Replies

How about these revised questions:

People were at first willing to just seize a little of the wealth of the rich. Now they want it all. Cuffy Meigs wants to go all the way and seize Canada and Mexico. Do dying nations become predatory when the money runs out? If so, why?
In dire straits, California decides to levy predatory and confiscatory taxation on the state’s oil wealth. Are we approaching this in California and elsewhere? Why do political entities risk cutting their own throats?
The Aristocracy of Pull considers shutting down America’s industries to become an agricultural society like India. On our time line, America’s industries were shipped to India and the Third World decades ago because of American wages pricing American goods out of the world market, something Rand never envisioned. Is it at all rational to de-industrialize a country? What could possibly justify such a decision?
Minnesota degenerates into civil war. California threatens to secede. As things get worse, will the bonds of Union sunder due to a central government that cannot perform the tasks it has promised the people? If so, why, and how would that improve the situation?

As things get worse, will the bonds of Union sunder due to a central government that cannot perform the tasks it has promised the people? If so, why, and how would that improve the situation?

It would be beneficial in that Washington has gone too far in obliterating state autonomy. The states are legally entitled to that autonomy and the resulting heterogeneity and competition is, IMHO, good for the freedom of the residents of ALL the states.

Dissolution would be BAD in the sense that the remaining 1-50 states (in the nation-state sense) would be far less intimidating to prospective tyrants and empire-builders the world over. A coalition of more politically independent states bound to each others' defense might work the best. Surprise, surprise, just what the founders ordered.

Pondering the imponderables..

From my flawed understanding..Marxian philosophy eliminates the class of bourgeoisie in order that the working class rise up and become owners of the means of production thus ensuring equality for all.

The reality of it was Soviet Union, China and virtually every other place it was tried succeeded in recreating feudalism. Politburo or what ever ruling elite was called was the top tier with all the perks and everyone else was owned by the state.

In terms of our current situation..Those “enlightened” politicians in DC are trying to ruin the middle class through impoverishment while pretending elevate the poorest.

In actuality they are squandering the wealth of the nation while making their inside deals to assure their own personal wealth while all the rest of us will be ground into the dirt.

One wonders how long it will take before they don powdered wigs, stretch pants and pointed toed shoes and start spouting..” Let them eat cake”.

The French have been right about a few things in life. Wine and cheese come to mind.

The Aristocracy of Pull considers shutting down America’s industries to become an agricultural society like India. On our time line, America’s industries were shipped to India and the Third World decades ago because of American wages pricing American goods out of the world market, something Rand never envisioned. Is it at all rational to de-industrialize a country? What could possibly justify such a decision?

Not only are we outsourcing industry, we are outsourcing agriculture. Look at the country of origin on your produce. More and more it is Mexico, China, etc. I see this as a national security issue. If a country can't feed its self, it is vulnerable. Here in CA there is widespread speculation on why farmland is being forced out of production. Is it to drive down the value for speculators, and if so whom? Does the federal government have a plan to take over food production like they took over the auto and banking industries?