Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, there is a thread on it over in the Politics forum. For this forum I think the focus should remain on the preparation/self-sufficency aspects of what is happening around us. In otherwords, how do these actions by some states affect, or do they affect, individual, family, or community planning?
(I'd hate to see this thread locked up because of the inevitable devolution that occurs once politics enters the discussion.)
If states are going up against the Federal jurisdiction, by claiming their own jurisdiction, I think it is a good thing - no matter what they decide - because they are exerting their Constitutional power.
Think of it. If a state decides that they want to legalize gay marriage, they will encourage gay people to move there and discourage those who are adamantly against it; just as some states are becoming stricter about illegal immigrant populations and causing the illegal immigrants to move to 'shelter states'. If Wyoming is declaring that, in the event of SHTF or any sort of collapse, then open carry and property rights are in full force, fewer folks of a criminal/liberal bent will go there - while more people who believe in property rights and their second amendment rights will move there. It's like the pioneers who made their own ways and started their own businesses right where they were needed - from cattle shipping to beet-sugar producing. They were not dependent on cane sugar from Cuba or meat from the Chicago slaughterhouses (even though they did start shipping cattle to there eventually and through middlemen). The industry of one state could impact the industry of another's - as well as the attitudes, from state to state, or region to region.
I think that this is what that Russian, Professor Panarin, was proposing when he presented his theory in 1998. He was pooh-poohed back then, but some of his predictions may have some basis in fact... even though he said it would happen in 2010.
"He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.
California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia."
The refusal of the states to accede to Federal controls any longer - or their planning for a future without a cohesive Federal oversight - isn't merely political, but social and financial as well. Those states that refuse to utilize drones to observe the population, or refuse to give up their arrest and incarceration powers to a Federal overweening arrest and detention procedure that violates the US Constitution itself - are not being so much political as enforcing their Constitutional rights. These things will all have an impact on self-sufficiency and those who choose to be independent - as well as those who choose to be dependent. Wouldn't most of those who choose self-direction choose to live in a state that didn't threaten to incarcerate us for producing our own foodstuffs, chickens and eggs and produce, even raw milk?
If states are going up against the Federal jurisdiction, by claiming their own jurisdiction, I think it is a good thing - no matter what they decide - because they are exerting their Constitutional power.
Think of it. If a state decides that they want to legalize gay marriage, they will encourage gay people to move there and discourage those who are adamantly against it; just as some states are becoming stricter about illegal immigrant populations and causing the illegal immigrants to move to 'shelter states'. If Wyoming is declaring that, in the event of SHTF or any sort of collapse, then open carry and property rights are in full force, fewer folks of a criminal/liberal bent will go there - while more people who believe in property rights and their second amendment rights will move there. It's like the pioneers who made their own ways and started their own businesses right where they were needed - from cattle shipping to beet-sugar producing. They were not dependent on cane sugar from Cuba or meat from the Chicago slaughterhouses (even though they did start shipping cattle to there eventually and through middlemen). The industry of one state could impact the industry of another's - as well as the attitudes, from state to state, or region to region.
I think that this is what that Russian, Professor Panarin, was proposing when he presented his theory in 1998. He was pooh-poohed back then, but some of his predictions may have some basis in fact... even though he said it would happen in 2010.
"He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.
California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia."
The refusal of the states to accede to Federal controls any longer - or their planning for a future without a cohesive Federal oversight - isn't merely political, but social and financial as well. Those states that refuse to utilize drones to observe the population, or refuse to give up their arrest and incarceration powers to a Federal overweening arrest and detention procedure that violates the US Constitution itself - are not being so much political as enforcing their Constitutional rights. These things will all have an impact on self-sufficiency and those who choose to be independent - as well as those who choose to be dependent. Wouldn't most of those who choose self-direction choose to live in a state that didn't threaten to incarcerate us for producing our own foodstuffs, chickens and eggs and produce, even raw milk?
Absolutely, I think we are on the same page on this.
I love old movies and one of my favorite is Shenandoah with James Stewart and a cast of other high profile actors. The jist of it is Stewart's role as the patriarch and his insistance that he was a "son of Virgina" first and had no intention of sending his sons off to fight in the civil war. Eventually, the war came to them and their lives were unalterably changed.
Similarly what is happening globally, and with our own government, I think will come to our doorsteps. How will our states fare? How will their needs sans the government the ability to feed off the government teat change the face of how our states function? Will state governors invoke emergency powers declaration, limit travel, limit our ability to conduct commerce, etc.....? Will they confiscate that which they need?
I know some states, following the Katrina & Greensburg gun grabs, enacted laws that they would not confiscate fireams in state of emergency scenarios. Others have not.
Guess I am just trying to look down the road to see how my state might react given limited resources/manpower and how that may affect the ability to survive/thrive.
Gosh but these states are gettin' rambunctious, huh? They act like they have some POWER, or something!
Yes, they are! The Utah Legislature recently proposed a bill that would put forth a deadline for the Federal Government to turn all federal lands in Utah (and there is A LOT of federal land in Utah) back over to the State of Utah as they promised to do in 1896. The state wants to use the lands to help fund education. I had to laugh and give a thumbs up when I heard that on the radio. Of course, it won't go anywhere, but I love it when this state gives the feds the middle finger--as they did when we declared silver and gold legal currency in the state.
As I said, there is NO WAY the feds are going to follow through on their promise of over 100 years ago. But it's fun to think about. That huge volume of land opening up for sale to private individuals could be a "homesteader's" or survivalist's dream. There is lots of great land around Utah in the many micro climates that a resourceful person could make very sustainable. Lot's of prime land locked up by the BLM, Forest Service, Military, etc...
As I said, there is NO WAY the feds are going to follow through on their promise of over 100 years ago. But it's fun to think about. That huge volume of land opening up for sale to private individuals could be a "homesteader's" or survivalist's dream. There is lots of great land around Utah in the many micro climates that a resourceful person could make very sustainable. Lot's of prime land locked up by the BLM, Forest Service, Military, etc...
Or, a few very wealthy will buy up most of the acreage, going back to English feudel times, when you would have to ask permission to go on the lord's land, or rent from him to farm at an enourmous price (and forget about hunting).
Or, a few very wealthy will buy up most of the acreage, going back to English feudel times, when you would have to ask permission to go on the lord's land, or rent from him to farm at an enourmous price (and forget about hunting).
Well, I certainly can't farm on federal land, for any amount of money, now can I? If I could, my crops would be ran over and obliterated by the scores of ATVs that plague the entire state outside the urban areas. I'd actually be willing to pay extra "rent" just to avoid the drone and dust clouds of the ATV swarms. You certainly don't get much of that in states with very little government-held land.
I guarantee Oregon has no idea what preparedness is!!!! They are still riding the Hope and Change bus.... To the aveage Portlander, Government is the answer, not the problem.... When all hell breaks loose, it's gonna be ugly up there!!!!
Or, a few very wealthy will buy up most of the acreage, going back to English feudel times, when you would have to ask permission to go on the lord's land, or rent from him to farm at an enourmous price (and forget about hunting).
That is happening in the Midwest right now. Tillable acreage with good soil is at 40 yr. highs as corporations and hedge funds buy it up.
Well, I certainly can't farm on federal land, for any amount of money, now can I? If I could, my crops would be ran over and obliterated by the scores of ATVs that plague the entire state outside the urban areas. I'd actually be willing to pay extra "rent" just to avoid the drone and dust clouds of the ATV swarms. You certainly don't get much of that in states with very little government-held land.
No, but you can hunt it, gather on it, ranch it, hike it, bike it, camp on it. And many people do farm on it in secret.
No, but you can hunt it, gather on it, ranch it, hike it, bike it, camp on it. And many people do farm on it in secret.
Well, okay, here is a question for you: would you be willing to donate your private land to the federal government? That's basically what happened here in Utah for many, many folks, way back when. Except the land was donated... forcefully.
I'm not singling you out here, but it's interesting how hypocritical folks get on this issue. You mention that it would be like going back to the feudal times if the land were privately owned. Yet... I'm assuming you yourself own land. And I'm sure you would require me to ask you if I could run my ATV (hypothetically--I don't actually have one) over your garden, and/or hunt your land, and/or gather on it, and/or ranch it, hike it, camp on it. Right? So does that make you one of those feudal Lords of yesteryear?
It just goes to show how much the mindset has changed over the years. At one time, when a "homestead" area was opened up, people rushed to get their own little chunk of ground to live on. It was considered a good thing. Now, the idea of opening land up to citizens is frowned upon... by people who, presumably, own their little chunk of heaven already. And before you say, "well, I paid for my land," I wasn't really assuming that folks would get free land. As I said, the state was (hypothetically) planning on selling the opened land to fund education. So it would be sold. Something like Alaska State has been doing for years (and still does). And as regulation nuts as we all are these days, I'm sure they could regulate the daylights out of those sales just to make sure a Russian mafia man, or Chinese businessman, or Iranian militant doesn't get the land.
As I said, this whole idea could be very good for sufficiency-oriented people. But there is no point in arguing about it anyway, because there is no way it's ever going to happen. And, I'm biased: in my opinion, the federal government shouldn't own ANY land, except for maybe a bit for military purposes. All public land should be state owned. Besides, I never said that I wanted national parks and forests opened to private ownership. But there is a HELL of a lot of BLM land in this state that could certainly be bought and nurtured by private individuals who are interested in caring for the land, tending it, and making it into something. And if you're worried about more endless horizons of "ranchette" McMansions, zone it AG160 (you must own 160 acres of land to build a home--that's the way most of those isolated areas are now for private land). This land is now completely neglected and the only people who use it are those who go out and trash it and disturb the soil--it's largely desert soil and as soon as an ATV tire tracks over the skimpy foliage, we have instant dust storm during the frequent wind storms around here. Every year for the past ten years or so, we get these huge dust storms every time the south wind blows. Never used to have that. Why? Well, what has changed out there the last few years? Farming has diminished. Mining has diminished. There used to be next to no one out there. I could go out there and traipse around the desert for days and never see another soul. Now if I went out there to hike as I used to, I'd likely get ran over by a "quad." The only thing that has changed is the destructive power of the ATVs. They certainly wouldn't be tearing their front lawns up with the ATV like they tear up the countryside. You see, when you don't own the land, you really don't give a damn what you do to it.
I agree with the BLM. I afraid to say that I don't even know the purpose of the BLM. I know many people from ranching leases from them. I also agree that ATVs do a lot of damage. That is why many agencies have tight restrictions on them--specific ATV trails and areas. I'm sorry that the BLM is doing nothing in your area.
Here is my declosure: I grew up camping in National Forest primitive campgrounds. My parents didn't want developed campgrounds--they wanted to have a pit toilet, a pump water, and a fire grate and the rest to be nature. Also, we couldn't afford much and these campgrounds were almost always free. Now, my husband works for the Forest Service. I see how hard he and others work to make sure there is a balance--that everyone has the ability to use the forest in the way that they want. However, there is a saying they have: if nobody is happy they must be doing something right. Simply because people tend to think that the public land should only be used how THEY want it to be. Hikers think it should be almost all wilderness; ATVers think they should be able to go anywhere; Ranchers think they should be able to bring in machinery to the wilderness to fix things easier; environmentalists think none of it should be there; etc. But think if these places went away--yes, there would be no more ATVs, but there would be no more hunting or ranching leases or trails or campgrounds.
We could argue about who owns the public land--I'm not sure if I care one way or the other. But I do care that there is public land. And maybe there are other ways to manage it that would cost less, but it does need to be managed for the public good--so that you can hike without interruption and ATVers can joy ride to their hearts delight, and that the land doesn't get so eroded that it ceases to be productive to any purpose.
I have long wondered if we could take brown lots and rehab them and then switch them out for other public holdings.
Anyhow, back to homesteading, the reason that we aren't going to see that again is because westward expansion has ended. A long time ago. The government wanted the land populated so another country couldn't come in and take over. They wanted to subdue the Native Americans. They wanted people in place to cash in on soon-to-be discovered new resources. They wanted more productivity for a growing eastern population. All that is done. They won't open up BLM lands because people still ranch and drill on the land, providing them with tax-free business opportunities. That won't change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
creating another economic bubble........
