IGX

Herein this thread I'd like to hear how people really think about the possibility of armed rebellion inside the US.

What's the probability? In how long? Why did it occur?

What would it look like? How's the US military involved? Who's in charge?

The chances of an armed rebellion are less than 5%. Everyone is getting fed & enjoying a modern life and the Gov't is not threatening that.

There may be some McVeigh OK City type events or Randy Weaver type resistance to federal authority...very infrequent & unorganized. But that's about it.

If the economy fails, then things could get chaotic.

*****

I'm more interested in how the various states assert their independence under the 10th Amendment, especially re: gun control & the ACA/Obamacare.

Of course.

All states fall. Will it come soon? (10-40 years), not likely. Will it come? Absolutely.

It will happen once the price of a double cheeseburger exceeds the hourly wage of the person who made it.



Other people keep track of stocks. I keep track of BigMac prices.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Will it come? Absolutely.

Armed rebellion? Or collapse? And what does the 'collapse' of a superpower look like in the 21st century. It doesn't necessarily equal armed rebellion or blood in the streets. In fact, it can just be a subtle downgrade over the course of 100 years. Post-Soviet Russia is probably the best example and their society didn't turn into Lord of the Flies. I'm sure there was plenty of violence, some sanctioned by the State, but it wasn't some apocalyptic collapse like the loonies on the Right are certain will happen here (unless a Republican takes office in 2016, apparently).

Doesn't this question really hinge on whether Darf is gainfully employed or not?

edit: wrong thread

Blaidd Drwg wrote:All states fall. Will it come soon? (10-40 years), not likely. Will it come? Absolutely.

I see the arrival rate as too low to worry about.

Nassim Taleb's, "Black Swan" affected my thinking on this. In the book he reflected on his bucolic youth in Lebanon and how things changed after unexpected wars. It got me thinking about all the conflicts that look inevitable from a historical perspective but probably weren't considered likely, or even possible, to those who were there.

Another IGx book, Laurence Gonzalez', "Deep Survival" also influenced me on this. When bad stuff is going down, it's human nature to see what you expect to see vs. what's really happening.

I think most people see pretty much the same America that they've always seen. I see the most passionately 50/50 divided citizenry since the Civil War with trust in gov't at an all time low and support systems that are on the verge of failure.

So, some type of horrible shit could go down but I don't have any idea of what it might look like or what the risk % is. I don't see a Mao type peoples uprising but an IRA type of situation seems reasonably possible. We certainly know that localized riots or Katrina type meltdowns are rather likely.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Another IGx book, Laurence Gonzalez', "Deep Survival" also influenced me on this. When bad stuff is going down, it's human nature to see what you expect to see vs. what's really happening.

Very interesting point.

Perhaps not quite on topic but did anyone watch 60 Minutes last Sunday? There were two MIT professors on there that were talking about the pace of technology, particularly robotics and other automated processes. The short version is this...in the past the jobs lost to these new technolgies were usually offset by opportunities in other areas. They're not seeing that now. Jobs aren't going to be continually lost to China, India etc. to cheaper labor...they're going to be lost to technology. And they didn't know what that might mean for the future of the workforce. Dispair and hopelessness particularly relative to what appears to be an ever diminishing middle class provides the seeds of dissent.

Shapecharge wrote:Perhaps not quite on topic but did anyone watch 60 Minutes last Sunday? There were two MIT professors on there that were talking about the pace of technology, particularly robotics and other automated processes. The short version is this...in the past the jobs lost to these new technolgies were usually offset by opportunities in other areas. They're not seeing that now. Jobs aren't going to be continually lost to China, India etc. to cheaper labor...they're going to be lost to technology. And they didn't know what that might mean for the future of the workforce. Dispair and hopelessness particularly relative to what appears to be an ever diminishing middle class provides the seeds of dissent.

So what do you suggest? Robot unemployment go up so middle class unemployment can go down? I'm more concerned about robot dissent than about the lay-abouts in the South having even more time to lay about. Robots are likely to do something about their anger.

You presented a viewpoint I hadn't considered.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
So, some type of horrible shit could go down but I don't have any idea of what it might look like or what the risk % is. I don't see a Mao type peoples uprising but an IRA type of situation seems reasonably possible. We certainly know that localized riots or Katrina type meltdowns are rather likely.

This^^

Shape, that is some scary stuff.

I think we'll find that most of humanity will be happy living in The Matrix. Give them fully realized lives as a lead in their own story. The movie had it wrong, people won't need to be enslaved, they will join.

Personally, I've already put money down on my own sexbot.

There are a few unarguable themes of likely destruction as follows:

1.Loss if social cohesion: arising out of a perception that government taxes are unethical, that people should withdraw from recognised public life in that participative sense, with a resulting collapse in the apparatus of state.

2. Disruption in energy supply: catastrophic beyond what can be described. State collapse also a likely result.

3. Disruption in food supply: think extreme weather, energy collapse, industrial farming supplying those who can afford it with the majority going hungry.

4. A realisation and loss if confidence in fractional reserve banking. And/or bankruptcy of the states. Utter chaos ensues.

These "black swan" events or developments are not far fetched. Each on their own is unlikely but the chances of one happening in the next 20 years becomes a probability. Anarchy may be temporary but it's hard to see how order is easily restored if lost.

I would advise anyone to stock up on dried foods, candles, water, antibiotics and pain killers, gas and shoes. Enough for a year. Low key. Survival. And if you live in the US you should have a gun and ammo and know how to use it.

Gorbachev wrote: These "black swan" events or developments are not far fetched. Each on their own is unlikely but the chances of one happening in the next 20 years becomes a probability.

Why is the next 20 years so different from the past 20/40/60 years?

Gorbachev wrote: I would advise anyone to stock up on dried foods, candles, water, antibiotics and pain killers, gas and shoes.

It's Friday, so...umm.. I washed down the painkillers with the last of the whiskey. Now what?

johno wrote:

Gorbachev wrote: These "black swan" events or developments are not far fetched. Each on their own is unlikely but the chances of one happening in the next 20 years becomes a probability.

Why is the next 20 years so different from the past 20/40/60 years?

All sorts of reasons. The increased planetary population. The pressure on sea life. Increased pressure on arable land world wide. Shortage of oil and gas that's economically retrievable. Financial borrowing positions of states and nations way out of kilter with previous norms. Massively increased dependency on fossil fuel for food supply. The rise of China. I could go on. The point is that the past is NOT a valid predictive model for the future. And if you can't see that we've just come through the "petroleum age" and we're headed for some new developments and threats, that's because you're probably looking at the past/future as some sort of necessary continuum whereas they could and wil, in my view, be radically different.

Gorbachev wrote:

johno wrote:

Gorbachev wrote: These "black swan" events or developments are not far fetched. Each on their own is unlikely but the chances of one happening in the next 20 years becomes a probability.

Why is the next 20 years so different from the past 20/40/60 years?

All sorts of reasons. The increased planetary population. The pressure on sea life. Increased pressure on arable land world wide. Shortage of oil and gas that's economically retrievable. Financial borrowing positions of states and nations way out of kilter with previous norms. Massively increased dependency on fossil fuel for food supply. The rise of China. I could go on. The point is that the past is NOT a valid predictive model for the future. And if you can't see that we've just come through the "petroleum age" and we're headed for some new developments and threats, that's because you're probably looking at the past/future as some sort of necessary continuum whereas they could and wil, in my view, be radically different.

You forgot, cats and dogs living together.

I wonder what it was like, living in the past, when things must've been really swell, unlike the dire times we face now, eh mate?

protobuilder wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:

johno wrote:

Gorbachev wrote: These "black swan" events or developments are not far fetched. Each on their own is unlikely but the chances of one happening in the next 20 years becomes a probability.

Why is the next 20 years so different from the past 20/40/60 years?

All sorts of reasons. The increased planetary population. The pressure on sea life. Increased pressure on arable land world wide. Shortage of oil and gas that's economically retrievable. Financial borrowing positions of states and nations way out of kilter with previous norms. Massively increased dependency on fossil fuel for food supply. The rise of China. I could go on. The point is that the past is NOT a valid predictive model for the future. And if you can't see that we've just come through the "petroleum age" and we're headed for some new developments and threats, that's because you're probably looking at the past/future as some sort of necessary continuum whereas they could and wil, in my view, be radically different.

You forgot, cats and dogs living together.

I wonder what it was like, living in the past, when things must've been really swell, unlike the dire times we face now, eh mate?

I'm not saying that living through the Plague was easy. But a massive drop in living standards, a phase, perhaps prolonged, of anarchy, a disruption to international commerce, systems of distribution and wealth....it's not going to be pretty. Especially for people used to eating buckets if iced cream in front of a computer posting about tits.

.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Gorbachev wrote: I would advise anyone to stock up on dried foods, candles, water, antibiotics and pain killers, gas and shoes.

It's Friday, so...umm.. I washed down the painkillers with the last of the whiskey. Now what?

Buy a still and learn how to distill. You will make bank during the zombie apocalypse.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Gorbachev wrote: I would advise anyone to stock up on dried foods, candles, water, antibiotics and pain killers, gas and shoes.

It's Friday, so...umm.. I washed down the painkillers with the last of the whiskey. Now what?

Buy a still and learn how to distill. You will make bank during the zombie apocalypse.

Little known fact: All zombies are teetotalers.

Perhaps the best reason that they shouldn't be allowed to win.