Let's put our heads together - let's start a new country up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project
(a nice ibis discovery)

The Free State Project (FSP) is a plan to have 20,000 individuals move to a single state in the United States, with the intent of influencing local politics and policy in an effort to reduce the size and scope of government at the local, state, and federal levels. In 2003, the group chose New Hampshire, known for its "Live Free or Die" motto and absence of a state income tax and state sales tax, as its target.

It's something I foresee happening as a logical consequence of education, wealth and technology - communities created with a politics, ethos or ideology in mind - anarchism. Just where and when is the question...

REM - Cuyahoga (the Ohio river which went on fire from over-pollution in 1969)

Yeah they are springing up all over the US at the moment - not sure exactly what to think of it so far - me wonders if its more about exclusion than inclusion....................

But hey thats a post for tomorrow - Im off to the closed border totalitarian dictatorship of me leaba now.

Gnite

Is this what Naomi Klein was writing about in her latest book: The Neo-Cons are Coming for Your Children? She mentioned communities that don't pay taxes andwhere everything's private, even the police and basic services. As you can imagine, there aren't many beggars on the streets.

She predicted that this would become the norm in America, drawing a sort of post-Apocalyptic senario where towns brick themselves off from the country at large, which has decayed into a wasteland of anarchy. Think Escape from New York but the other way around.

905 wrote:

Think Escape from New York but the other way around.

Surely it's only a matter of time before the hippies start doing this too? (again) Wasn't one of the first communes the district of Christiania in Denmark?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/21/jasonburke.theobserver

905 wrote:

Is this what Naomi Klein was writing about in her latest book: The Neo-Cons are Coming for Your Children? She mentioned communities that don't pay taxes andwhere everything's private, even the police and basic services. As you can imagine, there aren't many beggars on the streets.

She predicted that this would become the norm in America, drawing a sort of post-Apocalyptic senario where towns brick themselves off from the country at large, which has decayed into a wasteland of anarchy. Think Escape from New York but the other way around.

Those are more the gated communities - like executive ghettoes in spades.

I found the book in the library. She cites an article by John Robb from a couple of years ago:

Quote :

Warren Buffett's NetJets--will cater to this group, leapfrogging its members from one secure, well-appointed lily pad to the next. Members of the middle class will follow, taking matters into their own hands by forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security--as they do now with education--and shore up delivery of critical services. These "armored suburbs" will deploy and maintain backup generators and communications links; they will be patrolled by civilian police auxiliaries that have received corporate training and boast their own state-of-the-art emergency-response systems.

It's a little more radical than the gated community but in the same line of thinking.

What about the rest of us?

Quote :

As for those without the means to build their own defense, they will have to make do with the remains of the national system. They will gravitate to America's cities, where they will be subject to ubiquitous surveillance and marginal or nonexistent services. For the poor, there will be no other refuge.

Full article here: Security: Power To The People.

There are people coming to their senses bigtime over here. It is becoming more apparent to more that there is no difference beween the parties. They see McCain and Kennedy joining to screw them on immigration. Then the republicans are portrayed as rich but Hillry has to admit at a critical time that they earned 109 very big ones. On the bright side you have the far left Kucinich agreeing with the Paulites when the real issues are in question. The Free State Project has gone national in a sense. Political activity at ground level is so little percentage wise that the Paulites are getting themselves selected at local level. A Paulite has a level of commitment comparable to that of a LaRouche person and if you ever met a LaRouche fan you know what that is. A big issue at the moment is The Real ID and while Montana is a long way from me so I don't know the local feelings, from what I read they would attempt to secede rather than buckle under. BTW I usually have a new gripe each day and today is a big one. 143 years ago today Robert E Lee surrendered to Grant after the Southern States tryed to secede as was their right.

youngdan wrote:

There are people coming to their senses bigtime over here. It is becoming more apparent to more that there is no difference beween the parties. They see McCain and Kennedy joining to screw them on immigration. Then the republicans are portrayed as rich but Hillry has to admit at a critical time that they earned 109 very big ones. On the bright side you have the far left Kucinich agreeing with the Paulites when the real issues are in question. The Free State Project has gone national in a sense. Political activity at ground level is so little percentage wise that the Paulites are getting themselves selected at local level. A Paulite has a level of commitment comparable to that of a LaRouche person and if you ever met a LaRouche fan you know what that is. A big issue at the moment is The Real ID and while Montana is a long way from me so I don't know the local feelings, from what I read they would attempt to secede rather than buckle under. BTW I usually have a new gripe each day and today is a big one. 143 years ago today Robert E Lee surrendered to Grant after the Southern States tryed to secede as was their right.

Gettysburg is not a happy thought with which to end the working day.

There was a piece on TV recently about a "gated" community in the US who were all into transcendental meditation: think very very calm. What makes me think that in ten years time we are going to hear that they have all been carted away in chains for incest or a tranked out TM teen will take out the lot of them.

Man has lived in fortifications, or protected places, as far back as I know about.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it is a fortified grave, like the cave at Dunmore in Kilkenny where hundreds of women and childrens bones were found. They died there about a thousand years ago, maybe a massacre, but more like asphyxiation, while they hid.

Ireland is covered with the remains of fortified farms and tower houses and walled towns. They made sense when the enemy was a band of men with hand weapons. Once guns got big enough to take out a stone wall, people stopped bothering. When the enemy is coming at you with climate change or with a nuclear bomb, you can run, but you can't hide. In my view our best chance at this stage is to stick together and do our best to sort things.


I feel a poem coming on...


No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.


-- John Donne

Don't worry about either cactus. One is bunk and the other is greatly exaggerated. Worry instead about gangs and thugs because the biggest fallacy on Earth appears to be the commonly held belief that the function of cops is to prevent crime. They are there to protect the state. A publican in Ballina can have his tavern taken over by itinkerants and be beaten to death while every cop in Connaught is protecting Shell and roughing up the natives. Every cop and every soldier should be sent to Chad with an extra overcoat to keep them warm. I would keep the Rangers for muscle and the naval guys to confiscate fish robbers. A sheriff and deputies and a dank cell in each parish. Private companies for forensics and cash rewards. As in Switzerland ever home would have a rifle and My prediction is that home invasions and burgarlies would fall

905 wrote:

Is this what Naomi Klein was writing about in her latest book: The Neo-Cons are Coming for Your Children? She mentioned communities that don't pay taxes andwhere everything's private, even the police and basic services. As you can imagine, there aren't many beggars on the streets.

She predicted that this would become the norm in America, drawing a sort of post-Apocalyptic senario where towns brick themselves off from the country at large, which has decayed into a wasteland of anarchy. Think Escape from New York but the other way around.

Sounds like my kind if town!

youngdan wrote:

Don't worry about either cactus. One is bunk and the other is greatly exaggerated. Worry instead about gangs and thugs because the biggest fallacy on Earth appears to be the commonly held belief that the function of cops is to prevent crime. They are there to protect the state. A publican in Ballina can have his tavern taken over by itinkerants and be beaten to death while every cop in Connaught is protecting Shell and roughing up the natives. Every cop and every soldier should be sent to Chad with an extra overcoat to keep them warm. I would keep the Rangers for muscle and the naval guys to confiscate fish robbers. A sheriff and deputies and a dank cell in each parish. Private companies for forensics and cash rewards. As in Switzerland ever home would have a rifle and My prediction is that home invasions and burgarlies would fall

And perhaps, as in the US, more people would die at the hands of family members popping off at each other than in road accidents.

That is a myth Cactus. There are far more incidents of spousal murder and killing of kids in Ireland than Massachusetts despite a smaller population. I would like to know if family killing is common in Switzerland. I doubt if it happened much in the wild west either. The whole idea is to defend against tyranny. First thing Hitler did was disarm the population. Do you think the gestapo would be so brave if Isaac Youngdanberg had a 9 mm beside the bed.

youngdan wrote:

That is a myth Cactus. There are far more incidents of spousal murder and killing of kids in Ireland than Massachusetts despite a smaller population. I would like to know if family killing is common in Switzerland. I doubt if it happened much in the wild west either. The whole idea is to defend against tyranny. First thing Hitler did was disarm the population. Do you think the gestapo would be so brave if Isaac Youngdanberg had a 9 mm beside the bed.

Do they not get some kind of training in Switzerland? Something on this topic here

The figure that strikes one is that more people have been killed by gunfire in the US since the 60s than on all foreign battlefields put together.

I take your point about tyranny, but we are not at that point yet.

I checked some numbers last year and figures from I think 2005 showed that Massachusetts with 6.5 million had about 30% more murders by any method than Ireland. They are probably comparable now. I consider Ireland much more violent than here and it is getting worse. Guns are restricted here. In Vermont though you can get anything legally. There is very little crime in Vermont.

youngdan wrote:

I checked some numbers last year and figures from I think 2005 showed that Massachusetts with 6.5 million had about 30% more murders by any method than Ireland. They are probably comparable now. I consider Ireland much more violent than here and it is getting worse. Guns are restricted here. In Vermont though you can get anything legally. There is very little crime in Vermont.

From what one reads one can get anything here in Ireland without too much difficulty.

Has the whole place been brainwashed. Why is it even subject to debate that a person is not allowed to defend himself from criminals. When I read that people are beaten to death for nothing by strangers it lends me to believe that the flouride is working. If we wish to discuss the perfect platform on which a new party should run on I would suggest that at a minimum everyone should be allowed to carry pepper spray to ward off attackers and rapists. An eyefull of this stuff works wonders. Maybe a bit of discussion on this hypothetical candidate would be usefull and entertaining

Quote :

When I read that people are beaten to death for nothing by strangers it lends me to believe that the flouride is working.

I shall treasure that one.

youngdan wrote:

I checked some numbers last year and figures from I
think 2005 showed that Massachusetts with 6.5 million had about 30%
more murders by any method than Ireland. They are probably comparable
now. I consider Ireland much more violent than here and it is getting
worse. Guns are restricted here. In Vermont though you can get anything
legally. There is very little crime in Vermont.

OK, this really comes under the heading of lies damn lies and statistics. Actual figures (not very good at tables though ) :

State/Count	Pop	Gun Law	Murders	Per 100k
Mississippi	2,910,540	Lax	223	7.66
Indiana	6,313,520	Lax (ish)	369	5.84
New York	19,306,183	Strong	921	4.77
Kentucky	4,206,074	Lax	168	3.99
Mass	6,437,193	Strong	186	2.89
Verm	623,908	Lax	12	1.92
Maine	1,321,574	Lax	23	1.74
Ire	4,500,000	Strong	60	1.33
New Hamp	1,314,895	Lax	13	0.99

(Mass vs Ire, 30% higher? Really? I know this is 2006 but even so, try twice...)

sources:

Irish figures here

US State figures here
(and associated pages, states chosen kind of at random, started with
states around Mass, then went looking for populations around size of
Ire and Mass)

US Gun laws here (and associated pages, judgement on lax vs strong mine and subjective)


EDIT:Overstated Irelands pop slightly. Should be 4.1m and per 100k goes to 1.46. Doesn't really alter anything though.

Switzerland: Army weapons "kill 300 people a year". Apparantly gun ownership is a very hot issue over.

Remember that high school shoot-out a few years ago, the one with the Korean? The strangest thing about that whole episode was the gun-dealer. He'd already sold six weapons which had been used in killings, four suicides and two murders. Never for a moment thought there might be a link between flogging guns and killings. He's probably still selling weapons today.

Here are the figures then. Vermont with a pop of 624000 had 12 murders which is equivalent to about 74 so with everybody having a gun the rate is lower than Ireland. Mass had 186 in a population of 6.7 million which is equivalent to 108 for Ireland and is 35% higher. So where guns are dificult to get the rate is higher than Ireland and where guns are freely available it is lower. I use these 2 states because their gun laws are so different, they are touching and I live here. The perception of here being some sort of wild west is mistaken. Ibis, you appear so docile that street violence does not seem to perturb. Why don't you stop worrying about the polar bears for a while and worry about the 2 Poles who had the screwdriver stuck through their skulls. 905 are you of the belief that the guns caused the 4 suicides. Why don't you worry about the 2 siblings that killed themselves 4 weeks apart down in Clare. They did not have guns. There seems to be about 600 suicides in Ireland each year. So just because some are afraid of guns you should let the rest of the law abiding citizens look out for themselves.

youngdan wrote:

Here are the figures then. Vermont with a pop of 624000 had 12 murders which is equivalent to about 74 so with everybody having a gun the rate is lower than Ireland. Mass had 186 in a population of 6.7 million which is equivalent to 108 for Ireland and is 35% higher. So where guns are dificult to get the rate is higher than Ireland and where guns are freely available it is lower. I use these 2 states because their gun laws are so different, they are touching and I live here. The perception of here being some sort of wild west is mistaken. Ibis, you appear so docile that street violence does not seem to perturb. Why don't you stop worrying about the polar bears for a while and worry about the 2 Poles who had the screwdriver stuck through their skulls. 905 are you of the belief that the guns caused the 4 suicides. Why don't you worry about the 2 siblings that killed themselves 4 weeks apart down in Clare. They did not have guns. There seems to be about 600 suicides in Ireland each year. So just because some are afraid of guns you should let the rest of the law abiding citizens look out for themselves.

I am sure I will worry about those things either when they become relevant to me, or when I stop taking my medication. In the meantime, I urge you to take no more notice of my priorities than I do of yours.

Maybe I shouldn't worry about the 2 Poles, you could be right. The more of them that get drilled the better.

youngdan wrote:

Here are the figures then. Vermont with a pop of 624000 had 12 murders which is equivalent to about 74 so with everybody having a gun the rate is lower than Ireland. Mass had 186 in a population of 6.7 million which is equivalent to 108 for Ireland and is 35% higher. So where guns are dificult to get the rate is higher than Ireland and where guns are freely available it is lower. I use these 2 states because their gun laws are so different, they are touching and I live here. The perception of here being some sort of wild west is mistaken. Ibis, you appear so docile that street violence does not seem to perturb. Why don't you stop worrying about the polar bears for a while and worry about the 2 Poles who had the screwdriver stuck through their skulls. 905 are you of the belief that the guns caused the 4 suicides. Why don't you worry about the 2 siblings that killed themselves 4 weeks apart down in Clare. They did not have guns. There seems to be about 600 suicides in Ireland each year. So just because some are afraid of guns you should let the rest of the law abiding citizens look out for themselves.

Ignoring for a moment that you appear to be comparing 2006 US figures with 2007 Irish figures for no reason other then it makes your point and ignoring that pro rata 12 in 624,000 scaled up to 4.1m is 79.02 and not 74 as you state (vs the Irish figure of 78 ), and further ignoring that pro rata 186 in 6.4m is 118 and not 108, and further ignoring that a figure 35% higher then 60 is 81, or if you insist on using a different year for the comparison, 78 plus 35% is 105, neither of which is either 108 or 118 and ignoring that none of this proves anything one way or another about gun laws, but certainly does not prove "So where guns are dificult to get the rate is higher than Ireland and where guns are freely available it is lower", I have to ask why you have moved onto suicide rates? What do they have to do with anything, even if they are higher then in Vermont/Mass (and for the record, depending on whether you use the offical rate for last year of 441, or your figure which I can only find on Indymedia of 600, that is a per 100k figure of either 10.73 or 14.6. The only comprehensive list I can get handily for the US gives a 2005 Vermont rate of 12.12, and a national figure of 11, not significantly different).

Frankly I don't really care what the US gun laws are or not, I just wish you would stop abusing statistics to prove inaccurate points.

youngdan wrote:

Maybe I shouldn't worry about the 2 Poles, you could be right. The more of them that get drilled the better.

This is getting tetchy. Glad the two of you are not within range of each other. I am sure you are both really friends both of Poles and polar bears respectively.

Youngdan, you may not be aware that it is a matter of faith here in Europe that Americans are all shooting each other dead in their bedrooms with the family gun that is kept loaded in the bedside table. Michael Moore is a closet European. Strangely Ibis' statistics seem to bear this out to some extent.

We don't understand the right to hold arms as a civil right concept in the way Americans do, and because most people have never had a gun in their hands they don't know how much fun shooting can be.

MikeW wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Here are the figures then. Vermont with a pop of 624000 had 12 murders which is equivalent to about 74 so with everybody having a gun the rate is lower than Ireland. Mass had 186 in a population of 6.7 million which is equivalent to 108 for Ireland and is 35% higher. So where guns are dificult to get the rate is higher than Ireland and where guns are freely available it is lower. I use these 2 states because their gun laws are so different, they are touching and I live here. The perception of here being some sort of wild west is mistaken. Ibis, you appear so docile that street violence does not seem to perturb. Why don't you stop worrying about the polar bears for a while and worry about the 2 Poles who had the screwdriver stuck through their skulls. 905 are you of the belief that the guns caused the 4 suicides. Why don't you worry about the 2 siblings that killed themselves 4 weeks apart down in Clare. They did not have guns. There seems to be about 600 suicides in Ireland each year. So just because some are afraid of guns you should let the rest of the law abiding citizens look out for themselves.

Ignoring for a moment that you appear to be comparing 2006 US figures with 2007 Irish figures for no reason other then it makes your point and ignoring that pro rata 12 in 624,000 scaled up to 4.1m is 79.02 and not 74 as you state (vs the Irish figure of 78 ), and further ignoring that pro rata 186 in 6.4m is 118 and not 108, and further ignoring that a figure 35% higher then 60 is 81, or if you insist on using a different year for the comparison, 78 plus 35% is 105, neither of which is either 108 or 118 and ignoring that none of this proves anything one way or another about gun laws, but certainly does not prove "So where guns are dificult to get the rate is higher than Ireland and where guns are freely available it is lower", I have to ask why you have moved onto suicide rates? What do they have to do with anything, even if they are higher then in Vermont/Mass (and for the record, depending on whether you use the offical rate for last year of 441, or your figure which I can only find on Indymedia of 600, that is a per 100k figure of either 10.73 or 14.6. The only comprehensive list I can get handily for the US gives a 2005 Vermont rate of 12.12, and a national figure of 11, not significantly different).

Frankly I don't really care what the US gun laws are or not, I just wish you would stop abusing statistics to prove inaccurate points.

Its a fair cop, youngdan. Come out with your hands up.