What To Expect When the U.S. Economy Finally Collapses...

[Firedawg314]

Oh? Do you suppose a few fellas like John Adams, John Hancock, George Mason, or Thomas Jefferson were able to recognize it?

The Founders experienced less tyranny than we do today--less government intrusion by far than what we put up with. And, they kicked the king in the teeth over their tyranny.

"....nothing is new under the sun..."

Basically, if they haven't mention it a lot back then, doesn't mean they didn't have to deal with it. Look at history... groups/people have always "erase" the history, or try to make it "better" for the new readers. In antient Egypt, when a new ruler became king, first thing they do is trear down all the history etc of the person before them. Even now, we have people "chip" away history. For example, that one guy who "proved" that Pluto isn't a planet???? Now our kids are taught that Pluto isn't a planet... but it goes around our sun like the rest of the plaents.

I guess the point is... even if our society collaps, rest arrsured that someone is going to paint the picture that it really didn't happen.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Basically, if they haven't mention it a lot back then, doesn't mean they didn't have to deal with it.

I understand your point. And, on some things, would say it is probably valid. But, I think it inapplicable here. You see, we still have the information:

A great source of info is the "bill of particulars" in the Declaration of Independence.

And, the Parliamentary record--it still exists. We know which statutes and issues caused the uproar. Also, even though kid school texts convey little history, the scholarship is still out there. And, its not all that hard to find, neither. Anybody interested can find it with little trouble. And, I do mean little. A few internet searches will turn up scholar-type books on the subjects. Then its just a matter of tracking down a copy of the book.

And, the British government was lots smaller then than ours today, with much fewer regulations, and a much smaller bureaucracy.

A big part of Parliament's problem was that the colonies had not been taxed and regulated to any extent. They'd been left pretty much to their own colonial government ever since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. They were used to a high degree of independence from Britain. Then along comes Parliament with the Stamp Act, imposing a tax in violation of a very old English legal tradition, and the sparks started to fly.

Part of the revolutionary picture is that the colonists were Englishmen, and were very annoyed they were being denied their rights as Englishmen. That very old legal tradition I just mentioned was this: think of the kings of England as the boss nobleman for a moment. Of course, they were more than that, but just temporarily adopt the idea that the kings were just the top nobleman. It was a longstanding legal tradition that if the king wanted anything that was gonna cost money, he had to pay for it from the income of his own lands. He had to pay for it. If he wanted even one cent more, meaning, if he wanted to lay a tax to get the money, he had to have the consent of Parliament. So, there you go. Taxes required the consent of Parliament. And, since half of Parliament--the House of Commons--represented the people, you have the principle of no taxation without representation. So, along comes Parliament with a tax on the colonies while the colonies had no representative in Parliament, add in some tough-minded colonists who considered they were due certain rights as Englishman, and sparks started to fly.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

<sarcasm>Scholars is just code for pointy-headed pencil-necked intellectual geeks in their Ivory Towers of Academe, what do they know of real history?</sarcasm> Highlight the invisible tags.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Even now, we have people "chip" away history. For example, that one guy who "proved" that Pluto isn't a planet???? Now our kids are taught that Pluto isn't a planet... but it goes around our sun like the rest of the plaents.

Uh, no. The definition of planet was changed to not include everything that "goes around our Sun." Pluto failed to meet a very academic and intellectual (like scholars, astronomers and planetologists in the International Astronomical Union) detail of the definition - that it "failed to clear its neighborhood." Kind'a like a good citizen being not so good for failing to clear his 'hood.

 

[Gil223]

Drug Abuse - NATURE'S "DARWIN AWARDS LOTTERY"

Well, somehow someone managed to transform "What To Expect When The U.S. Economy Finally Collapses" into "Gimme Free Drugs. Oh, Yeah... and While You're At It, Decriminalize Them!" That makes as much sense as saying, "Remove The Speed Limits From Our Highways Because the Majority of Drivers Ignore Speed Limits." Every society known to mankind has had rules (although some rules are more easily identified/defined than others). Even aboriginal societies have rules. A rule doesn't have to be codified - or even written - to be accepted as a "law" within a given social structure. What most "civilized" societies (identified as such by those societies themselves) have, are an extremely complex, bifurcated set of rules, or "laws", that the average person within that society finds overwhelmingly confusing, and immediately subsequent to that discovery, finds himself boarding the express train to Frustrationville.

The "less advanced" societies have very simple, common sense rules/laws, similar in many respects to "Hammurabi's Code of Laws". Apparently Hammurabi was essentially a minimalist when it came to laws. His entire code consisted of a mere 282 punishable offenses (the majority of which were punishable by death - perhaps to insure a very low recidivism rate). In the late second century B.C. he codified the well-known "eye for an eye" (law 196) and "tooth for a tooth (law 200)"*, and the Code includes other pronouncements (like 'whoever builds a shoddy house will be put to death'). On the positive side, "a man could not be convicted of theft unless the goods were found in his possession." We have more than 286 laws concerning CFPs... or the growing of cabbages!

Drugs and alcohol were not criminalized at that time (best guess, since I wasn't contacted by Hammurabi and asked for my advice, nor was I present when he determined what would be proscribed) because (a) it had not been proven that their use had directly caused crimes, or (b) they had not yet been identified as contributing to criminal behaviors, or (c) nobody cared to criminalize such behaviors.

Today we know (i.e. - been told by those who are supposed to know such things) that there are some drugs that are beneficial to our health and others that are deleterious. Our omniscient government, in it's infinite wisdom, has determined that "drugs", other than those of proven benefit, are illegal to produce, possess, buy/sell or use. Hence there are criminal penalties for the production, possession, transferring or use of those drugs. I won't argue the rationale or truth(s) behind such classifictions, but I do accept the fact that they are currently codified as illegal substances. You can whine all you want about those laws being 'wrong', but it is what it is.

Drug abuse is nature's way of thinning the human herd. It is 'the survival of the fittest' in action.

I would suggest that you get all your druggie buddies together and stage a protest in front of your state capitol. And, while you're at it, join NAMBLA and protest for their rights, too. Pax...



*Both laws have been erroneously combined, and then credited to Moses, the Hebrew law giver, as "Mosaic Law".

 

[Daylen]

"....nothing is new under the sun..."

Basically, if they haven't mention it a lot back then, doesn't mean they didn't have to deal with it. Look at history... groups/people have always "erase" the history, or try to make it "better" for the new readers. In antient Egypt, when a new ruler became king, first thing they do is trear down all the history etc of the person before them. Even now, we have people "chip" away history. For example, that one guy who "proved" that Pluto isn't a planet???? Now our kids are taught that Pluto isn't a planet... but it goes around our sun like the rest of the plaents.

I guess the point is... even if our society collaps, rest arrsured that someone is going to paint the picture that it really didn't happen.

They had no "drug control" or anything resembling it. That is a late 19th century American protestant thing. Its not godly to do drugs, so lets outlaw it! Ol Ben Franklin would have brought the militia out to fight anyone trying to outlaw or give the government control over his opium and laughing gas.

 

[Daylen]

Well, somehow someone managed to transform "What To Expect When The U.S. Economy Finally Collapses" into "Gimme Free Drugs. Oh, Yeah... and While You're At It, Decriminalize Them!" That makes as much sense as saying, "Remove The Speed Limits From Our Highways Because the Majority of Drivers Ignore Speed Limits." Every society known to mankind has had rules (although some rules are more easily identified/defined than others). Even aboriginal societies have rules. A rule doesn't have to be codified - or even written - to be accepted as a "law" within a given social structure. What most "civilized" societies (identified as such by those societies themselves) have, are an extremely complex, bifurcated set of rules, or "laws", that the average person within that society finds overwhelmingly confusing, and immediately subsequent to that discovery, finds himself boarding the express train to Frustrationville.

The "less advanced" societies have very simple, common sense rules/laws, similar in many respects to "Hammurabi's Code of Laws". Apparently Hammurabi was essentially a minimalist when it came to laws. His entire code consisted of a mere 282 punishable offenses (the majority of which were punishable by death - perhaps to insure a very low recidivism rate). In the late second century B.C. he codified the well-known "eye for an eye" (law 196) and "tooth for a tooth (law 200)"*, and the Code includes other pronouncements (like 'whoever builds a shoddy house will be put to death'). On the positive side, "a man could not be convicted of theft unless the goods were found in his possession." We have more than 286 laws concerning CFPs... or the growing of cabbages!

Drugs and alcohol were not criminalized at that time (best guess, since I wasn't contacted by Hammurabi and asked for my advice, nor was I present when he determined what would be proscribed) because (a) it had not been proven that their use had directly caused crimes, or (b) they had not yet been identified as contributing to criminal behaviors, or (c) nobody cared to criminalize such behaviors.

Today we know (i.e. - been told by those who are supposed to know such things) that there are some drugs that are beneficial to our health and others that are deleterious. Our omniscient government, in it's infinite wisdom, has determined that "drugs", other than those of proven benefit, are illegal to produce, possess, buy/sell or use. Hence there are criminal penalties for the production, possession, transferring or use of those drugs. I won't argue the rationale or truth(s) behind such classifictions, but I do accept the fact that they are currently codified as illegal substances. You can whine all you want about those laws being 'wrong', but it is what it is.

Drug abuse is nature's way of thinning the human herd. It is 'the survival of the fittest' in action.

I would suggest that you get all your druggie buddies together and stage a protest in front of your state capitol. And, while you're at it, join NAMBLA and protest for their rights, too. Pax...



*Both laws have been erroneously combined, and then credited to Moses, the Hebrew law giver, as "Mosaic Law".

And that is how we lost the right to bear arms.

 

[Aknazer]

SNIP

...For example, that one guy who "proved" that Pluto isn't a planet???? Now our kids are taught that Pluto isn't a planet... but it goes around our sun like the rest of the plaents...

I understand what you're trying to say, but Pluto isn't a very good example. Why? Because there's a very specific definition of what is a planet and it simply doesn't meet the actual requirements. Why was it considered a planet before? Because prior to 2006 there was no real definition to what a "planet" was. Once a proper definition was adopted Pluto simply didn't meet those requirements and as such was re-clasified as a "dwarf planet." Though I wouldn't be surprised if the definition were to eventually change again once we start actually exploring space to some degree as opposed to us simply looking out into space. Though saying because it goes around the sun isn't a very good definition because that would very easily include asteroids and other non-planet bodies.

But yes, typically the victor is the one who writes history.

 

[Gil223]

And that is how we lost the right to bear arms.

Perhaps you lost the right to bear arms, but most of us haven't... yet. However, a second term for the present left-wing, socialist administration may just make that a truism for us all. The "annointed one" can just legislate all fifty million of us all into outlaws (or at least, those of us who would refuse to recognize such an unconstitutional edict). Pax...

 

[Daylen]

Perhaps you lost the right to bear arms, but most of us haven't... yet. However, a second term for the present left-wing, socialist administration may just make that a truism for us all. The "annointed one" can just legislate all fifty million of us all into outlaws (or at least, those of us who would refuse to recognize such an unconstitutional edict). Pax...

Oh yea? try taking a walk within 1000 feet of a school, without asking for permission on public property, carrying your favorite scarey rifle; just see how much of a right you have left. Try building or buying a fully automatic firearm and using it at public ranges without asking and gaining permission from ATF. Needing a permit or license is for privileges not rights, if you have a right to do something you don't need to ask permission.

 

[ncwabbit]

decriminalize drug use does work

LISBON — Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal's decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.
"There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal," said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.
The number of addicts considered "problematic" -- those who repeatedly use "hard" drugs and intravenous users -- had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.
Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.
"This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies."
Portugal's holistic approach had also led to a "spectacular" reduction in the number of infections among intravenous users and a significant drop in drug-related crimes, he added.
A law that became active on July 1, 2001 did not legalise drug use, but forced users caught with banned substances to appear in front of special addiction panels rather than in a criminal court.
The panels composed of psychologists, judges and social workers recommended action based on the specifics of each case.
Since then, government panels have recommended a response based largely on whether the individual is an occasional drug user or an addict.
Of the nearly 40,000 people currently being treated, "the vast majority of problematic users are today supported by a system that does not treat them as delinquents but as sick people," Goulao said.
In a report published last week, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) said Portugal had dealt with this issue "in a pragmatic and innovative way."
Drug use statistics in Portugal are generally "below the European average and much lower than its only European neighbour, Spain," the report also said.
"The changes that were made in Portugal provide an interesting before-and-after study on the possible effects of decriminalisation," EMCDDA said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/portugal-drug-laws-decriminalization-_n_889531.html

unfortunately, this type of policy would never be supported within the United States as there is too much money at stake both within the legit and underground political arena.

but...just for a moment, take a look at the cost to keep someone in prison (figures vary up to 67K/year & best est. is there are 608K in jail at any give period across the US) for something as simple as pot possession under the three strikes your out mentality...it is truly mind bogling of the waste of our taxpayers funding...

bottom line it does make sense to decriminalize drug laws and use the money spent to provide therapy to those who are ill w/substance abuse issues...

wabbit

ps: now lets talk about those pesky speed limit laws...

pps: i have my scary assault umbrella ready to walk on school property at the read to test your theory...http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/video?id=8437811

 

[Gil223]

Portugal's holistic approach had also led to a "spectacular" reduction in the number of infections among intravenous users and a significant drop in drug-related crimes, he added.

And the numbers represented by the words "spectacular" and "significant" are what(other than vague)? Portugal has a population of 11M, which is roughly the equivalent of the population of New York City. The USA has a population of roughly 306M. Portugal also has a different culture than the USA. Are you suggesting that the same approach would be equally or more effective on a scale more than 30 times larger, and in a completely different culture? (As for the Huffington Post, why not just go directly to Marx's "Communist Manifesto" for guidance and cut out the middle [wo]man?)

Drug abuse is a self-inflicted "illness". Perhaps the users of illegal substances - who are receiving treatment by Portugese government mandate - should also pay the cost of their treatment/rehabilitation. And, anyone caught dealing illicit drugs should be tried within 72 hours, and executed within 24 hours after conviction. Executed (both ironically and poetically) by lethal injection! ("Cut off the head, and the entire snake dies.")

The main thing that decriminalization would do, is create yet another government agency, (or, at least a 'special office' within an existing agency) within an already bloated bureaucracy (and probably at every level of government). Government seems to never pass up an opportunity to create a special agency to address any situation. Oh, yeah... and appoint a "Czar" to oversee the whole thing.

I see that - in today's world - you also favor LE agencies ignoring MWAG reports. Sure... why not? The report was erroneous - it wasn't a gun after all... the point is that it could have been! (The following is intended as sarcasm, and does not reflect the true beliefs of the author) The population of the USA is creating too great a burden on our tax-and-spend government, and needs to be substantially reduced. People who, without provocation or legal justification, knowingly and willingly use a firearm to take a human life should be rewarded. They are performing a public service, bless their li'l hearts! Let's put a bounty on taxpayers. If we get rid of them, KUM-BY-YAH! The few remaining bleeding heart, socialist-"progressive" liberals can then enjoy supporting the multitudes of those who choose not to work and pay taxes. (The preceding is in no way suggesting or encouraging any of the actions mentioned, and does not reflect the true beliefs of the author. Sarcasm is just one of many free public services I offer) Pax...

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

just one of many free public services I offer) Pax...

Like advice, worth every penny.

 

[Daylen]

And the numbers represented by the words "spectacular" and "significant" are what(other than vague)? Portugal has a population of 11M, which is roughly the equivalent of the population of New York City. The USA has a population of roughly 306M. Portugal also has a different culture than the USA. Are you suggesting that the same approach would be equally or more effective on a scale more than 30 times larger, and in a completely different culture? (As for the Huffington Post, why not just go directly to Marx's "Communist Manifesto" for guidance and cut out the middle [wo]man?)

Drug abuse is a self-inflicted "illness". Perhaps the users of illegal substances - who are receiving treatment by Portugese government mandate - should also pay the cost of their treatment/rehabilitation. And, anyone caught dealing illicit drugs should be tried within 72 hours, and executed within 24 hours after conviction. Executed (both ironically and poetically) by lethal injection! ("Cut off the head, and the entire snake dies.")

The main thing that decriminalization would do, is create yet another government agency, (or, at least a 'special office' within an existing agency) within an already bloated bureaucracy (and probably at every level of government). Government seems to never pass up an opportunity to create a special agency to address any situation. Oh, yeah... and appoint a "Czar" to oversee the whole thing.

I see that - in today's world - you also favor LE agencies ignoring MWAG reports. Sure... why not? The report was erroneous - it wasn't a gun after all... the point is that it could have been! (The following is intended as sarcasm, and does not reflect the true beliefs of the author) The population of the USA is creating too great a burden on our tax-and-spend government, and needs to be substantially reduced. People who, without provocation or legal justification, knowingly and willingly use a firearm to take a human life should be rewarded. They are performing a public service, bless their li'l hearts! Let's put a bounty on taxpayers. If we get rid of them, KUM-BY-YAH! The few remaining bleeding heart, socialist-"progressive" liberals can then enjoy supporting the multitudes of those who choose not to work and pay taxes. (The preceding is in no way suggesting or encouraging any of the actions mentioned, and does not reflect the true beliefs of the author. Sarcasm is just one of many free public services I offer) Pax...

You've laid on too much of something, your blatherings are no longer understandable.

 

[Gil223]

You've laid on too much of something, your blatherings are no longer understandable.

As are the gross deviations from the original topic of this thread. Pax, nonetheless...

 

[ncwabbit]

im sorry w/my reference...perhaps time mag would meet your reporting needs?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

and you are correct...we have a larger population than portugal but...
quote: ...the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners. unquote (same cite)

congradulations...you seem to have resolved what mental health professionals have been seeking for decades: 'self inflecting' illness is the cause for an individual's substance abuse.

but were we taking a nip or toke because i am not sure where the tirate you are espousing about: "...you also favor LE agencies ignoring MWAG reports.... BLAH BLAH' huh??

wabbit

ps proving a comment to gil223

 

[Gil223]

im sorry w/my reference...perhaps time mag would meet your reporting needs?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

and you are correct...we have a larger population than portugal but...
quote: ...the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners. unquote (same cite)

And perhaps you should read your own reference. The article also says in-part: "I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA. (the article then continues) "Kleiman does not consider Portugal a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries." Some folks tend to selectively read only those parts of an article that support their personal opinion, while dismissing anything that is counter to their opinion.

congradulations...you seem to have resolved what mental health professionals have been seeking for decades: 'self inflecting' illness is the cause for an individual's substance abuse.

And, again, you fail to understand. It is the individual's personal choice to abuse illegal substances that creates the addict in the first place. That is my rationale for considering the "illness" of drug abuse to be "self-inflicted".

but were we taking a nip or toke because i am not sure where the tirate you are espousing about: "...you also favor LE agencies ignoring MWAG reports.... BLAH BLAH' huh??

I'm sorry you can't keep up with concepts beyond "Dick and Jane" (See Spot run!), or your own post comments: "pps: i have my scary assault umbrella ready to walk on school property at the read to test your theory...http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/video?id=8437811" in which you make light of a serious situation involving LE's response to a MWAG report. You apparently think they should have just ignored the report, and assumed that nobody was going onto the campus with a rifle. Perhaps you're the one who is "one toke over the line". Pax...