A few weeks ago, Dr. Helen discussed "going John Galt." In light of the discussions of plans to take away 401ks and such, it's a very relevant conversation to have again. Some of the things that would need to be done include buying a gun for self-defense, no longer supporting the police as an institution and doing whatever it takes to make sure that one's kids don't end up in the public education system. The key here now is for people to withdraw their support and consent from the government. Anyone who is unwilling to do these basic things, even if it means taking a second job in order to put one's kids in a private school or homeschool them, cannot be really called serious about "going John Galt."
Related Entries:
- Where is this "new professionalism" we keep hearing about?
- A law unto themselves
- How to not get shot rule #3: don't be a cop engaged in excessive use of force
- No punishment for stupidity, no defense for fearing for your daughter's life
- Gun rights vs Freedom: an absurd dichotomy brough to you by Reason
- Daily dose of links
- A window into the liberal mind
- Shouldn't that be "when you jump anyone?"
- Legislating lawlessness
- No self-defense for you!
From what I understand I will soon enough be able to contribute to the Galtnessbildung, by declining Obama's offer to involuntarily volunteer my services or time - or something.
And then I can further participate in my own re-education at some camp.
Of course, this possibility is one reason that my retirement planning has never been heavy on tax-deferred assets. Yes, I save a lot, but I would rather save in the form of a small commercial building in a small town to rent out than a handful of muni bonds, and I'd rather have 10 acres of fruit trees and pasture than a similar dollar amount of Dow components.
But I don't think the coming confiscation of retirement accounts is going to be at all unpopular, because all Obama has to do is say he'll credit people at the highest amount their account contained - in short, if they give up the account (which could be down 75% or so) they'll get credit sufficient to cover their losses. Who wouldn't take it?
Young workers like me, who haven't lost any real money at all because we started working toward the tail end of the "good times." My wife has lost only 5% of her 401k from her previous employer, and I've lost a whopping 3% since my current 401k "got hit"--if you can call it that.
You and I both know that such a plan isn't economically feasible because it will still require an outside source to finance the difference between the objective value of the 401k and the offer price.
It's absolutely not feasible, but Americans are perpetually long on hope and short on math.
Which is the reason why I tend to call Americans "optimism junkies."
I've lost about 25% but it doesn't really matter because at this level it's dollar-cost averaging - I'm in a plan that is self-leveling and so I'm buying more cheap stock at lower prices that will increase in value when the economy rebounds - *IF* it rebounds.
OTOH if they're going to steal my money to prop up their 3% redistributive policies, then they are better off doing it while the market is down so it "costs" them less (remember, they are pretending to be "Economists") - and if that's a part of their ongoing plan then they have no incentive to really make things better right away.
Buy low in the trough and sell high and move to Fiji or wherever, Argentina perhaps...
Keeping things depressed and creating more dependencies is a more effective tactic for them. Keeping people off-guard will enable them to push through more Socialist policies abetted by the thin veneer of Law and legalism. Socialists always use the(ir) Courts and Law as a first line of defense no matter how twisted the law or legal result - it justifies their use of force against The People...
DirtCrashr makes a good point. Fiji is awesome.