My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good, will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. From C.S. Lewis's essay anthology "God in the Dock" (1948)
George Rebane
The decentralized America of 2040 may be a country of 71 states with populations of 8 million and under. This is the vision presented by James Bennett and Michael Lotus in their just released America 3.0. (Thanks and H/T to RR reader who sent me a copy of this book.) Their essay is based on the same reasons I have outlined over the years which call for a new structure for America’s governance. Actually, it is not so much a new structure, but one more akin to what de Tocqueville observed during his visit here in the 1830s.
Bennett and Lotus acknowledge the deep ideological divisions that have arisen since the Great Society years, and see a transformation that seeks to retain America as a single sovereign nation-state that molds itself into regions of smaller states. Each of these states will be more uniform in their political outlook, social philosophy, cultural values, and perhaps even ethnicities. The fundamental truth that will out in such a reconfiguration is that people like to live among people who share their ideologies, cultural values, and mores.
The America of 2040 will come about through its successful transit of a number of financial crises that arise for all the reasons RR readers are familiar. These give impetus for Congress to launch massive new legislative initiatives that reform national tax policy and the functions of the federal government. Most of what the feds now do will be relegated back to the states. The watchword for success will be the re-establishment of local control down to the city and county levels.
George Rebane
The decentralized America of 2040 may be a country of 71 states with populations of 8 million and under. This is the vision presented by James Bennett and Michael Lotus in their just released America 3.0. (Thanks and H/T to RR reader who sent me a copy of this book.) Their essay is based on the same reasons I have outlined over the years which call for a new structure for America’s governance. Actually, it is not so much a new structure, but one more akin to what de Tocqueville observed during his visit here in the 1830s.
The America of 2040 will come about through its successful transit of a number of financial crises that arise for all the reasons RR readers are familiar. These give impetus for Congress to launch massive new legislative initiatives that reform national tax policy and the functions of the federal government. Most of what the feds now do will be relegated back to the states. The watchword for success will be the re-establishment of local control down to the city and county levels.
Bennett and Lotus argue that America is indeed exceptional, and is in a unique position to peaceably affect such a transition because of our family structures that are to a great extent based on the legacies of Germanic and English families and the socio-economic traditions of their homelands which greatly influenced our country’s growth and transformation over the last three centuries. The English and Germanic peoples were already culturally and institutionally exceptional in Europe, and that exceptionalism came along with their immigration to the new world.
America 1.0 was an agricultural society loosely bound by travel and trade. Communities were small, cohesive, and very self-reliant – individualism and freedom flourished. The transition to an industrial America 2.0 was a massive social shift that took at least a century. People moved into towns where their lives were paced not by the sun and seasons, but by the clock and machines in the factories. Life was easier but also very dependent on the health of a more far reaching economy that determined which factories remained profitable and which were forced to close. In response, America became more centralized and individual autonomy diminished. People joined special interest groups – unions, guilds, management associations, professional societies, … - to defend their livelihoods and desired lifestyles.
The pendulum driven by technology is reversing, in America 3.0 people are realizing that big bureaucracies and central planners are not the social panacea that they claim to be. Big government has undergone massive overreach and created a controlled economy that is now giving evidence that economic growth will become much more difficult under the regulatory oversight that each business decision must today obey. Brink Lindsey, senior fellow at Cato, writes in ‘Why Growth is Getting Harder’ that the solution lies in picking the low hanging fruit – reduce the regulatory burden. “… policies that are more friendly to long-term growth will be needed if more robust growth is to be revived.”
This is also the crux of Bennett and Lotus’ argument for the transformation of America into a collection of more numerous but smaller states. They see that paradigm as supporting the Founders’ legacy of the Great Experiment. These smaller states will be able to fashion a wide variety of regulatory and tax environments for the simple reason that they will be inhabited by people having more uniform socio-economic ideologies. To be sure, the progressive form of socialism will still be practiced in some of the new states, and they will attract people who continue to believe that the state should have a greater role in our lives.
But in the 2040 America, people will be able to directly experience the impact of each flavor of governance being practiced in the then 71 states. These laboratories of democracy will be functioning in full bloom so that all will see what works and what doesn’t. And as a result, they will be able to either influence needed changes in their own states/communities, or move to climes more comportive of their own sense of what is right. By any measure then, national political tensions should diminish greatly – polarization may actually become a positive force in its ability to display the pros and cons of diverse modes of governance.
In regard to the visibility of such pros and cons, I hold great hope that the average voter will then become more informed about the intrinsic weaknesses of a collectivist society. Seeing the fortunes of neighboring states, these folks will be able to better relate to the arguments made here and most recently summarized by WSJ’s Daniel Henninger in ‘Progressive Government Fails’.
Bennett and Lotus’ America 3.0 is based on a fundamental shift in the world’s economies brought about by new means of additive and subtractive manufacturing. (See ‘3D Printing – bigger and sooner than you think’) It is the ability to create on-demand custom made parts and equipments in small manufactories, including kitchen table-tops and garages, that the authors see bringing back the modern version of pre-industrial cottage industries. In that world, almost everyone will become an entrepreneur, specializing in some form of making needed things the designs, marketing, and distribution of which will be made possible by an even bigger and better internet.
Not everyone will be smart enough or motivated sufficiently to work for themselves. The workers on the left side of the IQ bell curve will find rewarding jobs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure through private companies, perhaps also in the format of non-profit service corporations that I have described. In short, the authors see the unemployment problem going away through the combination of new information industries, new distributed manufacturing technologies, and decentralized (and possibly redundant) construction work needed in each of the smaller states and jurisdictions.
While the authors acknowledge that the nation may continue deteriorating into a whole slew of alternative futures, all bad, they argue persuasively that technology will provide the means for wholesale abundance, and that the rank and file will not be able to resist the obvious benefits that can accrue from new structures of governance that will take advantage of these technologies.
This same argument of an abundant future, without the expansion into a new structure for the country, was presented by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler in their Abundance – the future is better than you think (2012). Diamandis is a successful entrepreneur who is also the founder and CEO of the X Prize Foundation, and chairman of the Singularity University. Kotler is a successful and prize-winning wordsmith. In their book Diamandis and Kotler outline a ‘pyramid’ of technologies that will create their joyously abundant future. The list of good things already here and coming down the pike is longer than I care to review (please see my posts under ‘Science’, ‘Science Snippets’, and ‘Singularity Signposts’).
Every item on their list makes a compelling argument for intelligent machines, robots, nano-devices, and genomic interventions that reduce the need for workers and leave a healthier and more informed human race in their wake. And there I run into a conundrum with both of these volumes. In neither tome do we find the needed catalyst to get the almost 40% of our non-participating workforce back on the job, any job. What starts the ball rolling to get people back to work? It most certainly is not the current growing list of debt-increasing, deficit spending, wealth redistribution programs. I think it was Reagan who most recently said something to the effect that if you pay a man not to work, he won’t be looking for a job.
In their enthusiasm to describe a benign future, neither set of authors recognizes that little needed transition that must occur in a world in which energy costs are dropping, machines are doing more and thinking better than humans, and fewer people are required to create things that can be sold. In short, there is a disconnect between the here and now, and the then and there. And then there’s the Singularity.
But I do agree with Bennett and Lotus’ structure of America 3.0 as being a preferable implementation of the Great Divide. But to get there we must overcome the best intentions of those “good men” that CS Lewis describes above.
America 1.0 was an agricultural society loosely bound by travel and trade. Communities were small, cohesive, and very self-reliant – individualism and freedom flourished. The transition to an industrial America 2.0 was a massive social shift that took at least a century. People moved into towns where their lives were paced not by the sun and seasons, but by the clock and machines in the factories. Life was easier but also very dependent on the health of a more far reaching economy that determined which factories remained profitable and which were forced to close. In response, America became more centralized and individual autonomy diminished. People joined special interest groups – unions, guilds, management associations, professional societies, … - to defend their livelihoods and desired lifestyles.
The pendulum driven by technology is reversing, in America 3.0 people are realizing that big bureaucracies and central planners are not the social panacea that they claim to be. Big government has undergone massive overreach and created a controlled economy that is now giving evidence that economic growth will become much more difficult under the regulatory oversight that each business decision must today obey. Brink Lindsey, senior fellow at Cato, writes in ‘Why Growth is Getting Harder’ that the solution lies in picking the low hanging fruit – reduce the regulatory burden. “… policies that are more friendly to long-term growth will be needed if more robust growth is to be revived.”
This is also the crux of Bennett and Lotus’ argument for the transformation of America into a collection of more numerous but smaller states. They see that paradigm as supporting the Founders’ legacy of the Great Experiment. These smaller states will be able to fashion a wide variety of regulatory and tax environments for the simple reason that they will be inhabited by people having more uniform socio-economic ideologies. To be sure, the progressive form of socialism will still be practiced in some of the new states, and they will attract people who continue to believe that the state should have a greater role in our lives.
But in the 2040 America, people will be able to directly experience the impact of each flavor of governance being practiced in the then 71 states. These laboratories of democracy will be functioning in full bloom so that all will see what works and what doesn’t. And as a result, they will be able to either influence needed changes in their own states/communities, or move to climes more comportive of their own sense of what is right. By any measure then, national political tensions should diminish greatly – polarization may actually become a positive force in its ability to display the pros and cons of diverse modes of governance.
In regard to the visibility of such pros and cons, I hold great hope that the average voter will then become more informed about the intrinsic weaknesses of a collectivist society. Seeing the fortunes of neighboring states, these folks will be able to better relate to the arguments made here and most recently summarized by WSJ’s Daniel Henninger in ‘Progressive Government Fails’.
Bennett and Lotus’ America 3.0 is based on a fundamental shift in the world’s economies brought about by new means of additive and subtractive manufacturing. (See ‘3D Printing – bigger and sooner than you think’) It is the ability to create on-demand custom made parts and equipments in small manufactories, including kitchen table-tops and garages, that the authors see bringing back the modern version of pre-industrial cottage industries. In that world, almost everyone will become an entrepreneur, specializing in some form of making needed things the designs, marketing, and distribution of which will be made possible by an even bigger and better internet.
Not everyone will be smart enough or motivated sufficiently to work for themselves. The workers on the left side of the IQ bell curve will find rewarding jobs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure through private companies, perhaps also in the format of non-profit service corporations that I have described. In short, the authors see the unemployment problem going away through the combination of new information industries, new distributed manufacturing technologies, and decentralized (and possibly redundant) construction work needed in each of the smaller states and jurisdictions.
While the authors acknowledge that the nation may continue deteriorating into a whole slew of alternative futures, all bad, they argue persuasively that technology will provide the means for wholesale abundance, and that the rank and file will not be able to resist the obvious benefits that can accrue from new structures of governance that will take advantage of these technologies.
This same argument of an abundant future, without the expansion into a new structure for the country, was presented by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler in their Abundance – the future is better than you think (2012). Diamandis is a successful entrepreneur who is also the founder and CEO of the X Prize Foundation, and chairman of the Singularity University. Kotler is a successful and prize-winning wordsmith. In their book Diamandis and Kotler outline a ‘pyramid’ of technologies that will create their joyously abundant future. The list of good things already here and coming down the pike is longer than I care to review (please see my posts under ‘Science’, ‘Science Snippets’, and ‘Singularity Signposts’).
Every item on their list makes a compelling argument for intelligent machines, robots, nano-devices, and genomic interventions that reduce the need for workers and leave a healthier and more informed human race in their wake. And there I run into a conundrum with both of these volumes. In neither tome do we find the needed catalyst to get the almost 40% of our non-participating workforce back on the job, any job. What starts the ball rolling to get people back to work? It most certainly is not the current growing list of debt-increasing, deficit spending, wealth redistribution programs. I think it was Reagan who most recently said something to the effect that if you pay a man not to work, he won’t be looking for a job.
In their enthusiasm to describe a benign future, neither set of authors recognizes that little needed transition that must occur in a world in which energy costs are dropping, machines are doing more and thinking better than humans, and fewer people are required to create things that can be sold. In short, there is a disconnect between the here and now, and the then and there. And then there’s the Singularity.
But I do agree with Bennett and Lotus’ structure of America 3.0 as being a preferable implementation of the Great Divide. But to get there we must overcome the best intentions of those “good men” that CS Lewis describes above.
I am reading America 3.0 on my Kindle, just finishing chapter 3. The authors make the case that America exceptional comes for our nuclear family base culture. A cultural trait that came down through the ages from our Saxon ancestors. Families gathering around the dinner table (camp fire), sons and daughters marrying whoever they choose, no obligation of children to care for parents in their latter years, or parents to share their wealth with the children. All this provides a measure of freedom not experienced in other cultures around the globe.
Yet we see the nuclear family come apart at the seams in America. Families are too busy to eat dinner around the table. Over 70% of black women with children are not married. Millennials delaying or refusing to marry. Men are on strike, boycotting marriage. Gay and lesbian marriages increasing. The authors seem to brush all this aside, claiming the future nuclear family will survive because they will have more children than those which distain the nuclear family and they will wither away, producing fewer and fewer replacement offspring. Well, I am not as confident as the authors this will be the case, as there are other factors which are being ignored. George mentions some. Perhaps future chapters will provide more support for their views.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 01 November 2013 at 07:28 PM
Dammit George....now I have to buy another book! ;-)
Posted by: fish | 02 November 2013 at 08:48 AM
And look what the " infillers" want to do with PV!
"NO" income housing. OHH,, JOY!!..... We already have our fair share of deadbeats
on Broken Oak Ct. Got a scanner? Count on more than a few calls a day to the local "project". From drugs, to fights, and everything in between. And they want to expand that tenfold?
There is NO work or jobs for all these "people". ( Agen. 21 rears it's ugly head right here)
And before anyone goes pouncing on me about being a NIMBY, this "project"
will bring far more harm than good. Bringing in the bottom of the barrel
of the population just to stick them somewhere, PV is not the place.
How come not LIB Nevada City? They seem to love their low lifes.
NC even built their own skid row. ( tourist attraction for those from the Bay?)
If this was middle income, attitudes may be a little different.
No good can come of this. It's time to sell my holdings in LWW before the assessment shows up for the needed upgrades to the sewer plant that the LWW
members will eat, so it can handle the flow from this project.
The "Great divide" has started right down the hill from you guys.
Posted by: Walt | 02 November 2013 at 10:40 AM
RussS 728pm - In America 3.0 I'm afraid we will have to bet everything on the resurgence of the American nuclear family to be the strong pillar upon which our future will lean. I share your misgivings that this will be enough.
But if we were to examine the basis for the Republicans' hopes that all will be well in the end, then the demonstrated resilience and industry of the nuclear family is it - they have no other plan than to unshackle the nuclear family. The only thing that the authors add are some well thought out, detailed policies - beginning with the "Big Haircut" - that will restructure the nation's finances and re-establish its role as the world's sheriff and "Keeper of the Global Commons". These are all themes much discussed on RR over the years.
Today's Democrats will, of course, hear none of this. The nuclear family is anathema to them for exactly the reasons that Republicans admire - industry, independence, and resiliency. This is not the bought and paid for ignorant and dependent hordes demanding ever more from government that form the reliable voting blocks for Democrats. Their message is an easy one - vote for me, I'll take from the greedy rich and make sure you get back your fair share. And not to worry, there's plenty more where that came from.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 November 2013 at 10:50 AM
Well,,, called this one on the third day of the fire.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/02/5874956/scientists-oppose-logging-bills.html
And of course WE the taxpayer will be footing the Bill, for these clowns to sue "us". The ECO litigators will get fat on this one..
Posted by: Walt | 02 November 2013 at 02:38 PM
Walt 238pm - Thanks for pointing out the SacBee piece. IMHO these people are just plain evil, pure and simple. And more so by their use of 'science' to achieve their ends of despoiling the environment and economy with legal machinations that are then billed to the taxpayer.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 November 2013 at 03:39 PM
Good post Dr. Rebane.
Maybe the tipping point is merely a pendulum. Time will tell. With the sustainable movement going on, maybe back to the farm and local control is a possibility. Consider how many people became disillusioned chasing the All Mighty Dollar when the events of 2007 wiped out their nest eggs, jobs, income, and even their homes which gave them a new sense of what is important. This new found attitude of taking control of their lives, future, and destiny might bring us back from the tipping point.
The jobs of the future cannot be in competition with robots (jobs robots can do). Nay, the jobs must work in conjunction/compliment the workings of automation to be successful. This has the potential to establish many small cottage industries, many local with local control.
Dr. Rebane, you know my passion for the nuclear family as the primary solution to so many of society's ills. It is imperative that the intact family rise again from the ashes for the future the authors envision to blossom. Without families with Dad's and Mom's together instructing their children on subjects ranging from morality, the work ethic, being as good as your word, and rising above adversity, we will keep getting what we are getting: a nation of slackers, whiners, victims and everybody gets a trophy whether earned or deserved.
Saw this the other day:
"Libs have been indoctrinated all their lives into believing three big falsehoods. That they are smarter, more compassionate and that liberalism works. They were taught this by unionized schoolteachers, sheltered professors and a lib-dominated media. But what they were never taught is human nature. That a dollar earned is more rewarding than a dollar given to you. That people are far wiser spending their own money than politicians spending other people’s money. That the private sector is much more motivated to be efficient than the public sector. Obamacare represents everything wrong with big-government liberalism. It’s costly, grossly inefficient and couldn’t care less about delivering on its promises. O’s ill-conceived & fraudulent monstrosity is starting to badly hurt both young and middle-class Americans. Because of this the WSJ’s Daniel Henninger & Charles Krauthammer of Fox News are thinking this may finally be America’s wake-up call. Be nice if true but until we demand change in our schools, colleges & media, it’s still an uphill battle"
And without intact families with fathers present this will never happen. Uncle Sam is a poor replacement for Daddy. Uncle Sam teaches bad habits and is a horrible role model.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 02 November 2013 at 09:47 PM
We are stupid, that is why Obama needs to lies to us about ObamaCare:
Appearing on Piers Morgan’s CNN program on Tuesday night, HBO’s Bill Maher explained that while President Obama did indeed lie to the American people about keeping their insurance, he had to do so in order to help the dumb Americans. “I think the country in general is on a decline,” Maher explained. That’s because, Maher said, Americans are getting “stupider.” And that means that they must be lied to: “It sure is hard if you’re a politician—not that I’m really that sympathetic to them—to try to get information into people’s heads.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 03 November 2013 at 07:09 AM
RussS 709am - That our aggregate intellectual measurables have been in decline ever since the progressive Great Society programs took hold is not in dispute - we are a dumber electorate by the year. Most recently people voting for Obama and "his stash" (twice) put paid to that conclusion. But your reference to Bill Maher's conclusion that Americans now "must be lied to" by their political leaders in order "to try to get information into people's heads" is an astounding admission and step backward.
Echoing in the background is Jefferson's explanation for our ongoing erosion of liberties, 'A nation ignorant and free, that never was and never shall be.'
Posted by: George Rebane | 03 November 2013 at 08:00 AM
First the Comedy Central types jumped ship, ( headlines are made when John Stuart
turns on you in the LIB circles) Now mad dog Bill? I believed he would shine "O"'s shoes till the end.
It seems the "LIB or DIE" battle is fading with the on air faces. The reacharound
"O" has been giving them just isn't getting the job done anymore,
and they just can't keep the " IT'S GREAT" BS up anymore.
Posted by: Walt | 03 November 2013 at 08:56 AM
BillT 947pm - Thank you for the kind words Mr Tozer. Re "... tipping point is merely a pendulum." Perhaps getting back to a more self-reliant, kitchen garden, DIY life will reverse the slide to compliant dependency for those who can't find jobs working for others. The problem with that is that the self-righteous progressives will not allow the rollback of taxes and regulations for such a reversal of the pendulum. CS Lewis said it all in the above quote.
The progressive elites consider it their moral imperative to establish a workable autocracy within which the ignorant masses can be 'nurtured'. They approach that task with the same zeal that parents do as they establish the benign autocracy of a nuclear family in which to raise and care for their children. Unfortunately, the similarities between these approaches quickly vanish as that form of governance is scaled up. We recall that collectivism only works within very small groups; it is not sustainable when large masses of people become involved, people who do not all know each other, nor share each others values.
Posted by: George Rebane | 03 November 2013 at 09:06 AM
HBO’s Bill Maher explained that while President Obama did indeed lie to the American people about keeping their insurance, he had to do so in order to help the dumb Americans. “I think the country in general is on a decline,” Maher explained. That’s because, Maher said, Americans are getting “stupider.” And that means that they must be lied to: “It sure is hard if you’re a politician—not that I’m really that sympathetic to them—to try to get information into people’s heads
It would appear that Mr. Maher is entirely correct....he is what now passes for a democratic party intellectual.
Sad.
Posted by: fish | 03 November 2013 at 09:14 AM
"That our aggregate intellectual measurables have been in decline ever since the progressive Great Society programs took hold "
One can also note that the time frame about which you speak, is also the same time frame during which we saw the rise of corporate conglomerated broadcast media telling our children (and us) that "being cool" through the purchase of consumer goods was more important than being smart.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 03 November 2013 at 09:17 AM
One can also note that the time frame about which you speak, is also the same time frame during which we saw the rise of corporate conglomerated broadcast media telling our children (and us) that "being cool" through the purchase of consumer goods was more important than being smart.
Excellent point JoeK. What color Obamaphone did you get?
Posted by: fish | 03 November 2013 at 09:30 AM
JoeK 917am - Now why are we not surprised of your presenting that as the real causal factor for the country's intellectual decline - the dirty corporate conglomerates. Having raised my children during that exact period, I don't recall being exposed to the 'consumer goods over smart' message that had to have been blanketing the country if it is to explain away the effect we witness today. How could we have missed that?
Posted by: George Rebane | 03 November 2013 at 10:04 AM
JoeK@09:17AM
I am not buying it. Corporations in the 1980s were collectively spending over a billion dollars a year training employees how read specifications and do the math required for increased quality control, enabling these companies to meet the emerging ISO Standards. The quality of students emerging from our educational systems was not up to the job, thus automotive, aerospace and consumer goods corporations collectively were spending over a billion dollars in addition training, enabling them to meet the six sigma standards being set by global firms. If anyone was sending the message “be cool” rather than smart it was the liberals and progressive in Hollywood.
Our intellectual decline can be traced directly back to the failure of an education system controlled liberals and progressive union thugs.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 03 November 2013 at 12:47 PM
Dr. Rebane responded to Mr. Koyote: "don't recall being exposed to the 'consumer goods over smart' message that had to have been blanketing the country if it is to explain away the effect we witness today. How could we have missed that?"
We missed that cause we consumers are dumber than a frozen bird droppings on a rock pile. We be dumb and only the libs really know what is good for us. They be smart fellers.
We be so dumb that we believe it is not nice to question the results of the Great Society which as a direct result increased poverty. That is plum dumb. Dumber than a fence post.
We be so dumb that we thought the solution to our declining public education system that produces millions of students not really for freshman bonehead math is to throw more money at this critical problem. Now that is plum dumb, dumber than a sack of skipping stones.
We be so dumb that we believed that throwing money at any and every problem would fix it. That flushing money down the toilet is the solution for society's ills. Now, that is dumber than a cue ball in a bag of hammers and nuttier than a squirrel turd.
We be so dumb that our military has training manuals declaring law abiding family value oriented Christians (as well as their own vets) as terrorists, extremists, and to be placed on varies and sundry watch lists. Now that is dumber than tripping over a cordless phone and crazier than a shithouse rat.
But them libs are smarter than us. Yep, they know what is best for you and me from thousands of miles away. And always more compassionate. If you believe we need smart folks that live exclusively within the circles of Boston, NYC, and Washington academia/politics to tell us what works and what doesn't, then you are indeed a few french fries short of a happy meal.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 03 November 2013 at 01:28 PM
Rather than ramble about The Great Divide, I will let others tell you about The Great Divide
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1380596_10151697349550911_1475869905_n.jpg
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/524684_10151716384140911_1980747271_n.jpg
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/1003021_10151704270625911_1367584853_n.jpg
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1393760_10151705796860911_1917671757_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/946402_10151693329645911_2127139206_n.png
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1374910_10151688013680911_517693428_n.jpg
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/644138_10151683755060911_356167070_n.png
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/970507_10151660745630911_1642543824_n.png
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1209225_10151651484375911_209643795_n.jpg
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1240509_10151651478540911_1822037763_n.jpg
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p206x206/29819_10151650169350911_971986469_n.jpg
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1175529_10151606300705911_275855490_n.jpg
And finally, let's all keep calm and carry on.
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1005374_10151579643345911_1066580585_n.jpg
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 03 November 2013 at 04:09 PM
Great evidence Bill. LOVE the last photo.
The Mrs. has a shirt, with " I don't call 911" With a nice pink Model 1911
on it. You should see the looks I get when I wear the shirt with a high powered rifle, with " If GOD had intended us to be vegetarians, he would have made Broccoli more fun to shoot."
That one's always fun at the grower's market.
The last time I went down to the range, my first stop was the market's produce section to pick up some "targets". Melons are fun. Tanerite placed inside
makes for a great visual when hit properly. ( legal exploding target)
Tomatoes, any fruit, potatoes, and of course ,,, eggs.
A bag of flour @ 200 yards is vary impressive as well.
OK,,, Who's up for some range time? BYOA I'm on a budget.
Posted by: Walt | 04 November 2013 at 11:37 AM
Mr. Walt. Here is a couple of things you may or may not appreciate:
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/558363_10151670037350911_891084019_n.jpg
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1209225_10151651484375911_209643795_n.jpg
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 04 November 2013 at 10:52 PM
Finally Mr. Walt, this is something that those on the other side of the Great Divide will not find amusing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnqUyz3R4sA
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 04 November 2013 at 11:25 PM
Made my morning Bill,, Thanks.
I just might get me one of those shirts.
Posted by: Walt | 05 November 2013 at 09:39 AM
What bothers me greatly is the degree of political polarization that is rising to the "point of no return" level of rhetoric. Part of this is fueled by the use of sweeping generalizations when referring to opposition groups and government agencies. The internet and cable/satellite TV makes it easy to self-select news and views that support biased positions. This rancor is probably the reason why "Independent" is the fastest growing political category.... people are fed up with both sides. I don't care which side is holding a position.... the question is: is the position true and does it advance good governance and civil life.
Dr. Rebane, I'm a fan of C.S. Lewis too, but his statement makes no sense unless you put it in context. What is he defining as "good" and "bad" and being a "moral busybody"? For instance, are the people that run the EPA (any "over reach" aside) the "good" men who are actually "bad"? They're trying to "make" us do "good" things but actually impede Free Market activity and are thus "bad"? Are they "moral busybodies"? If we threw out the EPA entirely, would the Free Market just magically change and environmental protection become a core consideration? I don't doubt that there is ridiculous over reach by the EPA in some circumstances, but do we throw the baby out with the bathwater or fix it? History shows that the private sector won't "fix it" until it impacts their bottom line and by then too much damage has often occurred. Example: the early miners who were using hydraulic mining to wash the hillsides down for gold (Omega Diggings and others) sent so much silt downstream that it was burying fruit orchards and low lying farms down in the delta. In that circumstance, would you rather have:
a) 300 angry armed farmers marching up Hwy 49 to confront 300 armed miners with the winner determined by body count?, or
b) the EPA (with the representative force of national preference) telling the miners that gold mining is allowed, but you can't destroy the environment while doing it.
Look at what the logging industry was doing back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I remember, 48 years ago, reading the book, "The Destruction of California" by Ray Dasmann, and was appalled at photos of the mess and watershed destruction that loggers were leaving behind. Without "environmentalists", and thus an EPA, who would stop this? The only way the Free Market would stop it is if consumers told the logging industry that we're not buying your lumber unless you stop these practices..... and, by then, too much damage might have already occurred. I'm a Free Market guy, but, in too many instances, the Free Market will urinate in the national hot tub if they can make a buck, or save a buck, and feel reasonably confident they can get away with it.
Your thoughts?
Note: regarding hydraulic mining....."the frustrated farmers challenged the mining companies' right to destroy the valley lands..... Even when the farmers won the occasional injunction to halt hydraulic mining, the mining companies ignored it and kept the hoses firing. After all, they argued, their industry employed thousands of men and was worth far more than the towns and farms downstream."
Posted by: Fuzz | 05 November 2013 at 11:44 AM
Fuzz@11:44AM
An interesting side note, it was the hydraulic miners that installed the first long distance phone line in the Nation in Nevada County. It went from Nevada City to the town of Washington. It was a two day horse ride to Washington where the hydraulic mining was from Sacramento. The inspectors stopped over night in Nevada City. A quick phone call to Washington when they arrived gave the miners time hide their equipment before the inspectors arrived the next day. Rumor is the Inspectors were often plied with generous amounts of alcohol, to make sure they got off to a slow start the next day, giving the miners some additional time.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 05 November 2013 at 12:34 PM
Fuzz 1144am – Perhaps another reading of the CS Lewis quote would clear up your contextual concerns about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – Lewis was describing only the self-indulgent behavior of good men.
Hydraulic mining was stopped at the state level, there was no need for an overarching, remotely located federal agency to intervene. In a similar vein, there is no need for an agency such as the EPA today which is busily in the process of paupering the American economy. Progressives' difficulty in cross-correlational concepts impedes their realization that ONLY rich nations can entertain such notions as protecting the environment from slash and burn capitalism (almost always abetted by the government gun).
Few recall the larger devastation left behind by over 50 years of placer, hydraulic, and hard rock mining since 1849. Few came to establish permanent residences and lifestyles – this rough country was for getting yours and then getting out. And that was good, since the mined gold helped build a wonderfully prosperous state and fund countless other projects across the country. In America we stopped doing that way before the EPA.
Had some power existed to limit the pace and scope of such mining, a different and arguably worse future would have faced California. And to our aggregate benefit, nature also contains powerful restorative mechanisms which left unsupervised do a marvelous job. This is not an argument to abandon environment protections, only the abjectly stupid ones that seem to gush out of the EPA.
The main point about such federal agencies – EPA, Energy, Education, … - which have been the demonstrated bane of America, is that central planning does not work very well at all. This is one of the important theses of RR, and has now arisen as the prime point of contention that has polarized us. And I am among those who believe that it has divided us irretrievably, a belief being shared now by many other thinkers and students of politics (e.g. the authors of America 3.0). No one has identified a sustainable middle ground in this argument, instead they only offer kick-the-can remedies along a road that leads to greater ruin the longer it is traveled.
Posted by: George Rebane | 05 November 2013 at 01:54 PM
Russ - where did you get that story about the phone line, Fox News? According to State historical maker #247 which lies on Pleasant Valley road near the Bridgeport bridge northeast of Penn Valley, the line actually ran from French Corral to what is now Bowman lake. Leave it to the righties to make up history as they see fit. (just kidding.. I was playing the role of Todd)
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 05 November 2013 at 10:15 PM
Birds of a feather flock together.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/cities-americans-moving-escaping-154840318.html
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 11 November 2013 at 10:56 AM
BillT 1056am - Good little vignette Mr Tozer, right on the mark for this piece. What Michael Barone could have said better is that economics drives migration when other factors such as culture are kept constant, and if economics is kept constant, then seeking cultural cohesion will drive migration.
Posted by: George Rebane | 11 November 2013 at 11:16 AM
Joe10:15
I found the story in the Nevada City Historical Library, when I was doing research for a book on technology development in Nevada County. Thanks for the tip on phone line from French Corral to Lake Bowman. I will do some more research.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 11 November 2013 at 01:18 PM