Even some states are making contingency plans and preparing (lake, house, good)

[joe from dayton]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Why presume that it is a water borne carrier?

Because it would be an airport if it wasn't?

[EricBoyd]

An aircraft carrier is generally useless as an airport, unless it can get into a really strong head wind.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

............................
I do think it would be a good idea for the midplains and western states to co-ordinate efforts in the event of a collapse. Many of us share the same types of residents, resources, and attitudes that could make the central/west part of the US not only a safer and more productive area in the future, but by co-ordinating efforts it would take away or at least offer a more united and cohesive defense against the "Wild West" component of anarchy or Eastern-government force that would be initiated during a collapse.

In the event of economic/currency collapse I really don't see total anarchy in rural areas ever becoming a reality. I have more faith in the county sheriffs in retaking their rightful role (See Sheriff Mack & the Constitutional Sheriff's movement) and the volunteerism when it comes to EMS first responder roles which already exists.

On the other hand, the cities and the near outlying areas are a whole 'nother story..... The large metropolitan areas and those who are elected to govern (East of and including KC, Omaha, Minneapolis, etc...) would never be willing to even address the possibility of having to function detached from the teat of the federal government. I see their prepartaions being about as effective as those in NOLA when faced with Katrina.

[SCGranny]

I don't foresee the locals having a problem with anarchy; I do see those on both coasts and in the cities who think that the jobs and food might be here and heading thisaway (as many are already) to either take what they can get or try to fit in somewhere.

As I explained (over and over) to folks during my community development phase - once you have something that attracts people, be it land or housing or jobs or whatever, you have to have rules in place so that you are not overrun/taken advantage of by those who not only come there honestly but those who come dishonestly. Otherwise, once they get there and start taking over, you're going to be playing catch-up the rest of your life.

I watched my brother's area in ID become overrun by initially well-intentioned Californians who moved to the area because of the great skiing and cheap prices - and who raised the cost of housing and the COL out of most local peoples' reach. Then they decided the area needed more laws that suited them, enforced their kind of beliefs and liberalism, and kept all of the "local rednecks" out of the political and growth process - "rednecks" who had lived there generationally and who bartered, traded, and got along fine with their neighbors by respecting property rights and individual rights long before the liberals got there. (The "rednecks" also didn't mind the sound of gunfire, or the smell of horse and cow poop and wood fires, all of which seemed to terrify the newbies, who also thought that wildlife meant bunnies and birds, not snakes and coyotes and wolves and mountain lions.)

In the event of a government or financial collapse, those bureaucrats and liberals, as well as the anarchistic criminals and freeloaders, will head toward a stable place and try to take it over - it won't all be people who come there to be a part of the profiting, mutually beneficial, and stable community or economy. As my old farmer friend/employer used to say, "Some people just got to s**t everything up".

Pre-planning (action) is always better than after-the-fact (REaction).

[Happy in Wyoming]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

As I explained (over and over) to folks during my community development phase - once you have something that attracts people, be it land or housing or jobs or whatever, you have to have rules in place so that you are not overrun/taken advantage of by those who not only come there honestly but those who come dishonestly. Otherwise, once they get there and start taking over, you're going to be playing catch-up the rest of your life.

I watched my brother's area in ID become overrun by initially well-intentioned Californians who moved to the area because of the great skiing and cheap prices - and who raised the cost of housing and the COL out of most local peoples' reach. Then they decided the area needed more laws that suited them, enforced their kind of beliefs and liberalism, and kept all of the "local rednecks" out of the political and growth process - "rednecks" who had lived there generationally and who bartered, traded, and got along fine with their neighbors by respecting property rights and individual rights long before the liberals got there. (The "rednecks" also didn't mind the sound of gunfire, or the smell of horse and cow poop and wood fires, all of which seemed to terrify the newbies, who also thought that wildlife meant bunnies and birds, not snakes and coyotes and wolves and mountain lions.)

What are you talking about? It sounds like you just don't want people with more money.

[MTSilvertip]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

I watched my brother's area in ID become overrun by initially well-intentioned Californians who moved to the area because of the great skiing and cheap prices - and who raised the cost of housing and the COL out of most local peoples' reach. Then they decided the area needed more laws that suited them, enforced their kind of beliefs and liberalism, and kept all of the "local rednecks" out of the political and growth process - "rednecks" who had lived there generationally and who bartered, traded, and got along fine with their neighbors by respecting property rights and individual rights long before the liberals got there. (The "rednecks" also didn't mind the sound of gunfire, or the smell of horse and cow poop and wood fires, all of which seemed to terrify the newbies, who also thought that wildlife meant bunnies and birds, not snakes and coyotes and wolves and mountain lions.)

In the event of a government or financial collapse, those bureaucrats and liberals, as well as the anarchistic criminals and freeloaders, will head toward a stable place and try to take it over - it won't all be people who come there to be a part of the profiting, mutually beneficial, and stable community or economy. As my old farmer friend/employer used to say, "Some people just got to s**t everything up".

Pre-planning (action) is always better than after-the-fact (REaction).

Right on the money, this happened in Montana as well and destroyed much of the traditional land uses that sustained the state since it's inception.
Logging industry is gone. Agriculture on the western end of the state where the McMansions now grow is difficult because the land has been paved over and chopped into 5 acre "ranchettes". Hunting and fishing are harder because somebody from out of state bought a piece of ground that the access road crossed, and shut down access to public land or fishing accesses.
Some mining is still going, but mostly only gold because of the current prices, and only those mines that were going prior to new regulations being implimented.
Paper mills, gone, aluminum and lead smelters, closed.
All that is realistically left are those who build those oversized obnoxious "summer homes" that are used for a couple weeks a year, and those who cater to the tourists by working in resteraunts or hotels or guide "nature hikes". Good paying jobs are non-existent, minimum wage is now the norm.
The elk herds are gone because of the introduction of Canadian Grey wolves over the objections of the residents of the state and livestock producers are loosing a lot of animals as well.
The Rocky Mountain Front has been closed to oil and gas development even though there are large reserves there.
The list goes on and on.

I don't blame folks for wanting to have a better life, but why destroy our lives and livelyhood in the process?

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

I don't foresee the locals having a problem with anarchy; I do see those on both coasts and in the cities who think that the jobs and food might be here and heading thisaway (as many are already) to either take what they can get or try to fit in somewhere.

As I explained (over and over) to folks during my community development phase - once you have something that attracts people, be it land or housing or jobs or whatever, you have to have rules in place so that you are not overrun/taken advantage of by those who not only come there honestly but those who come dishonestly. Otherwise, once they get there and start taking over, you're going to be playing catch-up the rest of your life.

I watched my brother's area in ID become overrun by initially well-intentioned Californians who moved to the area because of the great skiing and cheap prices - and who raised the cost of housing and the COL out of most local peoples' reach. Then they decided the area needed more laws that suited them, enforced their kind of beliefs and liberalism, and kept all of the "local rednecks" out of the political and growth process - "rednecks" who had lived there generationally and who bartered, traded, and got along fine with their neighbors by respecting property rights and individual rights long before the liberals got there. (The "rednecks" also didn't mind the sound of gunfire, or the smell of horse and cow poop and wood fires, all of which seemed to terrify the newbies, who also thought that wildlife meant bunnies and birds, not snakes and coyotes and wolves and mountain lions.)

In the event of a government or financial collapse, those bureaucrats and liberals, as well as the anarchistic criminals and freeloaders, will head toward a stable place and try to take it over - it won't all be people who come there to be a part of the profiting, mutually beneficial, and stable community or economy. As my old farmer friend/employer used to say, "Some people just got to s**t everything up".

Pre-planning (action) is always better than after-the-fact (REaction).

Great post. I've watched this happen over the course of my life to a once great place to live. When big money and big city comes to small town, rural America, it's over for that area. Time to move on. Sad thing is, the choices are becoming rather limited.

[Happy in Wyoming]

Originally Posted by MTSilvertip

I don't blame folks for wanting to have a better life, but why destroy our lives and livelyhood in the process?

Because you're in the way.

Capitalism is creative destruction. It destroys the old and introduces innovation. Or would you prefer a wagon to a truck?

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Great post. I've watched this happen over the course of my life to a once great place to live. When big money and big city comes to small town, rural America, it's over for that area. Time to move on. Sad thing is, the choices are becoming rather limited.

I'm glad I'm in right wing Wyoming where we love and respect business, wealth, and freedom.

Wyoming was the first state to offer the L.L.C. Now we're the first state to look beyond the US.

[Ode]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

I'm still struggling with Wyoming's need of (and especially placement of!) an aircraft carrier.

Also I am a little suspicious of their advisory board. It looks a little topheavy in power-wielding bureaucracy.

I do think it would be a good idea for the midplains and western states to co-ordinate efforts in the event of a collapse. Many of us share the same types of residents, resources, and attitudes that could make the central/west part of the US not only a safer and more productive area in the future, but by co-ordinating efforts it would take away or at least offer a more united and cohesive defense against the "Wild West" component of anarchy or Eastern-government force that would be initiated during a collapse.

Not from Wyoming here, nor am I planning on moving there. But the aircraft carrier business has me going "Huh??? What are they thinking with that???" Doesn't the whole state have around a half million or so residents? There just are so many people that could be drafted, forcibly or as volunteers, when the totals are that small. People would still need to care for and provide for their families. Combining efforts with other neighboring states would be an ideal solution, I hope they discuss that option.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

I'm glad I'm in right wing Wyoming where we love and respect business, wealth, and freedom.

And how would you feel if all those California liberals that you love so much (your favorite welfare class following right behind the big money folks bringing all that wonderful economic activity to good ol' Wyoming) surrounded your property and turned it into a Bay Area, California, east campus? That's progress, right? Would you love and respect the inevitable business, wealth, and freedom? It amazes me that your comments here are so contradictory from one post to the next--in one post your are shooting anyone who comes within sight of your community before you even know what the hell they are there for (so much for freedom, eh?) and in the next you are welcoming the type of "economic activity" that turns rural America into south central Los Angeles. Which are you for?

I may be rather rash, but I AM consistently rash. I hate big city life and all that goes with it. Period. I hate seeing the rural area that still lives in my mind becoming the toilet that it has now become--economic progress or not. I hate seeing the valley filled with interstates, Burger Kings, and McMansions, rather than the endless miles and miles of winter wheat, corn, and alfalfa fields that used to be here. I don't give one tinker's damn about that kind of economic progress. I'd rather work as a poor white trash sharecropper in the middle of nowhere than have a cushy six-figure job sitting on my ass in what I consider hell. But then, that's no longer an option around these parts (unless you are an illegal working in one of the few remaining orchards) due to "progress." As I said, that's why it's time (for me) to move on to a place with less "business, wealth, and freedom."

Of course, all of this is just me, my Jeffersonian-Democracy-leaning outlook on life, and my cantankerous, simplicity-oriented primitivism. But at least I'm consistent. I've stated it many times here. It's the same philosophy I've had for many years. Oh and by the way, you're damned rights I'd prefer a wagon to a truck. That horse doesn't depend on and fund Iran. But the point is moot because the horse and buggy is no longer an option, either. Too much "economic freedom."