3 ms·

A bunch of terms are thrown around in this context in daily discussions online: police state, civil liberties, curtailing of freedoms; mostly stuff that comes f

A bunch of terms are thrown around in this context in daily discussions online: police state, civil liberties, curtailing of freedoms; mostly stuff that comes from a militarization of a society. You take the DHS and its buying of 1.4 billion hollow point rounds of ammo[1]; the fact that the hated TSA is now creating a VIPR program for highways & road patrols[2]; FEMA programs for emergency[3] and so many others. What Ike Eisenhower spoke about (from a libertarian perspective he was arguably a good president, better than the people who followed), is that a growing militarization and the creation of wars to expend that military and its renewal, would inevitably increase the national debt. Now that there is no way to pay that debt down[4], there is going to be civil unrest. The hidden tax - inflation is going to make people poorer and eventually create social problems. This military will then be used for another purpose: civil discipline. The only way to change it is to default; who the hell's going to pay $222 Tn? Because of the dollar devaluation (again due to the debt), the Chinese are not buying. 61% of the T-bills were bought by the Fed last year[5]. Because of large number of baby boomers retiring, Social Security will become cash-flow negative by 2018 and bankrupt by 2033.[6] tl;dr I guess my point is that this permanent militarization was obvious and intentional. [1]http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/why_does_homeland_security_need_14_billion_rounds_of_ammunition.html http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/why_does_homelan... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_a... [3]http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm [4]http://godfatherpolitics.com/6914/its-not-16-trillion-its-222-trillion/ http://godfatherpolitics.com/6914/its-not-16-trillion-its-22... [5]http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/fed-debt-Treasury/2012/03/28/id/434106 http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/fed-debt-Treasury/2012/03/... [6]http://www.justfactsdaily.com/in-spite-of-public-claims-social-securitys-trust-fund-to-start-losing-value-in-2013 http://www.justfactsdaily.com/in-spite-of-public-claims-soci... edit: typos and spacing edit edit: added a fact.

javert 14y ago
I think this theory deserves its own blog post, with a bit more detail. I am not sure I follow the unpayable debt -> civil unrest step of the argument. I think the overall theory is probably a stretch, but I think you're really onto something. For one thing, the creation of massive federal police a la DHS and TSA is extremely scary to me, and something people should be paying more attention to. For example, hypothetically, what would signifiy the "tipping point" where those with means to do so, should flee the country? Probably the elimintation of free speech, but what if it's too late by then? Take note that "liberals" are already demanding the beginning of the end of free speech under the guise of "campaign finance reform." Another thing people should be paying more attention to is figuring out the effect of the debt spiral and continual inflation (presumably quantitative easing will continue indefinitely). At what point should I convert all USD holdings to other things? And should those other things include, say, domestic real estate, or should they be only gold (and bitcoin :) )? The answer to that would depend on the earlier "tipping point" thing. To those who think this is all a meaningless rant: Protection of individual rights (the Constitution) has been eroding for centuries, which is reaching its culmination, and the US is reapidly becoming a police state. Wake up.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  Campaign finance reform has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Way to derail your own post
  - natrius 14y ago
    The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
    - clebio 14y ago
      Is the crux of that argument that sourcing the funding would put at risk people who might support a candidate's causes, but whose safety might be compromised by identification? It is an honest question; I haven't followed that case closely. So, for example, someone living in the rural south that wants to back gay rights, or something of the sort? That would tie back to the entire Google+ real-names debate, then.
- riffic 14y ago
  Lessig would fault your hit on "campaign finance reform".

javert 14y ago

I think this theory deserves its own blog post, with a bit more detail. I am not sure I follow the unpayable debt -> civil unrest step of the argument. I think the overall theory is probably a stretch, but I think you're really onto something. For one thing, the creation of massive federal police a la DHS and TSA is extremely scary to me, and something people should be paying more attention to. For example, hypothetically, what would signifiy the "tipping point" where those with means to do so, should flee the country? Probably the elimintation of free speech, but what if it's too late by then? Take note that "liberals" are already demanding the beginning of the end of free speech under the guise of "campaign finance reform." Another thing people should be paying more attention to is figuring out the effect of the debt spiral and continual inflation (presumably quantitative easing will continue indefinitely). At what point should I convert all USD holdings to other things? And should those other things include, say, domestic real estate, or should they be only gold (and bitcoin :) )? The answer to that would depend on the earlier "tipping point" thing. To those who think this is all a meaningless rant: Protection of individual rights (the Constitution) has been eroding for centuries, which is reaching its culmination, and the US is reapidly becoming a police state. Wake up.

bluedanieru 14y ago
Campaign finance reform has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Way to derail your own post
- natrius 14y ago
  The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
  - clebio 14y ago
    Is the crux of that argument that sourcing the funding would put at risk people who might support a candidate's causes, but whose safety might be compromised by identification? It is an honest question; I haven't followed that case closely. So, for example, someone living in the rural south that wants to back gay rights, or something of the sort? That would tie back to the entire Google+ real-names debate, then.
riffic 14y ago
Lessig would fault your hit on "campaign finance reform".