AFTER 2000... 7 August 99

[posted a year or more ago - hope it's worth a re-post now, here]

RE: "after 2000..."

One must prepare to make two most important choices:

1) how does one define "freedom" ?

2) where can one find it - or create it?

I've stated elsewhere (*) that most in the West will see our life-styles reduced to something like those lived during Reconstruction after the Civil War - c.a. 1865.

May I follow-up on that?

Y2K will create opportunity for 'change'.

The change that will affect us the most is : what form of government will each of us permit or allow, to earn our allegiance and fealty?

Scenario : as telcom and other essential services infrastructures break (due to Y2K), governmental control and authority will diminish.

As control and authority diminish, skirmishes for dominance will break out and increase.

As anarchy ultimately develops, various factions will try to fill the void.

The largest and most powerful faction (for a time) will be the US government as presently constituted. (China may also try for awhile.)

Time frame? 20 - 30 years duration, or more.

Ultimately, however, an existing social trend of unstoppable force will prevail.

The Trend?

The largely autonomous fractioning of nation/states into smaller homogenous units.

Driven by an innate desire to be free, humankind are throwing off overly large, ineffective, oppressive governments and creating smaller, more responsive, more closely held ones. One need only cite the former USSR, Bosnia, Kosovo, Ireland, Chechnya, Chiapus, Russia today, etc. for examples and proof; - the entire world is on a break-neck course of fighting large governments and replacing them with small ones. That trend will continue for so long as free men are oppressed by tyrants.

There is a species-specific 'comfort level', the scope of which is determined by:

"Do I feel like I have a part in what is going on around me? If not, then I will migrate, create or form a circumstance in which I can find that proper comfort level."

As chaos reigns, humankind will reject the tyrannical power of big governments and revert to smaller self-governing units.

This is happening all around in the greater-world.

Can it happen here - in the US? Sure:

With no strong central government to prevent them, states will secede at will, and form their own alliances of nation/states more in keeping with their social, geographic, political and demographic underpinnings.

Examples : The legislatures of the states of Vermont and New Mexico have for years wanted to secede from the US. Utah has always wanted to be its own theocracy. California would like to become 'sovereign' - i.e. a member of the world community on equal footing with the others - with the seventh largest GDP. Montanans (and others) would like to tell the US government to go to hell!

Some have suggested that :

California will split from the US and become its own nation. Then it will split again to form the two nations of Southern California and Northern California; Northern California will take in the Reno/Tahoe region; Las Vegas will append itself to Southern California.

Utah, parts of southwestern Wyoming, southern Idaho and some of Nevada (the Great Basin) will combine to form the Kingdom of Deseret, a Mormon theocracy.

The South will "rise again" and form its own political governing unit and nation.

Florida, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. will align.

The San Diego/Baja area of California will combine with parts of Arizona, New Mexico, southern Texas and northern Mexico to become the new nation of Tex/Mex.

The remainder of the eleven Rocky Mountain states will combine to form their own nation of Mountainland.

The Farm Belt will combine; the Rust Belt will combine; the Colonies will combine, etc.

Each of these new political entities will be self-governing and autonomous, each preserving more or less freedom for the governed - as each may. Some (we can hope) will just do it till they get it right!

Where will this leave Washington?

NONE OF THIS WILL HAPPEN WITHOUT VIOLENCE AND BLOODSHED.

Would Bill Gates like to be President of his own country? Probably.

Point: If he can conduct his business with greater autonomy and freedom [there is that "F" word again!], would he not consider supporting the formation of the nation/state of "Olympia" comprising northern California, western Oregon, western Washington, and Vancouver, BC?

Sure!!

Could he pull it off today? No. But after the Y2K-breakup - probably.

So...

After the 'fall', there will be various forms of governance in various geographical areas; - from almost pure laissez faire/rational/objectivism in maybe one place, (we can hope...) to total fascist/socialist/dictatorships in others, with rank anarchy elsewhere.

Largely by default, where those forms of government develop will determine the type of government underwhich YOU will find yourself living.

If the form of governance underwhich you find yourself is not in accord with your own "comfort level", will you choose to accept and stay?

If not, moving may be your only choice (and there will be lots of that). Most of us will be "urban pioneers" (nomads) as families and friends try to re-gather and get back together and return to, and create small communities where they "feel comfortable" again with those to whom they can relate, and in those surroundings where they are familiar and feel safe.

The struggle since one man realized that he could dominate another is still with us : who will control and who will be controlled; - who are the elite who make the 'rules' and who are the sheeple who follow the rules?

Which are you?

The "Bills-and-Hillarys" of the world would not only suggest that they know better how you should live your life than you do, but they would use the power of government to force their behavioral edicts on you at the point of a bayonet. Your mission, therefore, should you choose to accept it, is to determine how freely you want to live, (and how much freedom you can pass on to your children).

Each must determine and solidify ones own philosophical principles and beliefs - and then prepare to act on those beliefs. Each must determine to be either free - or unfree.

Where? - and under what system? These are the choices awaiting each of us as the year 2000 approaches!

Thank you.

Perry Arnett

cf : Thinking on the Edge, Kapnick & Kelly, Agamemnon Press Man's Emerging Mind, N. J. Berrill, Dodd - Mead Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand Co-Evolution Quarterly * Timebomb2000 BB; "...duration?" "how to cope?" http://www.pdqnet.net/pjarnett

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), August 12, 1999

Answers

Perry,

Interesting theory ... here in New Mexico, the sentiment seems to be that the state should re-join "Old Mexico" and give back land that was allegedly stolen from Hispanic settlers when the U.S. took over in 1848. As you've said, if such a thing should be attempted, there would almost certainly be a lot of violence and bloodshed. Maybe my little part of northern New Mexico would become part of Colorado ... or maybe the Native Americans would decide that if everyone else is asserting sovereignty, they can too.

In any case, let's hope that things don't proceed along the lines of the former Soviet Union. I recall reading somewhere that the life expectancy of a Russian male has dropped by some 10 years in the short time since the 1991 collapse of the USSR. That might not seem so bad to a healthy young teenager, but for us middle-aged folks it's pretty scary...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 12, 1999.

There are several soveranty movements in Hawaii...to give the state back to the native Hawaiians. Some of these are based (at least in part) on historical realities, others are based purely on fictions... and "convenient" prejudices. In many cases, they are based upon an unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own actions (or lack thereof).

I suspect that even in extremis, the state would stay together...but some islands might want to form their own units...perhaps stronger local government, which would not be all that bad.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 13, 1999.