, the time allotments were slanted against him as well, and the choice of questions was manipulated by the moderators. News reports were edited to remove his name before included in newspapers. The evidence is available to anyone who can read the raw stories on the internet.
The one place were Ron Paul was strongest was the internet. The internet was the one place where the message did get through, and it was the one place where he got the bulk of his support.
It is no longer a given that if only the message could get through it would be accepted, but it is not to be rejected yet either.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
How to Survive the Upcoming Economic Collapse
Pretty much every honest and informed person agrees that it's coming – the collapse of the dollar, the end of the American Financial Empire, and a depression that will compare to the depression of the 1930s. The evidence is in the financial news, and abundant on LewRockwell.com. Keynesians, Monetarists, Mercantilists, and Socialists have seen to that as they have consistently destroyed the wealth of this great country.
Greenspan is thought of as a genius, because he had the good sense to leave office and give the mess he helped create to Bernanke before it became obvious it was a mess. Now all that the sensible person can do is prepare for the worst and hope that the preparations won't be needed because Ron Paul will secure the Republican nomination.
The honest and informed economist advises buying gold and gold stock, hard monetary commodities that can't be deflated by government as a solid hedge against inflation. But how can the average person, middle class to poor, prepare for the upcoming collapse? Advice to buy gold or gold stock isn't as useful to those without the resources necessary to do so. Based on the assumption that the basic infrastructure remains intact, that there are jobs but fewer of them and that the stores are still open but with higher prices, there are ways a family can prepare.
The first step is basic financial management. Debts should be paid down and credit cards paid off. The best situation to have going into a recession or depression is to be as debt free as possible. It is time to start ignoring commercials and the desire for the newest and shiniest gadgets. An inexpensive car serves just as well as transportation as a fancy sports car in spite of what advertisers may say. Shop wisely, compare prices and find the best value for the money, which often means buying staple goods in bulk. Purchasing essentials in bulk saves money in the long run, plus a stockpile of food staples can be put aside for emergencies.
Next, take stock of family members and their living arrangements, as residence is the largest expense in the typical household budget. It may become necessary for families to adopt the old tradition of family living with family, instead of the current system of each house having one small family or even just one individual. The family will need to become the safety net it was in the past, with family members each contributing to the whole. The more stable incomes in one house, the better off that house will be. The loss of an income in a house with multiple incomes will not be as devastating as the loss of an income in a house with only one or two incomes. This is already being done as it is harder now for young people to establish themselves: young people graduating from high school or college often return home so they can afford to pay off loans and try to save enough to move out.
Securing a place to live should be the highest priority. Homelessness is the worst possible outcome, especially in economic hard times as charities will be less able to provide assistance to more people in need. Living with family enables the pooling of resources and abilities, so that each can support each other to avoid any being subjected to homelessness. Any relative with extra rooms in the house will be able to help out family members who cannot afford to live on their own anymore. Anyone who has room to take in other family members should prepare psychologically for the adjustment.
Try, when looking over the family situations, to find a family member whose residence has a yard. All the houses in the suburbs have a front and back yard. These can be put to good use, even better use if fenced in, because yards can become gardens. Diversify the garden – include a patch for a few fruit trees if possible. Collect catalogs from nurseries. These have a wealth of information on companion and succession planting. They also help determine what can grow best in any particular area. Right now most companies provide these catalogs free.
Gardening is hard work, but with more people living together the burden of tending to the garden is shared among several people, lightening the load. Even the children can participate in activities such as pulling out of weeds or crushing of bugs that will attempt to infest the garden. The more food that is grown the less food that needs to be purchased, which is particularly important in the event that food distribution becomes a political tool or prices rise to the extent that that purchasing food becomes too costly. This will extend the family budget. Even those who are in the cities can still garden: window box gardens are an old tradition, and if each apartment in a building grows a different product the garden will be diverse and plentiful.The flat roof top of many apartment houses makes for a good place to garden, as do vacant lots found in many cities.
The household's vegetable based waste as well as garden waste can be added to the compost heap. Leftovers should not go into the trash; they should go back to the garden. Unfortunately a small compost heap won't produce sufficient temperature to degrade meats, dairy products, and non-herbivore animal droppings. Vegetable kitchen and garden waste are excellent sources of composting. This will save on the need to purchase fertilizer for the garden. More information on compost heaps can be found here.
If the yard is medium sized, consider keeping a chicken coop. A family that keeps chickens will have eggs and occasional meat from the back yard. Historically a chicken coop was considered a source of eggs with meat as a by-product. A rooster should be included so that the flock can be self-sustaining. Other alternatives include keeping a beehive or a rabbit hutch. A beehive will provide honey and also wax. The recent bee blights are happening in industrial bee farming, where the bees are not properly nourished as they are traveling from farm to farm, being fed only one type of pollen and nectar at a time, and being fed corn syrup while they are traveling. While the blight is also impacting domestic beehives, in the suburbs a single beehive has a wide range of food and will keep itself healthier and the bees will pollinate the garden and orchard, although one beehive per neighborhood is sufficient. A rabbit hutch actually provides the least benefit, as rabbits only provide fur or meat, but still remains an option for those with smaller yards when zoning laws forbid chickens, and can actually be kept indoors by city dwellers. Keeping rabbits or chickens guarantees a source of protein to compliment the fresh fruit and vegetables already being provided by the garden. More information on raising chickens can be found here, while information on keeping bees or rabbits can be found here and here.
For those with large properties, farther from the cities, it may be possible to keep, in addition to a chicken coop, a couple of goats to provide dairy and also meat. Cows require extensive feeding and pasture, sheep produce too little milk, and pigs produce too much aroma for the suburbs. All that is needed are a couple of does, because all that the community needs is one buck for fifty does, but at least two does are needed as goats are social creatures. Let a professional farmer be the buck's owner, and pay (or trade with) that farmer for breeding services. This will provide two kids a year per doe on average plus a good amount of milk, and some report that goat's milk is actually healthier than cow's milk. Of course any organic milk is superior to government approved processed milk, but goat's milk doesn't trigger lactose intolerance since the sugars and proteins are different. There are different breeds of goats, and some even provide wool which can be used or traded. A goat can even be a beast of burden; pulling wagons for example, although there is a limit to how much can be hauled compared to cows or horses. Being pulled around in a goat drawn wagon will be an inexpensive pleasure for children. For more information on raising goats look here or here.
There are artificial barriers that may prevent the home garden approach to surviving a depression. Zoning laws and beauty ordinances may prohibit vegetable gardens, orchards, chickens, and goats. It is best to find out the laws before engaging too heavily in these activities, but with a good fence around the back yard this shouldn't be too much of a concern. Zoning laws may make the front yard a loss, but sometimes a fruit tress or even vegetable plants that are pretty enough to plant between flowers in the front yard can pass beauty ordinances. With the need to garden and keep small livestock, the local government might succumb to the pressure to change restrictive laws.
Slaughtering livestock properly isn't easy, which is why this should be done by a professional butcher. The savings in the cost of meat will compensate for the payment of the butcher, but it may be possible to kill, pluck, and dress a chicken at home. Every part of the animal has potential use, even the feathers. In the case of rabbits and goats, not only is the meat the direct benefit the hide can be tanned and used in clothing. Organ meats can be eaten as well, something often forgotten in modern times, and even intestines can be used to wrap sausages.
It is time to relearn the old crafts. My own love of cooking led me to discover the joys of making my own jellies and jams, baking my own bread, as well as fermenting home made fruit wines. It will be better for the family to discover how to can and to make jelly and jam from the products of the small garden and orchard. Milk can be made into cheese, and even meats can be canned for later use, which is fortunate because the purchase a ½ a hanging cow or pig, which will provide a large amount of meat which will have to be stored. If any family member has a freezer, that will be a great asset. Frozen meat tastes more like fresh meat. Having learned that, a well prepared family can move on to more advanced food storage techniques such as salting, smoking, and drying. Along with preserving the meat, these add variety to the diet. People normally think of jelly as a topping, forgetting that it is actually contributes to the diet as a fruit as well, especially when made from home. In the long run homemade foods cost less than foods prepared in the stores; what is being purchased in the grocery store is convenience, and when money is tight convenience is a luxury. Time is being spent so that money can be saved and a healthy diet is the result. Such a diet has no preservatives, lower salt contents and no high fructose corn syrup which has been linked to the growing problems of obesity and diabetes.
Knitting and sewing should be learned. There are books out there that describe those arts at every level, from beginner to advanced, and even children can master the making of a knitted scarf. It may seem that those following the advice to start a home garden would be too busy, but knitting or crocheting is an activity that can be engaged in during times when a person is relaxing or after it gets too dark to work in the garden. Knowing how to mend clothing will extend the life of the clothing, and any repaired item of clothing is an item that does not need to be replaced.
The current culture of the United States seems obsessed with youth, leaving many to forget the contributions that the elderly can make. They will become very valuable assets because they remember the household survival skills, can teach them to the younger generations, and can help look after the children, even the teenagers. Multigenerational care was once the norm and it can be again. While the parents are working hard to support the family, the grandparents will teach the grandchildren. Instead of paying to store the elderly in a nursing home the family can now profit from their knowledge and wisdom. Even the children can participate in family endeavors as they discover how the chores they do actually contribute to there being food on the table at the end of the day.
With extra adults in the house it becomes a lot easier to home school, which is a strong benefit since the public schools will become increasingly degraded and the children will be able to help during the day in between studies. A flexible schedule is possible so that children can contribute in large scale family activities. With a larger pool of adults in the house to contribute to the education of the children there is a broader talent pool to draw from, negating the complaint that one parent cannot possibly teach all subjects.
There are resources outside of the family that can be drawn on. Religion will assume a greater importance, if for no other reason than community ties. The principle source of effective charity is the religious charity for those who need it, so those who can help others are able to find those who need help. The people that meet at the temple, synagogue, church, or mosque function as a greater extended family to help out in hard times such as sickness or injury, or even joyful ones like childbirth, and are also contacts for those seeking employment. Different families can also pool the homeschooling resources, creating small private schools in the church. With even more people to draw from there is an even greater breadth and depth of talent available.
Finally, find a home business that can be invested in, and any of the above listed activities can contribute to it with barter or sale of family farm products. Starting a home business is even easier in the age of the internet. Cable television is certainly not a necessity, but the internet is becoming a nearly so. Monster is great for anyone who is looking for work; Amazon and eBay are great for those looking for good prices or to sell goods. With internet access, it is possible to advertise any home business on one of the many free website hosting services.
Any family that follows these recommendations will find that the upcoming depression will be far more bearable, and will, in fact, be considered rich compared to the neighbors. Simple steps – not easy steps but still simple ones – and if followed any who cannot yet afford to invest in gold will be able to by the end of the upcoming depression. All of these suggestions are also profitable when not in a recession or depression, but it is only in difficult times that they become necessary.
It never hurts to prepare, but if you don't want to have to use any of these precautions, vote for Ron Paul.
Greenspan is thought of as a genius, because he had the good sense to leave office and give the mess he helped create to Bernanke before it became obvious it was a mess. Now all that the sensible person can do is prepare for the worst and hope that the preparations won't be needed because Ron Paul will secure the Republican nomination.
The honest and informed economist advises buying gold and gold stock, hard monetary commodities that can't be deflated by government as a solid hedge against inflation. But how can the average person, middle class to poor, prepare for the upcoming collapse? Advice to buy gold or gold stock isn't as useful to those without the resources necessary to do so. Based on the assumption that the basic infrastructure remains intact, that there are jobs but fewer of them and that the stores are still open but with higher prices, there are ways a family can prepare.
The first step is basic financial management. Debts should be paid down and credit cards paid off. The best situation to have going into a recession or depression is to be as debt free as possible. It is time to start ignoring commercials and the desire for the newest and shiniest gadgets. An inexpensive car serves just as well as transportation as a fancy sports car in spite of what advertisers may say. Shop wisely, compare prices and find the best value for the money, which often means buying staple goods in bulk. Purchasing essentials in bulk saves money in the long run, plus a stockpile of food staples can be put aside for emergencies.
Next, take stock of family members and their living arrangements, as residence is the largest expense in the typical household budget. It may become necessary for families to adopt the old tradition of family living with family, instead of the current system of each house having one small family or even just one individual. The family will need to become the safety net it was in the past, with family members each contributing to the whole. The more stable incomes in one house, the better off that house will be. The loss of an income in a house with multiple incomes will not be as devastating as the loss of an income in a house with only one or two incomes. This is already being done as it is harder now for young people to establish themselves: young people graduating from high school or college often return home so they can afford to pay off loans and try to save enough to move out.
Securing a place to live should be the highest priority. Homelessness is the worst possible outcome, especially in economic hard times as charities will be less able to provide assistance to more people in need. Living with family enables the pooling of resources and abilities, so that each can support each other to avoid any being subjected to homelessness. Any relative with extra rooms in the house will be able to help out family members who cannot afford to live on their own anymore. Anyone who has room to take in other family members should prepare psychologically for the adjustment.
Try, when looking over the family situations, to find a family member whose residence has a yard. All the houses in the suburbs have a front and back yard. These can be put to good use, even better use if fenced in, because yards can become gardens. Diversify the garden – include a patch for a few fruit trees if possible. Collect catalogs from nurseries. These have a wealth of information on companion and succession planting. They also help determine what can grow best in any particular area. Right now most companies provide these catalogs free.
Gardening is hard work, but with more people living together the burden of tending to the garden is shared among several people, lightening the load. Even the children can participate in activities such as pulling out of weeds or crushing of bugs that will attempt to infest the garden. The more food that is grown the less food that needs to be purchased, which is particularly important in the event that food distribution becomes a political tool or prices rise to the extent that that purchasing food becomes too costly. This will extend the family budget. Even those who are in the cities can still garden: window box gardens are an old tradition, and if each apartment in a building grows a different product the garden will be diverse and plentiful.The flat roof top of many apartment houses makes for a good place to garden, as do vacant lots found in many cities.
The household's vegetable based waste as well as garden waste can be added to the compost heap. Leftovers should not go into the trash; they should go back to the garden. Unfortunately a small compost heap won't produce sufficient temperature to degrade meats, dairy products, and non-herbivore animal droppings. Vegetable kitchen and garden waste are excellent sources of composting. This will save on the need to purchase fertilizer for the garden. More information on compost heaps can be found here.
If the yard is medium sized, consider keeping a chicken coop. A family that keeps chickens will have eggs and occasional meat from the back yard. Historically a chicken coop was considered a source of eggs with meat as a by-product. A rooster should be included so that the flock can be self-sustaining. Other alternatives include keeping a beehive or a rabbit hutch. A beehive will provide honey and also wax. The recent bee blights are happening in industrial bee farming, where the bees are not properly nourished as they are traveling from farm to farm, being fed only one type of pollen and nectar at a time, and being fed corn syrup while they are traveling. While the blight is also impacting domestic beehives, in the suburbs a single beehive has a wide range of food and will keep itself healthier and the bees will pollinate the garden and orchard, although one beehive per neighborhood is sufficient. A rabbit hutch actually provides the least benefit, as rabbits only provide fur or meat, but still remains an option for those with smaller yards when zoning laws forbid chickens, and can actually be kept indoors by city dwellers. Keeping rabbits or chickens guarantees a source of protein to compliment the fresh fruit and vegetables already being provided by the garden. More information on raising chickens can be found here, while information on keeping bees or rabbits can be found here and here.
For those with large properties, farther from the cities, it may be possible to keep, in addition to a chicken coop, a couple of goats to provide dairy and also meat. Cows require extensive feeding and pasture, sheep produce too little milk, and pigs produce too much aroma for the suburbs. All that is needed are a couple of does, because all that the community needs is one buck for fifty does, but at least two does are needed as goats are social creatures. Let a professional farmer be the buck's owner, and pay (or trade with) that farmer for breeding services. This will provide two kids a year per doe on average plus a good amount of milk, and some report that goat's milk is actually healthier than cow's milk. Of course any organic milk is superior to government approved processed milk, but goat's milk doesn't trigger lactose intolerance since the sugars and proteins are different. There are different breeds of goats, and some even provide wool which can be used or traded. A goat can even be a beast of burden; pulling wagons for example, although there is a limit to how much can be hauled compared to cows or horses. Being pulled around in a goat drawn wagon will be an inexpensive pleasure for children. For more information on raising goats look here or here.
There are artificial barriers that may prevent the home garden approach to surviving a depression. Zoning laws and beauty ordinances may prohibit vegetable gardens, orchards, chickens, and goats. It is best to find out the laws before engaging too heavily in these activities, but with a good fence around the back yard this shouldn't be too much of a concern. Zoning laws may make the front yard a loss, but sometimes a fruit tress or even vegetable plants that are pretty enough to plant between flowers in the front yard can pass beauty ordinances. With the need to garden and keep small livestock, the local government might succumb to the pressure to change restrictive laws.
Slaughtering livestock properly isn't easy, which is why this should be done by a professional butcher. The savings in the cost of meat will compensate for the payment of the butcher, but it may be possible to kill, pluck, and dress a chicken at home. Every part of the animal has potential use, even the feathers. In the case of rabbits and goats, not only is the meat the direct benefit the hide can be tanned and used in clothing. Organ meats can be eaten as well, something often forgotten in modern times, and even intestines can be used to wrap sausages.
It is time to relearn the old crafts. My own love of cooking led me to discover the joys of making my own jellies and jams, baking my own bread, as well as fermenting home made fruit wines. It will be better for the family to discover how to can and to make jelly and jam from the products of the small garden and orchard. Milk can be made into cheese, and even meats can be canned for later use, which is fortunate because the purchase a ½ a hanging cow or pig, which will provide a large amount of meat which will have to be stored. If any family member has a freezer, that will be a great asset. Frozen meat tastes more like fresh meat. Having learned that, a well prepared family can move on to more advanced food storage techniques such as salting, smoking, and drying. Along with preserving the meat, these add variety to the diet. People normally think of jelly as a topping, forgetting that it is actually contributes to the diet as a fruit as well, especially when made from home. In the long run homemade foods cost less than foods prepared in the stores; what is being purchased in the grocery store is convenience, and when money is tight convenience is a luxury. Time is being spent so that money can be saved and a healthy diet is the result. Such a diet has no preservatives, lower salt contents and no high fructose corn syrup which has been linked to the growing problems of obesity and diabetes.
Knitting and sewing should be learned. There are books out there that describe those arts at every level, from beginner to advanced, and even children can master the making of a knitted scarf. It may seem that those following the advice to start a home garden would be too busy, but knitting or crocheting is an activity that can be engaged in during times when a person is relaxing or after it gets too dark to work in the garden. Knowing how to mend clothing will extend the life of the clothing, and any repaired item of clothing is an item that does not need to be replaced.
The current culture of the United States seems obsessed with youth, leaving many to forget the contributions that the elderly can make. They will become very valuable assets because they remember the household survival skills, can teach them to the younger generations, and can help look after the children, even the teenagers. Multigenerational care was once the norm and it can be again. While the parents are working hard to support the family, the grandparents will teach the grandchildren. Instead of paying to store the elderly in a nursing home the family can now profit from their knowledge and wisdom. Even the children can participate in family endeavors as they discover how the chores they do actually contribute to there being food on the table at the end of the day.
With extra adults in the house it becomes a lot easier to home school, which is a strong benefit since the public schools will become increasingly degraded and the children will be able to help during the day in between studies. A flexible schedule is possible so that children can contribute in large scale family activities. With a larger pool of adults in the house to contribute to the education of the children there is a broader talent pool to draw from, negating the complaint that one parent cannot possibly teach all subjects.
There are resources outside of the family that can be drawn on. Religion will assume a greater importance, if for no other reason than community ties. The principle source of effective charity is the religious charity for those who need it, so those who can help others are able to find those who need help. The people that meet at the temple, synagogue, church, or mosque function as a greater extended family to help out in hard times such as sickness or injury, or even joyful ones like childbirth, and are also contacts for those seeking employment. Different families can also pool the homeschooling resources, creating small private schools in the church. With even more people to draw from there is an even greater breadth and depth of talent available.
Finally, find a home business that can be invested in, and any of the above listed activities can contribute to it with barter or sale of family farm products. Starting a home business is even easier in the age of the internet. Cable television is certainly not a necessity, but the internet is becoming a nearly so. Monster is great for anyone who is looking for work; Amazon and eBay are great for those looking for good prices or to sell goods. With internet access, it is possible to advertise any home business on one of the many free website hosting services.
Any family that follows these recommendations will find that the upcoming depression will be far more bearable, and will, in fact, be considered rich compared to the neighbors. Simple steps – not easy steps but still simple ones – and if followed any who cannot yet afford to invest in gold will be able to by the end of the upcoming depression. All of these suggestions are also profitable when not in a recession or depression, but it is only in difficult times that they become necessary.
It never hurts to prepare, but if you don't want to have to use any of these precautions, vote for Ron Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)