Preparing for dissolution

[randallhilton]

I'm not sure if this is the right sub forum but it seems to fit:

I don't follow "survalist" blogs or anything like that. I just read lots of books and attempt to seek out wise people as sounding boards. I've come to the conclusion, and apparently I'm not alone, that the real SHTF moment will come when these united states dissolve the federal government and go their separate ways.

It's simply economics: Some states spend considerably more than they get while other states get more than they spend. On top of that, Wall Street is treated as if it is another state (or even better, a foreign government receiving U.S. aid). I figure the people in the giving states will finally get tired of the disparities and start the process of dismantling the union.

I'm OK with dismantling the union. Our original intent was to limit government power. If a constitution isn't strong enough to do the job, the next best thing is to divide the power, ergo, dissolve the union. I think all our founders knew there was a chance of this outcome, and to their credit, they did the best they could and it's been a great ride.

So, here's the preparedness angle: When (not if) the union dissolves, will your state be self sufficient? Some states will fare better than others but what I'm concerned about are the people who are living off the socialist security ponzi scheme and other taxpayer resources.

I'm not trying to be doom and gloom. . . I'm just convinced the ride is nearing its end. We talk much about personal preparations but I think preparedness also includes influencing our elected officials towards making local alliances, promoting free market economics, determining ways to manage coinage and banking etc.

Does this make sense or am I just a bit crazy? (OK, so even if it does make sense, that's not evidence that I'm not crazy. )

[Mike LI]

NY state is doomed. Places like Tx Arizona NJ ( believe it or not ) and I think Wisconsin will fare way better.

I don't think for a minute though the feds will let anyone succeed.

[Aamylf]

We laugh all the time that we'd like to start a new nation -- lop off CA & OR, lop off straight down the coast -- MA to NC, then across the top -- OH, MI, WI, MN -- and probably keep the rest. Let the liberal/marxist/socialists see how well they fare in their tax the rich and give it to the poor land and let the rest of us do our thing.

FL would be better off than some places -- we have a ton of small industry, ports for obtaining goods and more oil off shore than you can shake a stick at. We can grow a lot of stuff, but not wheat unless maybe in the panhandle? However, we could grow rice and that means rice flour etc.

If TSHTF for real, the federal government won't be powerful enough to hold the states which really want to secede.

[grumble]

Aamy: "If TSHTF for real, the federal government won't be powerful enough to hold the states which really want to secede. "

That's a puzzling comment. What power does a state, or even a cluster of states, have? No matter how bad the situation, the US military will have the big guns and ability to feed them, as well as what will probably be the only broadly acceptable currency. If the national gov't wants to hold the Union together, it will be next to impossible for states to break away. And, even if they did, seems to me it will be very difficult to maintain any semblance of an economy.

[patience]

I think that the OP meant that if TSHTF hard enough, then we could see a breakup, maybe like what happened to Russia a while back. When the central govt. is totally broke, there ain't so much it can do. Like when they can't pay the military and those folks walk off their jobs and go home, as happened in Russia. Dmitri Orlov has speculated on this as a possibility.

I don't see any better way to prepare for something like that than what we are doing toward self reliance. If the economy crashes that badly, I don't think most of us will be worrying too much about what goes on in DC. We will be too busy trying to put food on the table and keep warm in the winter.

My personal idea is to be insulated enough that if such a thing happens, I wouldn't notice until I read about it somewhere.

[grumble]

First, last, and always, a government exists to preserve itself. You'll remember that even when the USSR collapsed, they held a military capable of much more than only defending itself. Even when a lot of troops deserted, even more troops didn't, despite the fact they had to scrounge the local area for food. If it gets to the point that Washington DC ceases to carry its big stick, the individual states will have long since folded like a cheap suit.

Of course, this is all opinion.

[Aamylf]

What Patience said. And I'm not sure how our military would break. I know they swear an oath and all that, but I just don't see them killing fellow americans just because they're told to. Not the soldiers I know at least. Let's hope this all stays 'just opinion' eh?

[Aut2]

If the government starts the big lie and tells the military that we are all a big bunch homegrown terrorist or maybe a bunch of militia that wants to over throw their government then they will believe the propaganda just like good sheeple that they are. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. They all ready lie to us what makes us think that they don't lie to the military already, just something to think about.

[randallhilton]

RE: the mechanics of dissolution

I doubt any military action will be needed. Rather, I envision a scenario where article V of the constitution is used to amend it out of existence. I doubt it would be difficult to accomplish if the productive states get their legislatures together. Even some of the counterproductive states might see the benefits of a fresh start.

The BHM sense of personal responsibility is what this country needs. The entitlement society we've engendered has metastasized to the point that we have to shake the Etch-A-Sketch and start over.

[midmo]

RE: the mechanics of dissolution

I doubt any military action will be needed. Rather, I envision a scenario where article V of the constitution is used to amend it out of existence. I doubt it would be difficult to accomplish if the productive states get their legislatures together. Even some of the counterproductive states might see the benefits of a fresh start.

The BHM sense of personal responsibility is what this country needs. The entitlement society we've engendered has metastasized to the point that we have to shake the Etch-A-Sketch and start over.

That's it in a nutshell.

We are quick to blame the politicians, big business, unions, the left wing, science, the weather... whatever ... for the ills that plague us today. But in the end, it all boils down to "it's our fault". Not necessarily the people on this or other similar sites, but our society in general. We've blinded ourselves to how things work, and raised our children to be the same. I'd be surprised if 1 out of 100 high school students can explain the difference between a republic and a democracy (and only 1 in 50 can probably spell both correctly). We've been content to let others handle all that icky politics and government stuff, assuming that as long as the autopilot is engaged, everything will turn out OK. But we're finding that the autopilot has put us in a nosedive, and we're struggling to find somebody who can take the controls before we hit the ground.

It may be too late, but if there's any realistic hope of recovering this country's former glory, I think it rests with our children. We need to drag them away from the X-Boxes and Facebook, and teach them what's really important - self-reliance, personal responsibility, and understanding how this country is run and the effect that has on each of us as individuals.

[ScrubbieLady]

Just remember what happened the last time that states exercised their right to secede. Besides getting destroyed, they were maligned in the press and students are taught that they didn't have the right.

Do you think things will be any different now?

[chrisser]

IMHO, something is going to change. The path we're on is the very definition of unsustainability in an economic sense.

The big question, is what will we change to, and how quickly will it happen.

The USSR lasted a long time built on a collossal failure of a system. If it weren't for the U.S., they'd probably still be hobbling along today in some form. There are a huge number of people who are heavily invested in the status quo, and would have no problems with riding the country into the ground for a few more decades under a Soviet-style system. IMHO, some of them are working towards exactly that.

I'd really like to see the federal government dissolved and some new form take its place, much like the Articles of Confederation gave way to the Constitution eventually. But look at the people being appointed to the "supercommitte" to "solve" the deficit crisis (we're not even looking at the debt yet). A good portion are going into the process vowing to take us down the same path that got us here. Are those same people going to help form whatever replaces the fed? If so, God help us.

I think the ideal situation would be several regional unions - perhaps they'd be their own countries, perhaps not - composed of groups of like-minded states. Maybe aligning in a loose overall confederacy (nothing even close to what the fed is now). It would even be conceivable to link states that aren't geographically connected (like Alaska) if there were some mutually-agreed transportation corridors.

The largest problem, IMHO, is that we are divided into two philosophical groups. There is one group who just wants to be left the heck alone to live their lives as they wish and interact with their fellow citizens fairly and freely. Then there is another group who wants to use the state to force their vision of utopia down the throats of everyone else, while putting themselves in charge in the process. (OK, maybe I'm biased, but it isn't that far from the truth). How do you compromise between these two groups? Can you expect a country or state composed of the latter to coexist peacefully with the former? The second group just can't keep their hands to themselves.

So, until the philosophy of the latter is either destroyed or thoroughly discredited, I see violence in our future, sadly. There's no other way to resolve the philosophies. As long as the statists utopians have power, they will use it against the rest.

[patience]

I'm trying to understand why anyone would care how another lives their life? The only reason I have come up with, is a controlling/power oriented personality, that is, someone addicted to pushing others around, probably from some deep internal need to feel superior.

If so, we have a problem, as chrisser said. There is no cure that I know of for power madness. I doubt if I ever really understand that sort of people, but i'm trying to get my head around the idea that they really do exist, and that it is the source of our troubles.

[krapgame]

I'd really like to see the federal government dissolved and some new form take its place, much like the Articles of Confederation gave way to the Constitution eventually. But look at the people being appointed to the "supercommitte" to "solve" the deficit crisis (we're not even looking at the debt yet). A good portion are going into the process vowing to take us down the same path that got us here. Are those same people going to help form whatever replaces the fed? If so, God help us.


Newt Gingrich, back in the 90's, came up with what he called a "Contract with America." I always took exception to that, because our government already had a contract with us, called the Constitution.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the form of government defined in the Constitution, from within the context of the ideals espoused by those who composed it. However, given 200+ years of a trial run of it, I think it needs to be heavily amended with some teeth that more clearly define the authority and reach granted to the federal government. The problem that it currently has is, IMHO, that it was written by idealists, all of relatively the same mindset. Kind of like when we get together with our buddies and decide to do something as a group, we all have the same frame of reference and much doesn't need to be specified. These men (mostly anyhow) all had the same frame of reference in that they had just split from, in their view, a tyrannical government and they wanted to create something better that emphasized the personal freedom of the individual and kept the central government on a short leash. That background is taken for granted by them, because they all already understood it.

Our generation has never experienced that form of tyranny first hand and therefore doesn't have that frame of reference. With personal liberty comes personal responsibility, and the last hundred years or so individuals with the agenda of advancing a progressive mindset, or just wanting to play Santa Claus to buy votes, or whatever the reason, have cultivated a culture of laziness that has weeded out that sense of personal responsibility. Now, much of our society has traded true security, as was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, for a watered down substitute of security that centers around having a TV and six pack to come home to and little thought of the true meaning of security. Midmo is right, it's our fault. We fell asleep at the switch and now the train is coming off the tracks.

From the frame of reference of a business man who deals extensively with contracts, I think that our Constitution, if viewed as a contract, is still a fine starting point. But it needs expanded to more clearly define the responsibilities, limitations and expectations of all the parties concerned; the federal government, the states and the citizens. The unfortunate part is, I personally don't have much confidence in the current generation to hammer that out and get it right. We need to import a bunch of folks who've lived under oppressive governments to do this. Regardless, IMO, the federal government doesn't need dissolved per se, it just needs to be put back on that short leash.

[randallhilton]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the form of government defined in the Constitution, from within the context of the ideals espoused by those who composed it. However, given 200+ years of a trial run of it, I think it needs to be heavily amended with some teeth that more clearly define the authority and reach granted to the federal government.

Except for the lack of term limits and a few other vague points I think our constitution is a great document. We've simply chosen to ignore it. Perhaps it's time to allow states to leave if they don't want to live by it, so the rest of us can form a more perfect union.

If that, or a similar ball began to roll, we're looking at a decade or more for the process to work out. What will life be like during that period?

[docsoos]

Just remember what happened the last time that states exercised their right to secede. Besides getting destroyed, they were maligned in the press and students are taught that they didn't have the right.

Do you think things will be any different now?

+1000. :D

The ONLY way that self-sufficient people are going to get over this latest "crisis", is to KEEP ON DOING WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING, just DO IT HARDER.

Stay off the Beast's radar, and quietly prep and save, and learn from OTHER'S mistakes. Direct confrontation with the Beast is NOT in your best interests of health......let them sink or swim, and if they sink, take out the garbage when it comes calling.

DocSoos

[krapgame]

Except for the lack of term limits and a few other vague points I think our constitution is a great document. We've simply chosen to ignore it. Perhaps it's time to allow states to leave if they don't want to live by it, so the rest of us can form a more perfect union.

If that, or a similar ball began to roll, we're looking at a decade or more for the process to work out. What will life be like during that period?

I heard Andrew Napolitano (Fox news commentator for those unfamiliar) in an interview once say that in his years as a federal judge, the position of the state was almost always to find arguments to get around the Constitution. Unfortunately, I think "ignore" is a bit benign. I fully agree though, there should be provisions for "breach of contract" as it were, in the Constitution. The states should be able to leave freely if they determine that the direction of the federal gov isn't in agreement with the contract.

As for a time frame and conditions, that's a tough one. Under the right circumstances, it could get some legs and happen pretty quickly, but that would likely be pretty ugly. History shows that the status quo usually doesn't change willingly.

To drift back to your original question about the states, that can go a lot of different directions. Would the states that have to import much with little to export start imposing import duties? How would the exporting states respond to this? What about states that share a common waterway for a border, Indiana and Kentucky for example? Kentucky claims ownership of the entire Ohio river along its border, would they impose oppressive tolls for waterway usage? Would Colorado dam up the Colorado river and cut off the water supply to Arizona and Nevada?

What life would be like I think would be largely determined by how the states chose to address these, and other issues. In the short term, until economic issues could be resolved, I think diversified food producing states would definitely have an advantage over manufacturing states. I say diversified because states that say only raise cattle but have to depend on other states for corn could be vulnerable. Indiana, where I am, I think is reasonably balanced in this regard, although my particular area is more agriculture heavy than manufacturing. That likely means that we'll continue to have a decent selection of reasonably affordable food available but my service based business will likely suffer cash flow problems as my customers could have interruptions in employment as the state relationships sort themselves out. Currently, I think we're in better economic condition than many states (except for the unemployment fund loans that we took and apparently are unable to repay) thanks to a generally fiscally responsible governor.

Indiana, or at least southern Indiana, is a bit of a paradox. We tend to be financially conservative, meaning we're stingy, but we also seem to like our handouts. That seems to translate into voting for officials who will give us the most free stuff, and when we get it we tend to be very frugal with how we spend it. I've accused people of making IRA contributions with their welfare checks. That makes predicting what happens when the gravy train ends a bit difficult. Like everywhere, there are many who know how to get by and many more who are gonna be in for a heckuva learning curve. The biggest prep for the "knows" will be in how to keep the "don't knows" out of their stuff.

Interesting thought exercise. Gonna have to think about this some more.

[S2man]

I think very few states could be self sufficient. They would have to make trade agreements in very short order; e.g. oil for wheat. And without the Fed., interstate transportation would have to be renegotiated... Along the lines of what krapgame said.

Should the Union fall apart, I envision regional coalitions, as Chrisser mentioned, of like-minded, or like-resourced states. The industrial North, the agricultural South, the abandoned SW, etc.

[BWHLover]

I found this great short novel approx 150 pages. I sat down and read it in 4 hours. The US allows foreign peace keeping troops in to the US after SHTF. Lets just say that some States seceded (those with strong leaders) and the fight that follows by the preppers to remove the foreign peace keeping troops and topple the corrupt government.

Again a great short novel that everyone should read.

I have provided the link to the book it is in PDF and available free for download.
www.benderstreet.com/hosted/cold_camp.pdf

[recoilless_57mm]

The way I see it, if we are not strong enough to keep the Constitution alive what the heck gives everyone the idea they could keep such a change alive? If you are not willing to fight for what you have now what gives anyone the idea they will be strong enough to fight later for a new idea? Forming a new government? Just my crazy opinion, bull.

Charlie

[randallhilton]

I think very few states could be self sufficient. They would have to make trade agreements in very short order; e.g. oil for wheat. And without the Fed., interstate transportation would have to be renegotiated... Along the lines of what krapgame said.

Should the Union fall apart, I envision regional coalitions, as Chrisser mentioned, of like-minded, or like-resourced states. The industrial North, the agricultural South, the abandoned SW, etc.

I agree. I would also expect some weaker sates to make deals with stronger ones in order to gain the necessary votes for an amendment.

[randallhilton]

I think it's fair to say our monetary policy is spawning monster inflation so we know we're on the way to financial trouble.

I also think that the main reason China et al haven't tried to cash out of our debt is that they know their dollars would be worthless almost instantly -- they already have internal trouble to boot.

So, what would happen to the U.S. credit rating if, say in 5 years, a credible movement toward dissolution were to appear? Would the dollar finish its collapse? Would investors seeking a good return start courting the strongest states?

While those details work themselves out, what would help the prepared household to come out as a winner?

[kfander]

When the U.S, dissolves, some other nation - probably China - will come in and pick up the pieces.

[windmo]

Just remember what happened the last time that states exercised their right to secede. Besides getting destroyed, they were maligned in the press and students are taught that they didn't have the right.


I wished I had paid more attention to my history...what are you referring to?

[chrisser]

I wished I had paid more attention to my history...what are you referring to?

The Civil War.

Also known as the War Between the States and, by some, the War of Northern Aggression.

[randallhilton]

The Civil War.
Also known as the War Between the States and, by some, the War of Northern Aggression.

I could really be naive about this but I don't foresee war per se. I expect more civil issues (example: Currently, the Federal gov. and the states are battling in the courts over immigration law, forced health insurance etc.). Along the lines of what Recoilless 57 mentioned, I doubt there is enough collective spine in the country to outright rebel against the federal government but if a few states started the charge, some others might join in and we'd simply use the constitution to disband.

To this end, I'm thinking multifaceted communication abilities (print, HAM, shortwave, couriers, meetings etc.) should be an important part of our preps. In fact, I'm sure these would be important to setting up a society no matter how we got to that point.

[randallhilton]

I found this great short novel approx 150 pages. I sat down and read it in 4 hours. The US allows foreign peace keeping troops in to the US after SHTF. Lets just say that some States seceded (those with strong leaders) and the fight that follows by the preppers to remove the foreign peace keeping troops and topple the corrupt government.

Again a great short novel that everyone should read.

I have provided the link to the book it is in PDF and available free for download.
www.benderstreet.com/hosted/cold_camp.pdf

Just finished it a couple of days ago. I don't buy it all but it was a fun read for sure. Thanks for the heads up!

[MissouriFree]

What Patience said. And I'm not sure how our military would break. I know they swear an oath and all that, but I just don't see them killing fellow americans just because they're told to. Not the soldiers I know at least. Let's hope this all stays 'just opinion' eh?

1. The oath is to Constitution and it is taken seriously. Won't fire on fellow Americans ...civil war and veterans march ring any bells.

2. At a minimum 45 states are in deficit right now and without federal aid that would only be worse.
3. The few that are not are not contributing the to the others.

4. The state national guards own no hardware, all the guns and weapons belong to the federal govt. All the states own in The guard units are the people. Even the armory buildings themselves are federally funded.

5. Soviet union was made up of " countries" not states.

JMHO never happen.

[krapgame]

1. The oath is to Constitution and it is taken seriously. Won't fire on fellow Americans ...civil war and veterans march ring any bells.

Just curious, is this the same oath that Union soldiers took before they attacked the CSA some years ago? I'm genuinely asking, 'cause I don't know. I seem to remember reading several accounts that the 1860's equivalent of J6P feeling betrayed by the Southern states secession, thus justifying their actions. Would a dissolution or secession of states today be viewed any differently?

Meanwhile, I think referring folks to oathkeepers.org might be in order.

JMHO never happen.

You'll never know how much I hope you're right on this one.

[grumble]

Volumes have been written about what you bring up, kg.

I don't really know what the oath of office was for a common Union soldier back in the early 1860s, I'm sure it was different than the oath a soldier takes today, to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,and to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me and the President of the United States."

While slavery was one of the hot button issues that began the Civil War, it wasn't the real reason for the hostilities. Slavery was a point of contention among the states from the days of the Revolution, and was a major issue at the Constitutional Convention in the 1780s. That it festered for 80 years before coming to a head is somewhat remarkable.

But, the real issue was not too much different than what we have today, the rich industrial states of the north put all sorts of clamps and binders on the rural agricultural south. When they blockaded Charleston Harbor in 1861 to prevent the South from shipping their cotton to Europe, that was the final straw, and the weak Southern Navy opened fire on Ft Sumter to actually begin the war. But it had been building for several years.

The North treated the South as their own colonies, good for raw materials to feed the factories in the North, and not much else. Most of the Confederate Army was comprised of ordinary people too poor to even own slaves, but who were taking the brunt of the Northern arrogance by not having any ability to get ahead.

Most of the Confederate officer corps was already in the US Army, or recently resigned from it. Again, I don't know what the oath of office was that they took, but they were allowed to leave the Union Army with honor to take up arms against their former comrades.

But I'm getting long winded. <G> I'll just end by saying that while the exact causes of the Civil War are not quite the same today, there are many similarities, not so much between states, but between urban and rural Americans.

[randallhilton]

JMHO never happen.

Personally, I don't envision a scenario as described in "Cold Camp" or similar stories although I think it's plausible. But neither am I prepared to say dissolution will never happen. When a majority of the people of the colonies decided they needed relief from the burdens of the mother land, they declared their independence at great cost. The citizens were not even close to being of one mind in this action with nearly half of the people preferring the security of serfdom over the responsibilities of freedom. It seems to me that we're looking at a similar picture right now.

The power balance may remain weighted towards the status quo but the momentum is towards a re-set of some sort. Will we reach the tipping point? I hope so. Will we do it through the ballot box? I highly doubt it because we've wandered so far beyond the Constitutional limits of government. (which is why I'm thinking an amendment dissolving the union as we know it would be a peaceful way to start over)

Currently, my preparation mentality is to simply live a lifestyle that relies less upon the government system. The more of us who do so, the less traumatic it would be to hit the re-set button.

[randallhilton]

Here's a story you didn't see on MSNBC:
(http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/728.1?frommailing=1)


,,,,,What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.,,,,,,

[MissouriFree]

Luckily we do not have referendum at the federal level. Can you think what the environuts or unions would have done with that. We have the best process ...the amendment procedure of the Constitution. Look what referendum did to California ..bankrupted them. That is what you get with pure democracy ..government in accordance to the latest whim and fashion not by rule of law.

Back to dissolution .perhaps the biggest reason(s) it won't happen is that the half of the people are happy with the federal govt as it is. Also back during civil war run up. Federal govt had far far less control/impact on the states. Heck the bill of rights only applied to federal govt at tha time. The amendments were not incorporated until the 14th. States were much more powerful then. Today the state citizens get all thier aid from feds not the states.

[recoilless_57mm]

The states are the first and largest welfare recipients. Once they started taking money from the fed they sold their sole. It seems that every day that goes by the Consititution takes another beating. I don't see any of the states standing tall to keep it intact. The common man has little chance of making a difference. A group of states is another matter. JMO. Charlie

[krapgame]

Currently, my preparation mentality is to simply live a lifestyle that relies less upon the government system. The more of us who do so, the less traumatic it would be to hit the re-set button.

And the choir said AMEN!!

My goal has been for some time to be positioned such that someone would actually have to bring it to my attention if the economy collapsed or some such equivalent. Not there yet, but working toward it more every day. IMO the best way to remove the power that others have over you is to simply make them irrelevant. Grocery store closed? Irrelevant. Water company fails? Irrelevant. Electric grid goes down? Someday soon, irrelevant. Federal handout programs necessary for my survival? Absolutely irrelevant!

Some days I genuinely envy my Amish friends.

[chrisser]

And the choir said AMEN!!

My goal has been for some time to be positioned such that someone would actually have to bring it to my attention if the economy collapsed or some such equivalent. Not there yet, but working toward it more every day. IMO the best way to remove the power that others have over you is to simply make them irrelevant. Grocery store closed? Irrelevant. Water company fails? Irrelevant. Electric grid goes down? Someday soon, irrelevant. Federal handout programs necessary for my survival? Absolutely irrelevant!

Some days I genuinely envy my Amish friends.

That's essentially our goal too. Long since realized that we have no say in the current system. We do what we can with the realization that it's mostly futile.

So, even though we have little in common with the Hippie movement, we're doing our best to "drop out" of "the system". I've lost most of my animosity towards my fellow citizens (I reserve some for those in power, but that's another story). Mostly, I pity them. It's going to be rough for those who haven't prepared - it will be rough enough for those of us who, to varying degrees, have tried to do our best to head off the worst for our families. I just hope we'll be away from the city beforehand or can get out when things start to go bad.

Perhaps some good will come out of it all. I mean, I forsee a sort of general collapse and that's going to mean probably some starvation, rioting, etc in the central cities. But the central cities aren't "sustainable". At some point, those who remain will be scavengers and those who leave will have a heckuva time surviving. At some point, some degree of equilibrium will likely be reached, and those who survive will hopefully have learned a thing or two about the virtues of self-sufficiency vs being a ward of the omnipotent state that isn't so omnipotent after all. That's when we can have a real conversation about how we should pick up the pieces.

Personally, I fear for the Amish. I think they're in a vulnerable situation - most are close enough from major cities that the migrating hordes will reach them easily. With their pacifist nature, I'm not sure they'll be ready or able to resist what will be coming their way. Just about everyone within a couple hundred miles of the Amish knows about the Amish, what they are and where they are.

[krapgame]

Personally, I fear for the Amish. I think they're in a vulnerable situation - most are close enough from major cities that the migrating hordes will reach them easily. With their pacifist nature, I'm not sure they'll be ready or able to resist what will be coming their way. Just about everyone within a couple hundred miles of the Amish knows about the Amish, what they are and where they are.

I agree. I've touched on the subject with my closest Amish friend a couple of years ago. I'm afraid that they may be somewhat naive as to what starving English are capable of. I remember him saying that he would try to help out anyone who asked him for help. That's admirable for certain, but as I've said, I think also naive.

Again, I hope we never get to find out how it would shake out.