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."
Going John Galt
7 Comments
Leave a comment
March 2010
Recent Entries
- A window into the totalitarian mind of the left on freedom of religion
- From Digg: Me: I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the same liberal democrats who shriek about the…
- By Mike | Comments (7)
- Google's lossy compiler
- Google's closure compiler service gets a little too frisky under ADVANCED_OPTIMIZATIONS. Original code: With advanced optimizations enabled, it was able…
- By Mike | Comments (0)
- The three purposes of the federal income tax law
- Businesses will spend about 3.4 billion man-hours and individuals about 1.7 billion hours figuring out their taxes this year.…
- By Mike | Comments (6)
Subscribe
Advertisements
Monthly Archives
- March 2010 (16)
- February 2010 (17)
- January 2010 (15)
- December 2009 (9)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (16)
- September 2009 (29)
- August 2009 (22)
- July 2009 (18)
- June 2009 (32)
- May 2009 (38)
- April 2009 (41)
- March 2009 (43)
- February 2009 (51)
- January 2009 (51)
- December 2008 (44)
- November 2008 (52)
- October 2008 (58)
- September 2008 (51)
- August 2008 (53)
- July 2008 (44)
- June 2008 (46)
- May 2008 (36)
- April 2008 (38)
- March 2008 (68)
- February 2008 (44)
- January 2008 (56)
- December 2007 (45)
- November 2007 (18)
- October 2007 (41)
- September 2007 (40)
- August 2007 (24)
- July 2007 (35)
- June 2007 (43)
- May 2007 (36)
- April 2007 (33)
- March 2007 (50)
- February 2007 (54)
- January 2007 (54)
- December 2006 (43)
- November 2006 (31)
- October 2006 (37)
- September 2006 (30)
- August 2006 (52)
- July 2006 (36)
- June 2006 (30)
- May 2006 (58)
- April 2006 (47)
- March 2006 (60)
- February 2006 (65)
- January 2006 (17)
- December 2005 (20)
- November 2005 (4)
OpenID accepted here
Learn more about OpenID
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.