If Your Car Doesn’t “Talk”. . .

Print Friendly

Sometime this year, unelected bureaucrats in the bowels of  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – the federal regulatory apparat that issues “rules” (that is, arbitrary orders we’re all forced to obey) governing how new cars are to be made –  may issue a rule fundamentally different from all the rules that have gone before. Because this one has the potential to affect not-new cars, too.V2v lead

But it’s much more – and potentially much worse – than just that.

It’s called “Vehicle to Vehicle” communications – V2V for short. It uses GPS (which almost all new cars already have) to enable Car A to communicate its location (as well as speed and direction) to Car B, so that (as an example) Car B would “know” that Car A is not stopping for that red light and thus Car B’s computer-controlled drivetrain would automatically slow/brake the vehicle to avoid a collision. (Many new/late-model cars come equipped with some form of “active” collision avoidance; that is, using radar or laser proximity sensors to detect objects in the vehicle’s path; using automated braking/steering, the vehicle acts to prevent an accident in the event the driver fails to act.)

V2V is the next technological Great Leap Forward – the critical element necessary to erect a nationwide grid of completely self-driving, autonomous cars. V2V 2And also broadcasting and recording cars. V2V-enabled cars could  transmit  and record every detail about your trip, such as how fast you’re driving at all times (not just a “snapshot”) as well as how rapidly you accelerate and how rapidly you brake, your direction – and whether you’re in motion or stationary – to a central database. Or to whomever happens to be listening in. The potential for abuse is staggering; the diminution of our already almost nonexistent private space a certainty.

Of course, it will all be sold as a tremendous advance in (ta-dum) safety. The consequences of driver error will be greatly reduced. Lives will be saved.

The angels will sing.

But there’s a fly in the soup – from NHTSA’s perspective: Older cars do not have the technological wherewithal to “talk” to other cars, much less be part of an autonomous grid. Nor are they set up for continuous monitoring.

And control.

What will happen to them?

In this era of Submit & Obey, of the immutable and unchallengeable Safety Cult, I expect what will happen is that a few years after V2V becomes mandatory in new cars, there will be talk – followed by action – requiring that all cars be V2v enabled or be relegated to the museum.

Or the crusher.

It will be argued that cars without V2V are unsafe – because they are independent of the grid, controlled by their drivers, not by Big Brother.V2V 3

It may not even be done formally, via a law or regulation. The insurance mafia could simply add a surcharge to the policies of cars without V2V. They do this already for policies issued – that is, forced upon us – for high-performance cars (and motorcycles) making them unaffordable for most drivers and riders under 35. The same justification could be used to shove pre-V2V vehicles into the proverbial dustbin of history.

Crazy talk? The insurance mafia has been aggressively pushing in-car monitoring of policyholders’ driving habits for several years now (see here). It is something made technologically cheap and easy to do via the data recorders and onboard diagnostics systems that virtually all new cars have already. The insurance mafia has not insisted – yet – that everyone’s car be monitored. In part because the concept of monitoring still bothers enough Americans to keep it at bay. But when the government mandates it, via V2V, the insurance mafia will have what it needs to force-feed monitoring by way of surcharges for those who resist by not buying a new car ready-made with V2V GPS transmitting/recording capability.Progressive pic

V2V is a surge – an escalation – against older cars still under the control of their owners, whose driving is not subject to real-time, 24-7 monitoring and pre-emption.

Yes, pre-emption.

As already mentioned, V2V – integrated with automatic braking/steering and so on – will enable not just crash avoidance but also driver usurpation. Your Future Car could just as easily be turned off – remotely – as it is turned on by you. This is something “law enforcement” is champing at the bit for. Ostensibly, it would mean the end of the high-speed chase. And this is how it will be sold. Once again, safety. But it will also mean your car – all our cars – could be rendered inert/immobile at any time, for any reason. And in a police state – which is what America has become, by any reasonable standard – that’s scary. Imagine a future Boston Bombing scenario. V2V boston

They put the cars on “lockdown,” too.

I agree that 20 years ago, the above musings might be regarded as a bit over the top. But given today, they are if anything cautious and conservative. Remember the body-armored storm troopers frog-marching innocent people – women and kids – out of their own homes at gunpoint? No warrant. No probable cause. They had the guns, the authority. That’s all they needed.

Now, they will have a new tool in their kit.

Speaking of tools:

V2V will also facilitate tax-by-mile and “congestion pricing.” The former would replace anonymous, pay-as-you-go motor fuels taxes with in-car monitoring of how many miles you’ve driven, your debit account dunned accordingly (and automatically). The latter would hit you with variable-rate dunning depending on when and where you drive. Such a system is already in place in the UK. If you want to drive during certain times (rush hour) or to a certain place, you are charged a special (higher) fee as an incentive to not drive at those times or to those places.congestion pricing pic

It goes without saying, of course, that the latter-day Zils of the Dear Leader class will not be subject to such controls and restrictions. Just as the Dear Leader’s armored, 6,000 pound, V-8 Cadillac does not have to sweat CAFE fuel efficiency regulations, neither will his entourage be hindered in any way by V2V. Neither will “law enforcement” – the notch down from Dear Leader class but still a very big notch above our class.

All of this is coming. It is already partially here. It will be all the way here soon.

If, that is, we stand for it.Lahood pic

NHTSA claims we ought not to worry; that V2V will never be abused, that our comings and goings will not be monitored, controlled and taxed.  “NHTSA has no plans to modify the current V2V system design in a way that would enable the government or private entities to track individual motor vehicles,” a NHTSA spokesman said.

No one will force out us out of cars that don’t have V2V capability.

In another time, we might well have trusted such claims. To trust such claims today is to ask too much.

Of us – by them.

The atrocities already committed against our right to privacy, to anonymity, to freedom of movement and freedom from arbitrary, unreasonable searches are too well-known to trust yet another “just trust us” from government officials.V2V last

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood told the AP shortly after Barack Obama’s first inauguration: “We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled.” (News story here.)

Hint, hint.

If we don’t say no to the V2V mandate – strangle it in its crib with both hands around its neck before it learns to walk – we can expect to see the end of being free to go when and where we want to, how we want  – and without anyone knowing about it except those we choose to tell. It will be the end of the American love affair with the car.

And the beginning of a nightmare.

Throw it in the Woods?

PS: Please consider supporting EPautos.com. We got dumped by Google – see here for the full story about that - and now we depend on you, the readers, to keep the lights on and the wheels spinning.

The link to our “donate” button is here. You can also mail stuff our way – if you prefer to avoid PayPal. The address is:

EPAutos
721 Hummingbird Lane, SE
Copper Hill, VA 2407

Share Button

  190 comments for “If Your Car Doesn’t “Talk”. . .

  1. Don K
    January 14, 2014 at 10:23 am

    Jean – it’s called Walter Mitty’s Second Amendment by Jeffrey Snyder, who also wrote a great piece called A Nation of Cowards. You can easily find them online.

    • Jean
      January 14, 2014 at 10:39 pm

      Thank you – Walter Mitty’s Second Amendment was the piece I was thinking of, though I didn’t see it on LRC. :-)

  2. RothbardianamericanHelot
    January 11, 2014 at 12:40 am

    I was thinking: this is all part of a squeeze play on cars which don’t “Talk”. . .

    Long, strange trip ending for VW’s hippie van

    “Brazil is the last place in the world still producing the iconic vehicle, or “bus” as it’s known by aficionados, but VW says production will end Dec. 31. Safety regulations mandate that every vehicle in Brazil must have air bags and anti-lock braking systems starting in 2014, and the company says it cannot change production to meet the law.” …

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/09/23/vw-van-brazil/2854119/

    Baby steps?

    • eric
      January 11, 2014 at 7:03 am

      The Last Redoubt.

      Brazil has gone farther than the US. ABS is not mandated here; but it’s de facto standard and I think no longer possible to buy a new car without it.

      Sad about the Bus.

      But then, also sad about the Beetle.

      About affordable, simple cars in general.

  3. Tor Minotaur
    January 10, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    Top $ Chinese M0vies of 2013

    S0 Y0ung

    J0urney to the West Conquering Dem0ns
    http://www.xdatube.com/journey-to-the-west-conquering-the-demons-2013-hd-video_9f197e290.html

  4. JoePA
    January 10, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    “Pay by Mile” taxation is already in place and currently in use in many western countries. For PBM and VtV to work here all the software/hardware needs to be in place…..then they charge$$$$/control…..for your safety of course.
    Remote control of someone’s car has been a wet dream for law enforcement as far back as I can remember……. as well as eaves dropping. The problem I see is human nature…..People regardless of how “civilized” are still primal in there nature. It’s not a matter of “if” a government agent(s) can use this info/control for self interest but rather “when” and to what severity.

    • eric
      January 10, 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Agreed, Joe.

      The interesting thing will be the reaction from the system to those who refuse to participate. Perhaps they’ll be “kind” and merely exile us to a Savage Reservation, as per Huxley’s Brave New World.

      • Boothe
        January 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm

        Eric – I’m seriously looking at a ZX-14 for my next bike. If this Orwellian dystopia comes to pass I might just keep that bike “off paper.” Although, I’d probably have to put a handmade plate on that unlicensed, unregistered machine that reads FOAD. They could surveill and pursue me to their hearts content; and if a close scrape happened that red ZX could become a blue ZX overnight. Hypothetically of course, if one were to avoid and evade the “revenuers” as well as that kid on the GXSR did (outrunning a police chopper on bike; oh hell yeah!), one would never want to tell a soul. That was where he messed up.

        • eric
          January 10, 2014 at 3:11 pm

          Hi Boothe,

          I’ve looked at the “14,” too. Money’s tight, though… and I’ve had to exercise restraint. I probably ought not to, of course….

          On the other hand, I’ve also been looking at Muzzy’s top-end kit for the ZRX. For about $4k, 180 rear wheel hp. About the same as the “14”… and it would look like a stock ’03 ZRX1200…..

          • Boothe
            January 13, 2014 at 9:15 pm

            Eric – I’ve got my eye on an ’06 ZX-14 with very low miles (under 4k). The guy has done just about everything I’d do to it, including set it up as a sport cruiser by raising the bars, lowering the footpegs and it comes complete with Givi bags. He claims it’s as comfortable as his Concours and has dyno results of 175.6 HP at the rear wheel. He’s asking 8 grand, but I’ll bet it will for less with cash in hand. I’m sure kicking it around, since it looks like a bike I could ride cross county. But like you, money’s tight just now (sigh). I’ve got some stuff I need to put on eBaY, After all I bought an ’05 Zed with less than 4K on it for $2200, so who knows what could happen…

      • January 10, 2014 at 2:29 pm

        You know, this kind of optimism isn’t really typical of me, but I might prefer living among like minded people, as opposed to always having to feel flashes of hope when I see partial sheep as compared to total sheep. Plus, imagine how much resistance libertarians could muster if forced into the same geographic location. I mean, we wouldn’t WIN, but maybe put up a fight.

        • eric
          January 10, 2014 at 3:08 pm

          Hi David,

          “I might prefer living among like minded people… ”

          This is a practical question that’s often on my mind. I know a lot of people who are ethically simpatico. But only one of them lives near me.

          Imagine if a fairly large group (20 or so people) decided to move to an unincorporated area and found a town, so to speak.

          Minimally, personal liberty would be much greater within this community, even in the context of the existing federal/state government matrix.

          The Free State Project was an idea along these lines but unfortunately it never really took off.

          Probably because it’s not easy to just pick up sticks and go someplace. People have to go where the jobs are. And there are issues of family… and many other things….

          • Tor Minotaur
            January 10, 2014 at 4:06 pm

            FSO is at 15,000/20,000 of it’s goal. Everyone will supposedly move there in 2015 and join the 1,550 early movers.

            It already has a Frau Presidente in Carla Gericke and I imagine others yet unseen who are intent on making a living off the free state masses.

            She’s at least been arrested once for videotaping a hero, but extracts an income without unanimous consent and encourages a specific standard of libertarian decorum.

            Even so, I’m encouraged to see the movement growing. This minarchist-activist haven for free spirits and alternate lifestyles is at least a good start.

            Statement of Intent Certificate for Movers
            http://freestateproject.org/store/product/statement-intent-certificate-pre-order-movers

            “Once there I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.”

            This Is What Voluntary Community Looks Like

          • January 10, 2014 at 4:55 pm

            Well, I guess first off, we have to define “like-minded” people so we know what we’re working with. Is it “ancap or bust” for you, or is anyone who is generally libertarian and supports dramatically reducing the size of the government “good enough”? And then figure out what exactly our goals are. I think the ideal along these lines would be to eventually take over a state and secede from the Union, but that would be a long way off.

            I like the idea behind the free state project, though.

            Regarding family, I’m mostly willing to “agree to disagree” with them. What I find more frustrating (And I know you, being an agnostic, will have no answers along these lines) is the state of the church. Even as someone who believes homosexuality is a sin, I completely agree with you that churches use it as a cop out to discussing other ethical questions. And I find it frustrating that so few people around me actually see eye to eye with me ethically. I’ve often wondered if at some point, Christians who are opposed to the State as a concept, or at least understand that the welfare/warfare State is deeply immoral, should perhaps consider separating from others just like they would separate from pro-homosexual or pro-adultery “Christians”. Problem is, I’m the only person I know in person who actually believes aggression is inherently immoral.

            I’m not sure what the word “simpatico” means. IIRC its a Spanish word, but I don’t know what it means.

            • eric
              January 10, 2014 at 5:49 pm

              Hi David,

              I recognize I myself had to evolve intellectually and ethically (and am still evolving!) so certainly do not dismiss others for being “less than 100 percent.” Often, they’re far from – as in the case of my own father-in-law, who is a good and decent man, but nonetheless embraces some far-from-decent ideas (such as rabid opposition to the 2A).

              It’s an imperfect world – and we do what we can with what we’ve got.

              In re “simpatico” – it means (loosely translated) of like mind; people you get along with.

          • methylamine
            January 10, 2014 at 10:45 pm

            @David–

            Have you looked into Flathead Valley around Kalispell, Montana?

            Chuck Baldwin–pastor, patriot, constitutionalist–moved up there with a bunch of like-minded people.

            He really resonates with me. I may not agree fully on the religious aspects, but he’s honest and honestly good.

          • January 11, 2014 at 12:22 am

            As far as freedom-support goes, I don’t think anyone who opposes the 2A is going to be much help. If they really think the government should have a TOTAL MONOPOLY on the right to use force… do you really think they’ll stick up for liberty other times? That’s pretty much a line in the sand as far as freedom goes.

            @methylamine- I like Chuck Baldwin a lot.

            • eric
              January 11, 2014 at 7:04 am

              Agreed.

              Support – or opposition to – the 2A could well be “the line” separating the salvageable from the hopeless.

          • Darien
            January 12, 2014 at 3:26 am

            Well, hey, if you guys get the itch, I know where there’s a whole lot of unincorporated territory we could occupy. Let me know when you’re headed up here. ;-)

          • PanarchistamericanHelot
            January 12, 2014 at 4:05 am

            Darien wrote, “Well, hey, if you guys get the itch, I know where there’s a whole lot of unincorporated territory” …

            What does that mean?

            $50,000 per 1/4 acre?

            Lately I’ve been tempted by Colorado. Just because, and why not. But I’m open to other directions.

            • eric
              January 12, 2014 at 6:25 am

              There are still areas (liveable areas) where land is relatively affordable. I’m in SW Virginia, and out here you can still buy an acre for under $10k. A little farther out and the prices drop a lot.

          • Darien
            January 15, 2014 at 11:30 pm

            Pan: Not at all. Land up here is actually *very* cheap — can be had from $5k/acre or so (mostly; there are expensive spots, of course). And it’s quite livable, too.

            If you head out into the non-city areas of the Unorganised Borough, you can probably get land for very near free, if not actually free. But that’s some serious roughing it; quite a bit more than I’m currently in the market for!

          • PanarchistamericanHelot
            January 16, 2014 at 12:00 am

            I only mentioned the $50,000 because I have a relative who, I’ve been told with a look of disgust and bewilderment, is a -gasp- “survivalist” who’d figured out that he couldn’t make it all on his own, that he needed others, so he set out to find such, only to find the price tag in his area was that high.

            Then, you say, “from $5k/acre or so”?

            “the Unorganised Borough, you can probably get land for very near free”?

            I like the sound of that “very near free” price. The “serious roughing it” part, not so much.
            STill, it’s all a nice thought, one I may have to look into more.
            …If only it were tropical and had fertile soil. …Yeesh, then it’d be Florida, and be overcrowded, and over regulated.

            I have to keep telling myself, There’s just no such thing as perfect here on the war planet Mars, er I mean, earth.

            • eric
              January 16, 2014 at 8:37 am

              A factor many (most?) people considering this have to take into account is whether they’ll be able to continue earning a sufficient income to meet their expenses. It’s a big step to essentially just retire – and go off to live in the woods someplace, living on your nest egg. It’s particularly tough for people with wives and kids.

              We compromised.

              We left Northern Virginia – major urban hellhole – and moved to SW Va, outside Roanoke. It’s rural, but not “off grid.” The problem is that the balance inevitably begins to shift toward the Northern Va. model as the population increases and passes a tipping point. One day, you notice there are a lot more cars on the road; that at night – when you used to be the only car on the road all the way to “town,” there are now a lot of headlights out there. Farms get subdivided. McHomes start popping up. Then the tourist traps. The local chamber of commerce starts getting really aggressive about “beautifying” the town. And of course, taxes start their inevitable creep upward to Northern Va. levels. and before you can say Fairfax County, you’re living in it… again!

          • Brian
            January 16, 2014 at 12:04 am

            I had to scroll way up here in this thread before I could find a reply button, so Eric, this reply is not aimed at you.
            The prices for land that have been posted here seems quite high to me, but I bought my forested 5 acre plot in 2005 for $8600. Granted, I had no utility pole, well, septic or trailer here, but my intent as a homesteader was to use less expensive alternatives anyway.
            Missouri is by no means a libertarian state, but if you get away from the cities you will find Republican neighbors with a ‘mind your own business’ attitude. Many counties lack zoning, and my property tax for my land is $47 per year, but Missouri does tax other property such as chickens, livestock, tractors, trailers, etc.
            A good site to search for low cost properties is United Country Real Estate. I am posting raw land here:
            http://www.unitedcountry.com/search06/SearchResults.Asp?SID=168044894&Lcnt=&AU=N&RF=N

            • eric
              January 16, 2014 at 8:28 am

              Hi Brian,

              They tax chickens?

              Despite everything, I’m still shocked – even though of course I should not be.

              Is it by the bird? How much is the tax?

          • PanarchistamericanHelot
            January 16, 2014 at 12:29 am

            “forested 5 acre plot in 2005 for $8600″

            Wow. …Nice.

            But, taxing chickens? How the heck does that work?

            And, do they take you down with SWAT if you’re a chicken growing outlaw? …That’s just freaking bizarre.

            Also, thanks for the link, Brian.

          • Darien
            January 16, 2014 at 1:16 am

            Yeah, if you don’t mind living off-grid, you can get land a lot cheaper. The $5k/acre and such I was talking about is all with road access and in a town and stuff.

          • PanarchistamericanHelot
            January 16, 2014 at 2:04 am

            Darien wrote, “road access and in a town and stuff.”

            If I were single, those would not be important words. [Made me laugh, too, for some reason.]

            The, “in a town and stuff” might even be something to work around, but the “road access” … that might be tough to sell to the better half.
            Wow, and it’s even hard to conceptualize, for me anyway, there are such areas other than because the lot is in the middle of someone’s field of crops.

          • Darien
            January 16, 2014 at 2:23 am

            Pan:

            A bit tough for me, too, coming as I do from Massachusetts! Even the concept of territory that’s not part of an incorporated city is bizarre to me. But, yeah, there’s plenty of land out here that’s very very far from anything of note.

            Me, I want to buy one of the islands on one of the lakes. Plenty of them already have houses on. No road access (obviously), but you can boat over in the summer and drive in the winter. The main trouble, of course, is that pesky period between the two, when you can’t do either. Hole up and last it out or run to the mainland and stay at a hotel, really!

          • PanarchistamericanHelot
            January 16, 2014 at 2:38 am

            @Darien – hovercraft?

            Also, “I want to buy one of the islands on one of the lakes.”

            Sounds nice.

            Anarchy Island (as opposed to Fantasy Island?) you could create your own kingdom of sorts? A sliver of freedom? …Until it got to be nice and the empire came and conquested it. …Hmph, I seem to recall some people describing the Upper part of Michigan a bit like that before some bridge or hyway was built.

          • Darien
            January 16, 2014 at 2:42 am

            Pan:

            Amusingly, I read somebody (Karen de Coster?) once decribe upper Michigan as “what Alaska must be like.” :-D

            Anarchy Island does sound pretty fun. My plan to avoid getting exploded by the feds would pretty much revolve around not getting *noticed* by the feds. Which is easier to do up here; there’s so much space it’s not that hard for one person — or a few people — to disappear into it.

            • eric
              January 16, 2014 at 8:18 am

              I’ve been up there a couple of times; it’s beautiful country – and you’re right about it being empty enough to kind of quietly fade away into. There are still a great many such areas around the U.S. The problem – if it is one – is that for this kind of plan to work, I think you’d need to run a really low profile. Buy enough acreage such that you could site a small cabin out of sight/out of mind. Minimal footprint. Forget living large. But it might be a better life, after all.

          • PanarchistamericanHelot
            January 16, 2014 at 3:30 am

            Ah, yeah. I’d be doomed as an island owner then. I’d want to build a city. Move in as many liberty minded people as I could. Perhaps even put an ad online to those contemplating suicide to try out living as a servant for awhile or something as a second option while they learn about libertarian ideas and perhaps move up or out?
            I’d get droned in no time flat.

            But then again, maybe I could live The Quiet Life?
            Get back into fishing more… but then I’d have to buy a fishing license,… and things would spiral down. …Or maybe you don’t have the same problems from the DNR there as I have had from those hassling bastards here?

          • Darien
            January 16, 2014 at 3:48 am

            I’m not a fisherman myself on account of I’m incredibly lame, but I’m told by people who are that, as long as you avoid the “touristy” fishing spots, they’re pretty much not around.

            Also, resident fishing licenses are like $20. Which is still ridiculous and immoral and offensive… but is also only $20.

          • Brian
            January 16, 2014 at 1:41 pm

            Hello Eric,
            I have only 6 hens and one rooster, and earlier I had 4 chicks that didn’t survive for different reasons. They are Barred Rocks, which I doubt can be seen from the flying snoops, and my place isn’t with-in sight of the highway. I therefore haven’t and won’t claim ownership for the purpose of being taxed. My birds are free range. Am I to pay tax for each bird that might not live all year? Am I to bother pro-rating my loss somehow? If I became a commercially sized poultry producer, then I would probably have to declare them. To answer your questions, here are a couple of pastes and links:
            http://www.jeffcomo.org/CollectorFAQ.aspx?nodeID=collector
            Personal property tax is a tax based upon the value of taxable personal property. Taxable personal property consist of motor vehicles, trailers, mobile homes, watercraft, boat motors, aircraft, livestock, farm machinery and equipment, agricultural crops and any other personal property not exempted by law. The Market Value of an item is established by the County Assessor using a standard rate book provided by the Missouri State Tax Commission. The Assessed Value is a percentage of the Market Value. The Assessed Value of an item multiplied by the tax rate (levy) for your district determines the amount of personal property tax you pay.

            The percentage of Market Value that determines Assessed Value is as follows:

            All personal property except those listed below: 33 1/3%

            Mobile homes used as dwellings 19%

            Grain and other agricultural crops 0.05%

            Livestock and poultry 12%

            Farm machinery 12%

            Historic motor vehicles (see 201.131 RSMO) 5%

            Certain aircraft (see 137.115 RSMO 5%

            Certain business tools & equipment (see laws)

            All taxable personal property shall be assessed in the county in which the owner resides the first day of January each year.
            http://www.tax-rates.org/missouri/property-tax
            The median property tax in Missouri is $1,265.00 per year for a home worth the median value of $139,700.00. Counties in Missouri collect an average of 0.91% of a property’s assesed fair market value as property tax per year.

            Missouri has one of the lowest median property tax rates in the United States, with only fifteen states collecting a lower median property tax than Missouri.

            Missouri’s median income is $56,517 per year, so the median yearly property tax paid by Missouri residents amounts to approximately % of their yearly income. Missouri is ranked 32nd of the 50 states for property taxes as a percentage of median income.
            That median income is NOT what the average rural Missourian makes. This is a low wage state where rural employees typically makes half that or much less. The very rich, and some employees in the two biggest cities drove that median income level way up. Anyone considering moving here should get a job lined out first, come with a lot of money, or have a solid self-employment plan. You could also drive truck OTR and therefore make that median income level, but then you will seldom be living at home here.

            • eric
              January 16, 2014 at 2:14 pm

              Hi Brian,

              That’s depressing. I’d sooner slaughter and eat my flock (32 birds) than pay yet another $*@!! tax. Guys like us keep birds for the pleasure (and eggs/meat) but – as I’m sure you’ll agree – it’s far from a money-making operation. This tax is petty beyond belief. No, I take that back. I believe it is imposed specifically to punish anyone who dares to try to live off the land. What’s next? Taxing your vegetable garden? Anyone want to take bets about when we’ll start seeing that?

              PS: In re this:

              “Missouri has one of the lowest median property tax rates in the United States, with only fifteen states collecting a lower median property tax than Missouri.”

              The tax rate you mentioned is exorbitant compared with here. We pay about $1,300 annually on an assessed value of more than twice the amount in your example. It’s one of the big reasons we chose this area. In our old neighborhood in Loudoun County, VA we were paying almost $5k a year in taxes on our little suburban tract home sited on 1/4 acre of land. We’ve got 16 acres now and pay about a fourth what we used to in taxes – so that’s one small victory against The Man!

          • Darien
            January 16, 2014 at 5:21 pm

            Eric:

            I’m torn for those very reasons. I still live in a town — a small town without a government, without a police force, and out on the edge of nowhere, but a town nonetheless. I live in the woods, but not off the grid; my house has road access, an assigned street address, electric and gas. I don’t yet have the guts (nor are things yet bad enough) to disappear completely into the woods and just try to stay vanished.

          • Brian
            January 17, 2014 at 2:46 am

            We are running out of buttons to click onto.
            You won’t get any argument from me Eric about that fact that our property tax is too high and the chicken tax is insane. Did you notice in my previous post the considerably higher percent of assessment value had been placed upon our most expensive asset, ie: our dwelling?:
            All personal property except those listed below: 33 1/3%
            Mobile homes used as dwellings 19%
            Counties have discretion on assessing home valuation, and in years past they didn’t tax me for the decrepit 1955 travel trailer that I was temporarily living in for more years than I had planned. My way of “beating the system” was intending to build a small super-insulated two-story house out of mostly recycled materials so unique that the assessor wouldn’t be able to find another home to compare it to. But it was impossible for me to make a gradual transition from OTR trucking to self employment at home, so I made the leap of faith and have received repeat ball-kicking every since, metaphorically speaking. My 2 very well thought out plans didn’t work. One was to rent fixer-upper pastures like Greg Judy has done, and put hair sheep on it that I could afford to buy. Problem: All pasture land in this area is already leased, no matter how poor the land was. Another was to run a mobile bandsawmill since nobody around here has one. I got tons of interest in the form of torn off tabs from my flyers, but only get perhaps 1 day every other month of work. I am still trying other things, but I wasn’t about to start building even a cheap house until I started getting a positive cash flow.
            My plan was to build the house, challenge the assessment if it was unreasonable, then sell it and move elsewhere if I couldn’t get the tax rate down to a reasonable level.
            Since things hadn’t worked out for me, I chose to buy a 1994 gooseneck travel trailer to live in for now. I built a lean-to at the front door out of isocyanurate panels and placed my wood stove in it to heat my trailer for now. My property tax should still remain low.
            I may eventually move elsewhere though. I have already stated that Missouri is not a libertarian state.

          • PanarchistamericanHelot
            January 17, 2014 at 11:19 am

            Your struggle is admirable, Brian.
            …Heroic, even. Imho.

        • Anonymous
          January 10, 2014 at 5:29 pm

          Indeed, libertarians would lose. If they were concentrated, e.g. in NH, they would be easier to subdue with air strikes and other military actions. Of course, some of the attacks would be carried out by soldiers wearing body armor on which is written the word “Police”.

  5. January 10, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    I have to disagree with you here Eric. The “Authorities” may try this, but I doubt it will be anything more than moderately successful for two reasons: Money and power. first, the “money” argument. With all the vehicles on the street being controlled by the giant computerized whatzit , there will be no more drunk driving charges (how can you be charged with DWI when the machine was doing the driving?), no more speeding tickets, no more stop sign violations, etc. There is far too much revenue out there to be lost to the municipalities. Also, with fewer wrecks (or wrecks that can be blamed on the system) the insurance companies will suffer huge losses. No longer will a speeding ticket or seventeen be an excuse to raise rates, because they won’t exist any more.
    The second issue is power. In any government, but especially in so called democracies, the mundanes do have a voice. And when pushed hard enough to the wall, they will exercise it.
    Witness the backlash we are beginning to see over the NSA spying thing. Obama has just proposed new “restrictions” on the NSA that are designed to “curb abuses”. (Personally, I trust these people about as far as I can kick them, and I think a substantial portion of the population is in agreement). And look at how the consumer electronics industry is reacting to NSA’s spying.
    Witness also the removal of the speed cameras from the highways of Arizona. for those of you who don’t know the story, a few years ago, the State of Arizona contracted with Redflex for speed cameras on the interstates here. As soon as they appeared, the outcry began. People were very vocal about getting rid of these Orwellian devices, to the point that many of the cameras and radar vans were vandalized. When one redneck actually shot one of the camera vans up in a drive-by shooting, killing the camera operator, the issue came to a head. They caught the man, and he was sent to prison for first degree murder. But the camera issue was forefront of the political issues in the State. A petition was circulated banning the things. Then, right before the election five years ago, the governor herself pulled the plug on the whole program by simply refusing to renew the contract with Redflex.
    People don’t want to be tracked. And car lovers do not want to give up their vehicles or have them modified to take the new GPS equipment. Call the people what you will, but they are not “stupid” nor are they “sheep”. We are just extremely busy. And when you push us far enough, we do react. I think the NSA thing has almost pushed us over the edge, and any further tracking, especially this, definitely will have major consequences for the elite.

    • methylamine
      January 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm

      @Paul–Personally, I trust these people about as far as I can kick them…

      Paul I’d like to test that proposition myself. I would like to establish the parameters of my trust for each and every one of them, starting at the top of the crime syndicate known as “government”.

      Kick high, kick low; kick roundhouse, soccer-kick, field-goal-kick. Knee-kick, snap-kick. On each one. Measure the distance, kick again. Kick to the groin, kick to the head; kick to the leg, kick everywhere.

      Purely in the interest of science you see.

    • eric
      January 10, 2014 at 1:21 pm

      Hi Paul,

      I hope you’re right – but I fear you’re wrong. Here’s why:

      The “revenue” lost via traffic tickets and insurance surcharges will be more than made up for taxes (and fees) levied on the basis of mileage driven. This goal has been openly discussed – indeed, it is already “on the table” (laws, proposed laws) in several areas (see, for example, Washington state).

      But the real driver will be the control it gives them – the government as well as the insurance Mafia.

      • January 10, 2014 at 1:30 pm

        But Eric, this does not mitigate the loss to the insurance companies. When this new grid thing takes over, car insurance will become totally unnecessary or at the very least extremely cheap. There will be little or no vehicle theft, since a thief can be tracked down and apprehended almost instantly, so the only thing left for the insurance companies to make money off of would be “comprehensive” insurance that would cover incidental damage, storm damage, vandalism, etc. Not going to be profitable at all for the insurance companies. And they will be the ones to oppose this thing. The mundanes do not have much pull with the legislatures, but the insurance companies certainly do, and when they see their oxen being gored….

        • Brian
          January 13, 2014 at 12:29 am

          I think that since insurance is mandatory, the insurance companies will simply raise rates on everyone. Also, computers do crash and can be hacked. Do you really believe that a car with a Micro$o… O.S. will be crashproof? – pun intended.

      • January 10, 2014 at 1:46 pm

        There are other relatively powerful groups that will opposed to this as well, once they see the handwriting on the wall.
        The first will be after market auto parts companies, and auto body shops. No collisions means no collision repair and no money. Auto wrecking yards: same thing. Yes, it is cynical, but there it is.
        The next one will be cab companies. Why in the hell would anyone have a cab with a driver when some entrepreneur will almost immediately use this system to set up a fleet of driverless taxis (think Johnny Cab from the original Total Recall).
        In fact, almost any professional driver would see his job being replaced by a machine, and oppose this grid system on that grounds. Truckers, ambulance drivers, ice cream truck drivers, limo drivers, tow truck drivers, hell, even the guy at the graveyard who drives the meat wagon (I mean hearse) will be opposed to this.
        It’s sci-fi fantasy, Eric. And even though the potential for it to be implemented is almost here, it would be political suicide for the guys who think they are in charge to attempt to pull off.

        • BrentP
          January 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm

          But these are mostly little guys. People who don’t matter. The big guys will be worked in some how. They will have a seat at the table.

          The private automobile is to go away if the powers that be have their way… go away for mundanes anyway.

          I’ve been reading a Rockefeller foundation funded “progressive” transportation blog lately. The anti private automobile agenda is quite evident in their nest. It’s quite something to see. Oh and it’s national with local appearing sub sections to make the wide reaching national agenda look home grown. Just like the evening news. streetsblog is the name if anyone is curious.

          • January 10, 2014 at 4:28 pm

            You say they are small, and “people who don’t matter” but in acuality, they are not. Some of the trucking companies are very large. auto parts suppliers and wrecking yards belong to industry groups whose purpose includes preventing this type of political action. Insurance companies are huge. (and big political contributors. I have seen first hand what a group of irate cab drivers can accomplish when the City of Phoenix government attempted to impose regulation on the taxi industry 3 years ago here in Phoenix. Smaller companies and individuals can be very powerful, and make the politicians bend to their will. they just have to get pissed off enough. And i think a driverless, automated road system would be just enough to piss them off.
            Look at what the little guys did to block some of the stupid internet regulations they were thinking of imposing. Look at what we did to stop the war with Syria. Even in totalitarian countries, when you piss off the masses enough, they do something about it. I point to the 1990 “cigarette riots” in the soviet Union as an example. Driverless, tracked, automatic road systems won’t happen in our lifetimes.

          • methylamine
            January 10, 2014 at 10:48 pm

            Plus you could majorly mess with these GPS-and-computer-driven systems with a cheap GPS jammer.

            I think they’re overreaching. Without physical markers–magnets, smart dots, something–embedded in the roadways, there are just too many edge cases for this to work.

            Yeah, there have been the X-prize competitions and the vehicles did quite well. But I’d like to see their accident rate vs. a human in the long haul.

            Especially if we’re fucking with their GPS :)

          • BrentP
            January 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm

            I am watching as the small businesses are being sucked up be the corporate giants.

            Salvage yards for instance are getting get bought up by LKQ.

            In many cities the big taxi companies have had the entire licensing process set up to prevent smaller competitors.

            I could go on. The bigs will get a seat at the table. They will get bigger and make money in the short term…. but eventually, government will get rid of them. transit, passenger rail, health care (in process), and others this is how it rolls. Get big or get out.

        • eric
          January 10, 2014 at 3:14 pm

          Hi Paul,

          I know for a fact that the big swingers in the OTR trucking industry are looking at (and working toward) “Google” trucks – driverless/automated. What could be better?

          Cabs are gonna go this way, too.

    • BrentP
      January 10, 2014 at 2:08 pm

      AZ did it wrong.
      Camera enforcement’s failing is that it does not discriminate. Laws are supposed to be for the bad people over there. Not the good people. Automated enforcement can’t tell the difference. The state of Arizona just decided to ticket everyone, including the 10 over clovers. Braking slamming good times for everyone.

      Chicago and the state of Illinois are far more advanced entities. The speed camera law permits them only in “safety zones”. Safety zones that are 1/8 mile around parks and schools ( http://geocommons.com/maps/138943 ). What the city and its contractor have been doing is cherry picking locations where the speed limit is too low that happen to be in the half of the city or so covered by these safety zones. The cameras don’t kick in until 6mph over the limit.

      The most blatant one is Challenger park. Irving Park road runs through cemetery grounds. The cemeteries are fenced/walled off. Thus this section of Irving Park road has little in the way of ped traffic, no intersections to speak of, and is wide. Guess what people do? They speed up in this section. I’ve been through there many times. Never knew there was a park there… why? Because the park is two blocks away. But guess where the speed camera was installed?

      The City was also caught reducing the speed limit for three blocks and putting speed cameras in the middle of the reduced area on another street. I can’t wait until they find the loophole that allows them to install a Camera on I94. But they may never do that to prevent a backlash.

      The clover majority has no problem with these speed cameras. They are for the children. They allow 5 over clover not to be nailed. Chicago’s criminal political class is far better that this than Arizona’s. So long as it is done right, the clover majority simply incorporates the new reality into their lives. Arizona hit them with a hammer over the head.

      It’s about implementation and manipulation. Do it right, do it slow, and they’ll accept the number plate readers and automated ticketing. For the children… if you have nothing to hide… it’s about getting speeding maniacs off the street… blah blah blah…. so long as it doesn’t appear to nail them all the time and they blame themselves for a “mistake” when it happens to them and it doesn’t force them to put effort into driving it will go in no problem.

  6. TheTomunist
    January 10, 2014 at 11:48 am

    “V2V will also facilitate tax-by-mile and “congestion pricing.” The former would replace anonymous, pay-as-you-go motor fuels taxes with in-car monitoring of how many miles you’ve driven, your debit account dunned accordingly (and automatically).”

    You’re slipping in your dotage, Eric. I think instead of “replace,” you meant “be levied in addition to.”

    • eric
      January 10, 2014 at 1:24 pm

      You’re right, The Tomunist – thanks for reading after me (as we used to say in the Olde Newsprinte Days)!

  7. Winston Smith
    January 10, 2014 at 10:47 am

    Welcome to 1984.

  8. Fred
    January 10, 2014 at 10:42 am

    [WARNING: Sarcasm Ahead]

    Gov’t is my big brother.
    I have nothing to worry about any more.
    They will protect me from every evil.
    Whatever they force me to do is in my best interest, and for my safety.
    I just submit and obey their every new command.
    At last I am safe.
    And I am free.

  9. John Allen
    January 9, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    I foresee a niche market for insurrectionary auto technicians to defeat these totalitarian “safety” measures. Under the old apple tree, if necessary.

    My family vehicles are older, low-mileage steeds that each, well-maintained, have about 100,000 miles left on them.

    I have reached that age at which I don’t expect buy many more automobiles.

    I have no intention of cooperating with this. Will fail to cooperate every way I can.

    Our liberty is not government’s gift. It derives from each person’s ability to reason, make choices, and act on them. No piece of paper will keep someone free in whose heart liberty does not burn.

    • RothbardianamericanHelot
      January 9, 2014 at 7:06 pm

      Ha. “insurrectionary auto technicians” – I like that.

      • Bevin
        January 16, 2014 at 12:05 am

        “insurrectionary auto technicians”

        Reminds me of the DeNiro character in “Brazil.”

        Tuttle Heating Engineer at your service!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNFuySgwQ30

        • dom
          January 16, 2014 at 12:07 am

          Youtube is really starting to suck:

          “This video contains content from MOVIECLIPS and Zefr on behalf of Universal Pictures, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.”

          • PanarchistamericanHelot
            January 16, 2014 at 12:38 am

            YouTube says that unless I update my browser I’ll soon be unable to view content there.
            – I’m not motivated. –
            Besides, it’d mean I’d have to get a different PC or OS.
            I’m too cheap & a bit too lazy for that.

            So, I wonder, who’s the replacement for YouTube? Seeing as how they suck for more than one reason.

          • eric
            January 16, 2014 at 8:26 am

            YouTube also wants you to sign with – surprise – Google – to access their content. F ‘em and feed ‘em fish heads.

          • Jean
            January 16, 2014 at 11:29 am

            IIRC, Google bought youtube last year or so.

            It’s an example of how people will surrender freedom for “convenience.”
            Why remember 500 IDs and passwords when you can put them all under Google ID? :-P

    • Kevin
      January 10, 2014 at 1:16 pm

      Mr Allen, Just today while out pricing an idler arm replacement on my 2000 Chevy 1 ton,I was looking to replace all of the front suspension bushings with polyethylene bushings on the steering and ball joint/A arms and the kid behind the counter couldn’t understand why I wanted to lay down a grand to do this. “This is an old truck, you could buy another one.” Yeah right and spend $40 thousand plus for what I bought in 2000 for $18, 500 brand new. I have the heavy duty rated 350cid in it, which means no smog except vapor recovery system, no friggen airbags, big tranny, and a 4:11 posi rearend on a 2wd long bed. Perfect set up to pull my travel trailer and get decent mileage. The kid would not understand why not put $6 to $8 K in a truck that will last me until I take my last gasping breath,with safety and comfort and no mortgage.

      • Garysco
        January 10, 2014 at 3:50 pm

        @Kevin – Beacause the kid probably also thinks a $600.00 IPhone 5 is a must-have accessory he needs to make phone calls. Public school and Madison Ave. indoctrination comarde.

  10. RothbardianamericanHelot
    January 8, 2014 at 4:45 am

    As I read this article I began thinking about all the cars with automatic locks and sophisticated security, how Allll that’s been bypassed by a cheap device available online which has produced a well-under-reported rash of (seemingly) practically unstoppable thefts.
    I wonder what similar hazards await the drivers of the Decpticon car they want to impose upon us all?

    Also, there’s a mania going on, .22 especially. I wonder if it’s at all related?

    In all the major stores in my city there’s not been any .22 in quite some time. I kind of find that odd. .22’s, scarce? I cannot imagine DHS or the military scooping up that caliber. But I suppose it’s possible?
    It doesn’t seem to me the self-defense crowd is rushing to buy .22 either?

    A gun dealer told me he had a friend who talked to a rep for a major ammo manufacturer. The rep said they made a million .22 every day and if they stopped selling to the rest of the public and just focused on filling the order of One distributor (of many) they’d have to sell to them for three or four years. Just to fill that One order. The dealer went on to say that if he placed his order with another vendor ‘today’, he was told it would be filled in two or three years.
    He had a lot of things to say like that.

    I intend to read this:

    You Say You Want a Revolution?
    Keep it non-violent, says Jonathan Goodwin.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/jonathan-goodwin/you-say-you-want-a-revolution-3/

    I doubt many others will read that, too.
    Perhaps they should?

    Then I get to thinking about how everything seems like a set-up of some kind. You know, like when a bully wants someone they are bullying to throw the first punch.

    Is ‘push’ slowly coming to ‘shove’?

    Sarc On/

    Or is everyone just afraid the Chinese are going to invade?

    Sarc Off/

    Obama’s political agenda backfires, Gun Sales in 2013 Smash All Records

    http://www.infowars.com/obamas-political-agenda-backfires-gun-sales-in-2013-smash-all-records/

    …And some people think there’s a difference between … ahh, you guys already know:

    Pimping The Empire, Progressive-Style

    “The central illusion of both Left (so-called Progressives) and Right (so-called conservatives) is that the Central State’s essentially unlimited powers can be narrowly directed to further their agenda.” …

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/01/pimping-empire-progressive-style.html

    On the one hand, there’s the Clovers and soccer Mon’s of the world ready to obey and roll over at the snap of a finger.
    On the other hand, there’s a crowd buying guns and ammo.

    … [The rest of this comment has been self-censored due to the fact the unitedstate is a police state. What's legal today, can be illegal tomorrow. Retroactively. And that includes expressions of peaceful free thinking. Regulatory uncertainty, don'tchya know?]

    Just thinking out loud.

    • RothbardianamericanHelot
      January 8, 2014 at 4:59 am

      Pardon me, that should be, “soccer Mom’s of the world”.

    • eric
      January 8, 2014 at 6:15 am

      Hi RB,

      On .22s the only thing I can think of is that the supply’s run low because people were using them to maintain proficiency/target practice with in lieu of the more expensive calibers, which are also being hoarded for SHTF.

      • RothbardianamericanHelot
        January 8, 2014 at 9:53 am

        Maybe so. However; the gun dealer mentioned that in many cases it was cheaper to shoot some of the self-defense calibers.

        On scarcity: He mentioned a father in the Midwest with a son in Oklahoma and one on Virginia. Neither son could locate .22 so the father bought some of what little is available to him in the Midwest at a high price and then paid to have it shipped out to them.
        At that price, who would target practice with it?

        • Boothe
          January 8, 2014 at 12:51 pm

          RAH – I had a coworker from Canada (contractor on a boiler job) recently tell me there’s all the .22 (and other) ammo you’d ever want for sale in New Brunswick. When I told him what was going on here, he sent his son to stock up. From what I’ve read the .22 shortage is from folks just like us, standing by at the Wally-World sporting goods counter sucking up everything that they unpack as soon as if not before it hits the shelves. I don’t think there’s any government conspiracy (at least so far) to take away rimfire or any other ammo. I think it’s folks that realize a .22 rifle or pistol with no ammo makes a poor club and rimfire ammo is not easily reloadable.

          I’ve actually seen .223 prices (both guns and ammo) come down somewhat around these parts and the same with .308. Although they still haven’t come back to pre-panic buying prices, some of that is undoubtedly due to monetary inflation as much or more than current demand. There was a time last year when you couldn’t even buy primers because they were gone as fast as they hit the shelves too. The Obamunist in Chief came out openly in favor of Australio-British style gun confiscation and destruction in the wake of the Navy Yard shooting spree, after saying no one was going to take Amerikans’ guns away on the campaign trail. Then Connecticut, New York and Colorado went on the “infringement” war path after “Sandy Hook” and the small arms trade treaty was signed. I’d say a lot of the moderate “duck hunter” / “Who really needs a 30 round magazine?” gun owner crowd woke up, went “Oh shit!” and starting buying ammo like it was going out of style. Because they suddenly realized not only that it could happen, but if the PTB have their way, it WILL happen here.

          If so-called “universal background checks” become law, all formerly private firearms transactions will now become part of a de facto gun owner registration system. The Second Amendment becomes a moot point, when Xe “contractors” (i.e. mercenaries) are kicking in your front door, pointing M4s at you and your family and tearing the sheet rock out of your walls to find your contraband weapons. All because you obeyed the law when you bought Uncle Fred’s 870 Remington and registered the both of you in a national database thinking you were merely proving your law-abiding status. Ammo’s most likely scarce because more and more people are waking up to the fact that what “can’t happen here” is fast becoming reality. The next few years are going to truly be interesting indeed.

      • Swamprat
        January 9, 2014 at 12:58 am

        I don’t think that high caliber ammo is being hoarded by individuals preparing for the end of the world as we know it. I think that the ammo companies are being paid not to produce it. Otherwise you’d hear on the headlines that x number of jobs are being created at XYZ ammo company because of Obama or something like that.

        Just a thought.

        • eric
          January 9, 2014 at 2:19 am

          That could be, Swamp.

          We do know that the government (federal as well as state) has been buying up large quantities – and that their orders take precedence (of course). That plus the upticked civilian demand – which IIRC is unprecedented – probably explains it.

        • RothbardianamericanHelot
          January 9, 2014 at 2:34 am

          You’re kidding, right, Swamprat? You mean headlines like this?:

          Guns and ammo sales spark jobs boom

          “DRT currently cranks out 80,000 bullets per shift and operates two shifts per day. But that’s not enough to meet demand. So Weddle is adding a third manufacturing shift and building an additional facility.”

          http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/25/news/companies/guns-ammo-jobs/

          Governor welcomes ammunition manufacturer to Wyoming

          “In Laramie our company will start by making range ammunition to meet unprecedented demand for that product. We expect to produce 1.8 million rounds per week by the second half of 2014.” Maverick has plans to expand to produce other ammunition,”…

          http://county10.com/2013/11/26/governor-welcomes-ammunition-manufacturer-wyoming/

          Cape Fear Arsenal Ammunition Manufacturing to Open July 2013 in NC

          “The opening of Cape Fear Arsenal in Lumberton, NC, was just recently announced in May by Governor Pat McCrory, promising to bring 150 jobs to the area.

          The company will invest more than $15.2 million over the next three years in ammunition-manufacturing related jobs, and is already on the fast track to production. [...]

          Starting in January of 2014, the company intends to add capacity, manufacturing 115-grain FMJ and 127-grain JHP 9x19mm ammunition at a minimum production rate of 3 million rounds/month.

          http://www.ammoland.com/2013/06/cape-fear-arsenal-ammunition-manufacturing-to-open/#axzz2psXt3rZJ

          Remington plans to increase ammo output, expanding plant in Arkansas

          “Madison, North Carolina – Remington Arms Company, LLC (“Remington”) announced its plan to expand operations at the Remington Ammunition Plant in Lonoke, Arkansas. Work on the expansion, which will include the construction of a new building, is expected to begin second quarter of 2013. The $32 million expansion plan is projected to be in operation by the second quarter of 2014.

          “We are proud to provide job growth”…

          http://www.nrablog.com/post/2013/05/11/Remington-plans-to-increase-ammo-output-build-plant-in-Arkansas.aspx

          Ammo Manufacturers Scramble to Keep Up with Demand, Reassure Eager Customers

          … “Hornady, an ammunition manufacturer located in Grand Island, Nebraska, offers answers to concerned customers on the FAQ page of their website:

          Q: Have you stopped production, or has the government forced you to stop?
          A: Not at all.

          Q: Since we can’t find your product you must be selling it all to the government.
          A: Nope, less than 5% of our sales are to government entities.

          Q: Why can’t you make more? Ramp up production? Turn on all the machines?
          A:We’ve been steadily growing our production for a long time, especially the last five years. We’ve added presses, lathes, CNC equipment, people and space. Many popular items are produced 24 hours a day. Several hundred Hornady employees work overtime every week to produce as much as safely possible. If there is any question about that – please take a tour of the factory. You’ll be amazed at what you see.

          The page also states:

          “We are producing as much as we can; much more than last year, which was a lot more than the year before, etc. No one wants to ship more during this time than we do.” …

          http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/ammo-manufacturers-scramble-keep-demand-reassure-eager-customers

          I’ve read elsewhere that it’s estimated that 3% of america is ‘preparing’.
          Seems to me the number might be much much higher than that.

          • swamprat
            January 11, 2014 at 9:45 pm

            Well, I stand corrected. It’s a shame we live in times where people feel like they need to purchase guns and ammo to defend themselves against the excesses of government and roving gangs.

            In normal times, I am about as interested in guns as maybe getting a root canal. Unfortunately, I have to be interested in arming. The problem is, the price of ammo is still sky high and I’m not sure its readily available. I haven’t checked in months.

            • eric
              January 12, 2014 at 7:08 am

              Hey Swamp,

              You can buy a very decent revolver in .38/.357 magnum caliber for around $300. Many people believe they’ve just got to have an autoloader pistol, but the comparative cost (a “good” revolver vs. a similarly “good” pistol) is much higher.

              The main advantages of a pistol are flatness/more compact profile and – a factor for CC – and, of course, that each time the gun is fired, it cycles and automatically chambers the next round for firing. Spent casings are also ejected, and this eases (and speeds up) reloading times, especially if you have a spare magazine at the ready, already loaded, that you can just pop in. Pistols also usually have higher capacity – can carry more bullets. But the higher calibers (e.g., .45 ACP) are often “single stack” and you’ve got 7,8 rounds or so.

              But, revolvers have advantages, too.

              They are much simpler in design and so inherently more reliable and require less in the way of maintenance. You could leave one in a drawer for 20 years and it would probably be just as ready to fire at the end of that time as it was when you left it there.

              They are also safer. It is virtually impossible to accidentally discharge one. Yet they’re always ready to fire (round lined up in the cylinder) whereas with a pistol, you have to jack a round into the chamber or carry it already “cocked and locked,” which with some designs can be dangerous if the person is not careful/doesn’t handle the gun properly.

              The spent shell casing do not eject. In some situations, this is extremely desirable.

              While the revolver can only hold (typically) 5-6 bullets, if it’s a .357, that’s still a lot of punch. You hit someone two or three times with a .357 and they’re done.

              Bang for the buck. The stopping power of a $350 .357 magnum is very impressive.

          • clover
            January 12, 2014 at 12:13 am

            Editor’s Note: Res ipsa loquitur

            I have to laugh at the prepared people. You say that 3% of the people are prepared. I doubt it but I am sure there are at least 3% of the population that have some kind of mental illness. Probably half of that amount are prepers.
            Clover

            People like you say that you are worried about our government coming to get us. Show me some statistics that show that our government is changing over the the past 100 years. I have not seen any change in my lifetime. In fact I have seen more of the opposite. Explain why I am wrong and why I need to worry about the government coming after me if I am not doing anything wrong. I am far more worried about being killed by a preper practicing for that glorious day where they can start shooting people.

          • Darien
            January 15, 2014 at 11:24 pm

            I know, I know: don’t feed the trolls. But I’d just like to mention how much I love this part:

            “I have not seen any change in my lifetime. In fact I have seen more of the opposite.”

        • Tor Minotaur
          January 9, 2014 at 3:24 am

          The easy solution would be for manufactures to raise prices. Keep raising them as high as they can. Then use some of the extra cash flow to build more manufacturing capacity.

          But that is anathema to Cargo Cult Americans. They get enraged and hoot, holler, and shake spears like savages at anything that remotely resembles the free market in action.

          Also, companies know they risk getting the Gibson Guitar SWAT treatment if they don’t cravenly submit to every whim of every bureaucrat immediately.

          When Stalin tells you not to do something, like overproduce ammo or “price gouge” then you just don’t do it. That’s how soft authoritarianism works.

          Normally being a scholar and delving into legal details and doing expert research into the legislative fine points is the way to get to the bottom of things. This seems to be something abnormal, where that is not possible.

          When demand can’t meet supply, you have to uncover why, because it doesn’t make sense. All markets clear, through price change, substitution or some other adjustment. The horrible truth is, in many industries, America is an oligarchy under coercion by government, and no longer a functioning market.

          Tablets, game consoles, smart phones, the demand for these things is through the roof, yet there is never more than a temporary shortage in a free market country.

          It has been common to run short of all manner of things in Mexico for decades now. They don’t have a free market.

          Anecdotally, whatever America runs out of: medicines/ammunition. It’s safe to say those, are probably things in which America has an unfree Mexican-type market.

          • El_Gordo
            January 10, 2014 at 10:13 am

            Keep in mind that there is no fixed definition of the word “Temporary”.

            There are also MANY barriers to entry into the ammo production business. If there weren’t then a lot of people with progressive reloaders would be selling ammo.

            Finally, for the established manufacturers, not enough time has passed since the increase in demand to know whether there will be a return on their investment in increased capacity – because no one knows how long the increased demand will continue. Machining equipment has to be amortized over years or decades.

            If the ammo demand blows over after the 2016 election – as happened in 2000 – they’ll be stuck with a lot of loans for machinery that produces nothing.

            As for prices… since the advent of mega-retailers like WalMart it has become common for long term relationship contracts with the mega-retailers, which limit the manufacturer’s discretion with regard to prices. The result is that the contract period has to elapse before they can renegotiate a higher price.

            What may not be apparent is that this is all symptomatic of a non-free market.

            Q: Why are there now mega-retailers to make long-term contracts with, and never before?
            A: The process of systematic Central Bank currency inflation naturally favors bigger, more connected businesses. a.k.a. WalMart can borrow money for free. Literally. Mom and Pop can’t. Also, WalMart’s (or any big business) can’t avoid symbiotic relationships with government. Since Corporatism was embraced in the late 19th century – and especially since the 1930s – every business is forced to either be at the cannibal table or be on the menu. Predatory regulation is the rule – lobby for rules to hurt competitors.

        • Boothe
          January 9, 2014 at 3:18 pm

          Swamprat – There are several factors at work here. There are more and more states with “shall issue” concealed carry laws. Personal defense has become considerably more “mainstream.” The awareness that when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away has risen. Hence more people are carrying guns and shooting to develop their skills and keep them up to par. Among that sector are an ever increasing number of women shooting. A 110 lb. gal that doesn’t want to be a victim is the match of any 250 lb. thug when she has a .45 or even .38 in her hand. Even the weak little .380 ACP has gained popularity to the point that ammo for it became scarce last year. But it was a market driven shortage, not a government conspiracy.

          Then there is the preparedness community that believe sooner or later this fiat currency / inflationary / debt backed fraudulent farce we call an economy is doomed to collapse. They are confident that when it happens dialing 911 will be pointless or maybe even suicidal; you will either defend yourself and your family or perish. This mindset is spreading and those folks are also stocking up on ammo. Some of those folks are relative newcomers to that camp, because the year before last, you could buy all the .22 LR & .22 MAG you wanted at Wally-World. Now those folks that didn’t buy it up are standing at the counter as the shipping boxes are unpacked. The sporting goods dude at our local Wall-World told me just last night that when they get their weekly shipment of .22 LR in, it takes all of three hours to sell out. Wow!

          According to the industry (ammo manufacturers), the NRA and even the government procurement records, non-military government ammo purchases have actually dropped. So is there a government component to this shortage? Sure. The president’s campaign trail “You can keep your gun” rhetoric was immediately washed away in the wake of the Sandy Hook / Navy Yard shootings. Now he tells us we need to change, we need to be reasonable, we need gun control ala the Australio – British model. Worse yet. With Kerry signing the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty with the Obamunist’s blessing, we are merely one wrong senate vote away from international infringement of the right here in Amerika. This is the IANSA / Rebecca Peters foot in the door to bring us up to snuff with Australia and Britain. In other words, anything more powerful than a pea shooter will be confiscated…by force if necessary. So a lot of “gun nuts” figure the only way to keep their guns will eventually be to use their guns. Guns without ammo are useless, so a certain amount of the market is being driven by those concerns.

          You also have the inflation factor in there. Ammunition, properly stored, remains good for over 50 years. Prices are not going to go down any time soon. So a bulk 550 rd. box of .22 LR that cost $8.88 at Wally-World a few short years ago will run you better than twice that if you can find it. The same applies to surplus or new mil-spec .223 and 7.62 or any centerfire pistol or rifle round for that matter. If you buy it today and hold it until next year, you will have saved quite a bit. So I suspect some of the increased buying is merely for that very reason. I spoke with a dyed in the wool liberal demoplican recently who has retained the unsavory habit of deer hunting from his rural youth. He was appalled at the scarcity and, when he could find it, the price of the venerable .30-30 round. Of course he had waited right until deer season started last year to try to find it, but this is not a military or civilian police round. This is a relatively low power antique rifle cartridge, so how do you explain that away as government intervention?

          Insofar as the industry’s production being artificially stifled, that appears to be incorrect (as RAH so nicely proved in his post) too. The manufacturers are adding shifts, adding capital equipment and ramping up production. But remember, this appeared to be panic buying at first, not legitimate growth of the regular ammo market. No business man in his right mind builds factories, hires more employees and invests in capital equipment unless he’s relativily certain that the market will support those investments. Since the DHS has started to back off on some of their purchasing and the industry is increasing its capacity, we should see more availability this year (2014). But what you will not see is pre-panic prices, because of the fiat currency inflationary spiral; brass, copper, propellant, lead, packaging and shipping all cost more now. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you should be painfully aware of that.

          Don’t think for one minute I’m defending the state or the ass-hats that run things. I’m not. But much of what you’re seeing is more the unintended consequences of politics as usual than any direct government involvement in the ammunition markets. Now I won’t rule out (at least most of) these high profile shootings as false flag ops. I am confident that many of the fine folks in gun-vernment, from the courthouse to the Whitehouse, are indeed psychopaths devoid of any love, compassion or empathy for their fellow man. They are where they are because that’s all that matters to them. Sacrificing a few school kids to some drug deranged CIA sleeper with a gun to further their agenda is hardly out of the question and much easier to cover up. It’s the macro emotional response from the sheeple they’re after, following these high profile events to give up their rights. The PTB are probably not trying to hoard and heard the ammo market, as it would be too much trouble for to little political return, in my not so humble opinion anyway.

      • methylamine
        January 11, 2014 at 11:03 pm

        Might be a function of profitability, too; with supplies scarce, why make ultra-low-margin .22 LR when you can put the same brass, lead, and powder into 5.56 ($0.40/round) or 338 Lapua at three bucks a round?

        • RothbardianamericanHelot
          January 12, 2014 at 2:56 am

          Why?… Perhaps, demand?
          There’s never been a sign up above the empty slot of the other calibers at the stores I which I shop at saying there isn’t any,… except for .22.

          The sign is just like the ‘No Clover’s’ sign at EPA, only it says, ‘No .22′ availaible.

          I’ve yet to see a “No .223′, or a, ‘No 300 WIN MAG’ sign on an ammo shelf.
          Have you?

          If there’s that much demand, perhaps they’d sell twice or three times or more product, resulting in that much more profit?

          Anyway, totally off topic, I think I’m going to change my nic after reading this:

          “Those who want the military on the border shooting immigrants” that would include Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe” …

          http://mindbodypolitic.com/2014/01/10/hilarious-defending-the-truly-indefensible/

          How does, PanarchistamericanHelot sound?

          • Brian
            January 12, 2014 at 11:15 pm

            I am among those who have “invested” in lots of ammo as an inflation hedge, along with 8 pairs of work boots. I only had a brick of .22 ammo, 30 or so 30-06 rounds, and a box of 16 gauge shells when the first Obomba-induced ammo and fire-arms price jump. I refused to pay top dollar for anything while I gritted my teeth hoping that the mass hysteria was overblown again.
            After a couple of years when the price finally dropped substantially, I decided that I will never again be caught with my pants down. I had been planning on buying lots of ammo for years prior to the price jump, but never got around to it.
            I then systematically bought case after case of ammo as I could afford it, and I added low cost military rifles like an SKS and a Mauser to my collection. I’ve got a thousand rounds for about every different caliber I have except for the .22, which is 5000+. I also have buckshot and birdshot, though not 1000 of the later. I also bought a Highpoint .45 pistol. Many non-owners criticise the low cost semi-auto pistol, but the manufacturer has a lifetime warranty on them and every owner including myself likes them. BUT! This is NOT a good CC gun because it is thick. Open carry is legal in most states though.
            I would still like to buy more ammo, a glock or a 1911. But as you have said the ammo will last for many years. 1000 rounds might sound like a lot of ammo to a clover, but it is only a 10 year supply if you shoot 100 rounds per year. I hope to live for another 50 years, so I wish that I could afford to buy 4000 more rounds per caliber as a hedge against inflation.

          • methylamine
            January 13, 2014 at 1:48 am

            @RAH: duh, good point…so much for my economics 101! :)

            @Brian: good choice. My (and I think many survivalists’) view is 1000 rounds per gun, minimum. That’s a little tougher with 50BMG, but totally feasible with the other calibers…especially handgun ammo and 5.56.

            With the EPA closing the last American lead smelter just last month, I think we’re in for another wild ride on the ammo prices.

            Guys–when is enough, enough??

            On another note–the Criminal-In-Chief just issued another (totally illegal) executive order to make having “mental problems” a cause to be SWAT-teamed and disarmed.

            Some sadly misinformed pro-gun people have even praised the idea of “keeping guns away from mentally unstable people”–never stopping to think: who defines mental illness?

            Yet another slippery slope. Damn, it’s like standing on a hilltop covered in grease!

    • January 11, 2014 at 1:53 pm

      I didn’t agree with Jonathan. I understood his point, but I don’t agree. I don’t think it should be taken lightly, but sometimes the only thing a statist goon will understand is brute force. DEFENSIVE force should not be taken off the table. Don’t take it lightly, but keep it on the table. Otherwise, the statist goons will know they can do anything they want without retaliation. Non-violent civil disobedience can work on those with a conscience, but that’s not everyone.

  11. Tor Minotaur
    January 8, 2014 at 2:48 am

    A N I C E M O R N I N G D R I V E

    Opening the door, he saw the sunshine bounce off the gleaming hood of his 15-year-old MGB roadster. After carefully checking the fluid levels, tire pressures and ignition wires, Buzz slid behind the wheel and cranked the engine, which immediately fired to life. He thought happily of the next few hours he would spend with the car, but his happiness was clouded — it was not as easy as it used to be.

    A dozen years ago things had begun changing. First there were a few modest safety and emission improvements required on new cars; gradually these became more comprehensive. The governmental requirements reached an adequate level, but they didn’t stop; they continued and became more and more stringent. Now there were very few of the older models left, through natural deterioration and other reasons.

    The safety crusade had been well done at first. The few harebrained schemes were quickly ruled out and a sense of rationality developed. But the politicians needed a new cause and once again they turned toward the automobile. The regulations concerning safety became tougher. Cars became larger, heavier, less efficient. They consumed gasoline so voraciously that the United States had had to become a major ally with the Arabian countries….

    http://www.fiatbarchetta.com/links/nice.html

    http://vimeo.com/71716665

  12. Mike in Boston
    January 8, 2014 at 2:15 am

    They won’t even need to mandate this abomination for older cars; once they get a certain percentage of new cars so equipped they can shut down travel for everyone by disabling those cars and effectively blocking the roads. In my area all it takes is a clover or two to get in a fender bender or flip their smoovees to bring traffic to halt for hours. Imagine trying to thread through a highway littered with parked cars, will be like a scene from “The Walking Dead”, and we’ll be the ones walking. It looks like our masters want walking to be the only means of transport available to us serfs.
    Hope you’re keeping your motorcycle in good shape Eric, you might need it when bug out time comes. I only have a 10 speed, not sure how far I can pedal at my age, but if the SHTF it may be the best way out.
    This does truly suck though, these control freak MF’s need to be pushed back hard, and stay the hell out of our lives. If they succeed with this bullshit then Soylent Green is the next step for us.

    • eric
      January 8, 2014 at 6:27 am

      Hi Mike,

      I have five bikes. Of these, only one is pretty much useless for practical purposes (the S1C triple, which is too slow, too thirsty, too loud and not reliable enough to be depended on in a serious situation).

      My little four-stroke dual sport, on the other hand, is as reliable as a Swiss watch, gets excellent mileage, simple, rugged and will go almost anywhere.

      The GL650 is ideal for long-haul riding and can carry a lot of stuff, too. Also very reliable and also gets very good mileage. With two 5 gallon jugs and a full tank, I could go about 800 miles, probably.

      The sport bike is the one for a fast escape. Very few cars can compete with a fast sport bike. And very few cops ride fast sport bikes.

      My other bike, the old Kz900, has a combination of the above attributes. It is quicker than all the others (except the sport bike) but air-cooled and simple and very rugged/reliable. It could be fitted with racks/fairings and handle cargo/be set up for long-distance riding.

      I also have a bicycle. I don’t ride it much – but I do have one!

    • Boothe
      January 11, 2014 at 4:53 pm

      Mike in Boston – I don’t know your situation, but for guys like Eric and myself that already live in rural areas, it will be “bugging in” rather than “bugging out.” Unless you already have rural retreat you can go to if the SHTF, then even a motorcycle (or your ten speed) probably won’t do you a bit of good. If you do have a rural retreat already (that you own or are privileged to live on) now would be a good time to move out of Baaas-ton and occupy that rural property, if there is any way possible.

      We all saw what happened after the Baaaa-ston marathon bombing and it wasn’t pretty. Most of the sheeple just let the militarized cops jack boot their way right through those Bostonian homes. I was dismayed to say the least since Massachusetts was the birthplace of the American revolution. But I wasn’t surprised in light of Massachusetts record on gun rights and being the pilot state for Obamacare (a.k.a. Romneycare) I thank God every day that I don’t have to live in a city to make a living. After having traveled there to work, that is especially so for the northeast. In the event of grid / logistics failure a lot, if not most, of those folks are really going to be in trouble. Even where I’m from in Tidewater Virginia will get ugly quick if basic services are interrupted; think hurricane Sandy writ large.

      I can see using a bike for getting around after the unthinkable happens, but only out of necessity. Remember, you are much more vulnerable to any level of physical attack on a motorcycle than you are in a cage. I believe that our best bet will be to hunker down, keep a low profile and weather the storm in place, being as self sufficient as possible and working with our closest neighbors. Folks like clover who think FEMA and the DHS will save them can expect a rude awakening and a bumpy ride. Of course “this is Uh’muricka and it cain’t happen here”, right clover? Yeah. Tell that to the folks in New Orleans who were staring down the barrels of un-sworn Xe contractors’ M4’s after Katrina as they walked into their homes. If you live in the city and there is any way possible, get out. Now.

  13. BrentP
    January 7, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    I don’t have a problem with voluntary insurance and sharing basic voluntary data like miles driven. After all we declare how many miles we drive a year in the first place. Anything more than that gets sketchy fast IMO.

    The vehicle communication systems are just a step to automated roads & cars.

    All people need to do is look at the company town utopias. That’s the goal. Every aspect of our lives controlled. A nice, neat, stable society. No class mobility except the new blood the system picks.

    • eric
      January 8, 2014 at 6:57 am

      I don’t have any objection to voluntary insurance, either. I’d certainly buy it for my old muscle car, mandate or not. But would I buy an individual policy for all five of my bikes, most of which just sit and none of which I can ride at the same time? Hell no! It is unlikely in the extreme that I will cause damage to anyone else.

      I might drop the bike and get hurt, but liability only policies (state mandate) provide no coverage for such.

      My trucks? One mostly gets driven the 1.2 miles down the road to the trash dump and back; once a month or so down the road (5 miles) to the country store for chicken pellets. The risk of it being involved in an at-fault accident is probably next to nil. I’d absolutely skip insurance here if I could.

      I’d buy a policy for my main truck – if the cost were reasonable, based not on bullshit tickets but only one my record of incurring loss (zero).

      We recently told the shyster insurance company that issued our home insurance policy to go fuck themselves – and cancelled the policy – because they’d jacked up our premium by about 15 percent for absolutely no reason having to do with us (never filed a claim, 800 credit score, customer for years) but – their words – simply because “costs are going up across the board.” Luckily, our house is paid off and luckily, there is no mandate (yet) to buy home insurance. So we enjoyed the delicious repast of tearing up the policy and kissing their ass goodbye.

      Too bad we’re not allowed to do that with car (and medical) insurance.

      • GW
        January 8, 2014 at 9:42 am

        Yeah – NATIONWIDE (who is NOT on my side) cancelled my H.O. policy after all the hurricanes back in 2004 after 20 years of getting all my Insurance business. I then switched my car insurance to elsewhere and ththey had the balls to ask “why I was leaving after 20 years. Fucking Numbskulls.

        Don’t do business with Nationwide unless you want to get ButtFukked!

        On another note – can you get a “dealer” tag in Va. that you can switch from vehicle to vehicle as needed?

        Here in Florida that is an “option” for some, but there is a break even point which I don’t quite reach to have it make economical sense – just a thought.

        • eric
          January 8, 2014 at 1:37 pm

          I’ll have to look into the “dealer” tag, but I expect it entails paying a large fee to establish that you are, in fact, a car dealer. But maybe not; it’s definitely worth looking into.

          “Antique” tags are something of an end run, because they exempt the vehicle from annual registration and inspection. But I expect they’re going to change the rules on this soon because too many people are too obviously “abusing” the “privilege.”

          • Tor Minotaur
            January 8, 2014 at 7:05 pm

            Eric Peters Auto Dealership Open Mon&Tue 9am-7pm
            http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/buy-sell/car-dealers/dealer-licensing.php

            Personal vehicles become inventory. Business funds already exist in the form of what you currently pay to insure your vehicles individually. Many personal expenses can become business expenses.

            Small business ownership – 90% chance of becoming your own little slice of hell on earth, 10% chance of promoting you to truly sovereign entity status.

            Maybe you could find an already existing small dealer, and make your vehicles part of his inventory. But then trustworthiness and honor of your fellow ‘Merican-Soviet becomes an issue.

            • eric
              January 8, 2014 at 7:17 pm

              Thanks, Tor!

              This part screws me right off the bat:

              “Get your place of business ready. Your business space will have to be inspected before you can receive your license.

              Generally, you must first choose a location and meet all state and local zoning regulations. Your dealership must be at least 250 square feet in size, in a permanent, enclosed building that is not used as a residence.”

              I’ve got a large garage, but it’s attached to my house – where of course I live. Zoning/inspections? Forget about it!

    • Linda
      January 8, 2014 at 9:56 pm

      BRENT: “The reason I go with school is because that is where I first noticed its practice. I was in 6th or 7th grade at the time when it hit me that were being group restricted, group punished, etc but the reality a few individuals were the cause. But what I think happens instead of having that waking moment it just sticks with people. It becomes how they think.”

      So glad some people have figured it out, because most haven’t a clue.

      Example, earlier today while watching the noon news (because of the extreme low temps and my needing to prepare as much as possible for easily frozen water pipes) the news crew were talking about if there is a state law requiring taking outside pets into the house during these sub zero temps. The weatherman said he thought it was a city by city statute.

      I just about lost my lunch! How they considered the merits of making a law out of stuff that wholly belongs in the personal agency category.

      And they were inside the studio, where their brains at that time shouldn’t have been addled by the cold weather! but there they were, for all intents and purposes, calling for another freaking law with which to hamper individual freedoms. There is no hope for the TV news readers!

      • BrentP
        January 9, 2014 at 12:26 am

        That’s the word-of-mouth law. the made up law. The clover-law. It’s what cops often enforce. It’s what judges in lower courts rule upon. It’s what clovers rage about when I am bicycling.

        People are far too lazy to actually read the laws so they pass them down verbally. One time when I was pulled over because a county cop didn’t like the way I looked at him when he nearly hit my car he cited the chicago sun times for the “law” I violated. (A city of chicago ordinance that never passed and we were at the far corner of the county and not anywhere close to the city limits). A car I was storing in my driveway was ticketed for laws that were not violated. I could go on…. Clovers tell me so many laws that don’t exist when I am bicycling. Must use the side walk, can’t take the lane, blah blah blah…. even got pulled over by cop to tell me I couldn’t use the roadway.

        So to me this is something different than the government school mentality of group punishment and restriction, but rather the illusion of a law.

        • Tor Minotaur
          January 9, 2014 at 1:50 am

          Since American courts have higher conviction/plea deal rates than the Nazi courts ever dreamed of, it might be time to admit America effectively has no rule of law.

          How many lawyers are in the libertarian movement: Don Boudreaux, Stephen Kinsella, Jacob Hornberger, are some I can think of. There must be others.

          Why do they never discuss the status of law from first principles? They act like libertarians need only take back the “ship of state” and steer a better course.

          Kinsella and his IP stuff, is good stuff, and I encourage everyone to voluntarily participate in it. But if Ron Paul says no, I don’t consent to people downloading my work for free, then that needs to be respected. You don’t give up individual rights to join the libertarian or anarcho-capitalist collective. That is the mentality we are fighting against.

          PhD libertarians never address the failings of academia. Christian libertarians fail to expose the failings of their own church.

          Jewish/UK/Aus/NZ/Can libertarians from more stable and free commonwealth countries rarely mention their relatively better station than Americans. They rarely break ranks and talk bad about their unique national failings America lacks.

          The problems with America are well represented here. To pretend we are superior and smarter in ways that will actually deliver us from the terribly confined lifestyle they have in mind is wishful thinking IMHO.

          – Why not give up your sanity and piece of mind, and really embrace the future horror of full spectrum cultural Armageddon that’s facing us, who’s wants to join me?

          Armageddon – Steve Buscemi At His Best

        • clover
          January 11, 2014 at 12:02 am

          CloverYes Brent you are right. As Eric says, the slow pokes need to pull off the road. It is Eric’s law. You have not heard of it? You have no rights to be there unless you can keep up with the 30 to 55 mph speed limits with of course 10 to 25 mph above that to keep in front of the Erics and the Brents.

          • eric
            January 11, 2014 at 7:39 am

            Clover,

            Do you stand in the middle of busy sidewalks and expect people to accommodate you there also?

            I bet you don’t – because outside of your car, you’d have to deal with the people you’re impeding face-to-face.

            And people such as yourself are invariably cowards who only screw with others from a distance.

          • clover
            January 11, 2014 at 10:52 am

            Eric I do not run in the middle of a sidewalk just because someone else does. I do not run through a crowded building full of kids because I do not want to slam them on the ground by bumping into them like you would. I do not drive 120 mph down the road just to not inconvenience someone.Clover

            I know Eric you you have your own laws. A second of your time is worth more than someone’s life. I do have to laugh at your views. Speed is just a number it harms no one. I show examples where speed and reckless driving does kill but you then come back with speed is just a number. Drunk driving is not a problem. Your views and laws are more important than a large group. Why is it Eric you feel like you all by yourself should have the ability to control others when common sense and statistics are to be ignored?

          • Boothe
            January 11, 2014 at 11:21 am

            Clover – YOU are the archetype of those that wish to control everyone else. So don’t impute your values to Eric or any of the rest of us that stand for individual Liberty. It’s your camp that will lane block, pace, pull out in front of moving vehicles and speed up when someone attempts to overtake you to attempt to control traffic flow. You are the type that somehow feels “drunk” driving is worthy of “Constitution Free Zones” where the cops can go on fishing expeditions, rather than following the long standing principles of privacy, Liberty and equal protection under the law that require probable cause that crime has been committed before the authorities are allowed to interfere in our day to day affairs.

            Eric has clearly stated on various occasions that all obviously impaired drivers should be treated the same. Just because someone has a B.A.C. of 0.09% doesn’t make them an impaired driver. If they aren’t wandering all over the road or giving some other indication of impairment, then there is no probable cause to detain and question them. And if they are wandering all over the road and driving erratically, they obviously are impaired (or inattentive). Just because they’re the eighty year mother of the prosecuting attorney who can’t see or the 20 something texting girlfriend of a local cop doesn’t mean they should be given a free pass either. But that kind of thing goes on everyday. If the law applies to one, then it should apply equally to all.

            You plainly don’t like a strictly limited concept of law. So you, as a control freak, a nosy busy-body, a prohibitionist extraordinaire, would impose a Soviet style police state on the rest of us, because you’d feel safer. The innocents’ right to be left alone and the law of unintended consequences be damned! That is until “the man” pulls you over and does an anal probe on you, because you appeared to be clenching your buttocks together (yes clover, that has actually happened). Then you’d be the first to cry foul. I only wish we could mete out the tyranny and oppression you seem to long for on an individual basis; only to folks just like you. And the rest of us could be left alone until we’d actually committed a real crime against another person. But it rains on the just and the unjust alike. I caution you to be careful what you wish for clover. You just may get it…in spades.

          • methylamine
            January 11, 2014 at 12:35 pm

            Clover why do you comment here?

            You’re not convincing. You don’t write well. Your logic…well, you have no logic. You resort to every fallacy there is–straw man, appeal to authority, emoting…

            You know you’ll be excoriated every time you comment.

            And you know you don’t win arguments here, because you’re so far outclassed.

            So: why do you come here?

            Either you’re a glutton for punishment, you’re a government shill here to disrupt conversation, or you’re so delusional you think you’re scoring points.

            It’s really puzzling, and a little funny like the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail.

          • clover
            January 11, 2014 at 1:38 pm

            CloverBoothe you and all others here like to ignore facts. First thing is that police do not give a BAC test to every driver they talk to. They only do that to people that do show signs that they have been drinking and signs they are impaired with other tests. I have been stopped at a couple of checkpoints. I was not given a test. Millions of others have not been tested. The check of BAC only backs up with a number of what they are already seeing as a driver that should not be on the road.
            Next thing is that if you are wondering all over the road you are probably at twice the legal limit. Well beyond being a safe driver I would want my family on the road with. Keep telling your lies because if you tell them enough times maybe someone will believe it.

            • eric
              January 11, 2014 at 5:23 pm

              Clover, the issue here is whether stopping people at random, without even the pretext of probable cause – and forcing them to prove they’re not “drunk” – comports with a free society in which one has a right to be left in peace unless one has given specific reason to believe they might have caused harm, or be about to.

              Your views are profoundly un-American. They are East German, Soviet, National Socialist (and so on).

              According to your line of reasoning, individuals may be – and should be – subjected to inspection by authorities simply because it’s possible “someone” might have broken a law or be up to no good.

              You seem to believe that once this evil genie has been unleashed, it can be controlled. But it cannot be. As the darkening shadow of an overtly authoritarian system descends upon us all, this ought to be obvious – even to you.

              You think it will not descend upon you, of course.

              Until the day it does.

              And, it will.

          • January 11, 2014 at 1:42 pm

            @Eric- I know clover is just trolling, but as a serious comment, driving “too slow” is just as subjective, and just as victimless, as driving “too fast” right? If someone drives 5MPH on a highway, that’s annoying, but no more criminal than the guy who drives 50 in a residential community. Whatever standard you had there would have to go both ways.

            I also realize that the posted speed limits have little to do with safety, but I think you know what I’m getting at, unless I’m missing something.

            That said, clover, you completely misunderstand Eric’s points. For one, saying (insert risky but not inherently aggressive activity here) should be legal doesn’t mean its OK, it just means violence shouldn’t be used to prevent it. Why this is so complex I’ll never know, but most people are stuck in a nonsensical confusion between moral acceptability and legality. They aren’t the same thing.

            • eric
              January 11, 2014 at 4:45 pm

              Hi David,

              As I’ve explained to Clover countless times, I have no issue with slow drivers – as such. The problem is slow drivers who impede the movement of traffic; who refuse to yield to faster-moving traffic.

              That is an aggressive act.

              I have never understood why a slow driver would not want to let cars stacking up behind him get by. What skin is it off his nose?

              But then, I am not a Clover!

          • BrentP
            January 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm

            Clover, go back under your bridge. Better yet, go block a cop’s progress on the road.

          • clover
            January 11, 2014 at 3:03 pm

            CloverDavid I do disagree that speed limits have nothing to do with safety. You said yourself of the guy driving 50 mph through a residential area is not right and dangerous. By the way that is why there are speed limits in a residential area. Do you not agree or am I missing something? Can you honestly say speed limits have absolutely nothing to do with safety? What the hell are they for? Traffic flow? Maybe one of the reasons. I have been on roads that had a 70 mph speed limit and strictly enforced. That had to be the safest and best traffic flow roads on this planet. Would you disagree? There was no weaving through traffic or tailgating and switching lanes was a non event. When you cut down on the need to fight your way through traffic to get a 2 second advantage over someone else the danger that it poses goes away.

            • eric
              January 11, 2014 at 5:16 pm

              Leaving aside for the moment the deeper question about the rightness of speed limits as such, there is your palpably absurd straw man premise that existing speeds limits are reasonable. If they were, most people (being reasonable and certainly not purposefully reckless) would obey them. Just as most people do not need laws to keep them from committing assault, murder and so on.

              Yet most speed limits are not reasonable – which is why they’re almost universally ignored. They aren’t (as a rule) even set according to the 85th percentile rule – which would (as an example) have many rural highways posted at 75-80 (or faster). Instead, they are frequently – commonly – set below the 85th percentile speed, such that virtually every car is either “speeding” or on the verge of “speeding.” All this does is criminalize reasonable driving – gives the system a pretext to steal people’s money at gunpoint over a contrived “offense.”

              Even you admit to routine “speeding” – only you insist that your 5 MPH over is ok while my 15 over is not. Why? Because you feel that way? Yes, that’s it exactly.

              Minimally, a speed limit ought to comport with a velocity beyond which it can at least be argued it’s “unsafe” to drive. But to take the position that the 75-plus percent of traffic that routinely exceeds the posted limit is operating “unsafely” is obvious nonsense.

          • Boothe
            January 11, 2014 at 8:53 pm

            Clover – First off, the concept of equal protection under the law is not a lie. Neither is the Bill of Rights and the individual rights protected that are supposed to be protected by it. But people like you seem to “feeeel” that it’s better to give up those fundamental rights so the they can “feeeel” safe on the road. I “feeeel” a helluva lot safer with a weaving drunk in front of me, than I do with a cop with his lights on behind me, let assure you. And if you’re even marginally honest, so do you.

            Second of all, speed limits are all too often arbitrary. Take for example your butt buddy, Mike from Wichita’s home state of Kansas. When I have to drive on Highway 69, with a speed limit of 70 MPH, I run 70 MPH in my Miata. Any faster and my gas mileage suffers, plus I leave so I have plenty of time to reach my destination. But not MFW’s fellow Kansans. No sir. They blow past me like I’m sitting still. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are doing 90 and most are runnign 80 to 85. I stay in the right lane (or move over if I’ve passed someone) and we get along famously. I don’t try to lane block or pace. The vast majority of these folks are driving newer vehicles with excellent suspensions, ABS, traction control and tight steering. They aren’t doing anything unsafe and hence, their speed is really none of my business.

            My wife and I like to go out in the summertime in my Jeep Wrangler with the top and doors off. She doesn’t like to go fast; she likes to see the sights. When I check my mirrors and see someone behind me, even just one vehicle, I pull off and let them go around. It’s called common decency clover and it’s apparently something you and your psychopathic ilk just can’t comprehend. And furthermore there’s a curve right up the road from where I live posted 45 MPH. I won’t even hesitate to take that curve at 60 in the Miata, safely I assure you. But I don’t run over 40 through it in the Jeep due to offroad suspension and tires. So even the that 45 MPH suggestion is too high for one of my vehicles and I’d be a fool to try “run the speed limit” in that case. Our creator gave us each a brain and expects us as individuals to use it.

            As far as my “lies” about equal protection under the law go, what freakin’ rock do you live under? That is what this nation was supposed to be about. No preferential treatment for anyone because of their social, political or financial status. When you get a free pass because you’re kin to a cop (do a little research on special license plates in California alone) or some political hack (check on the congresswoman allowed to go home while driving drunk), but the rest of us “peons” have to shell out thousands on a lawyer for a minor infraction or even bogus charge, you have tyranny buster, plain and simple. If you think that’s a lie, move to North Korea, you’ll love it there.

            I’ve been through numerous “license checks” and “sobriety checkpoints” too clover. Guess what; without incident every time. It sure didn’t make me feel any safer; it made me “feeeel” like I was in Nazi Germany! And just because they didn’t “shake me down” doesn’t change the fact that these checkpoints are un-Constitutional, which means illegal, unlawful and wrong! Here’s another one of my “lies” for you to ruminate on (due to your apparently bovine intellect): “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Oh…I’m sorry…that was one of Benjamin Franklin’s “lies” not mine. My mistake. :p

          • clover
            January 11, 2014 at 11:43 pm

            Boothe I have to laugh at your comments. You say you feel safe behind a drunk driver. Tell me would you feel safe if your wife or kids passed that drunk driver in the opposite direction? Tell the truth now.
            Clover
            As far as checkpoints go I am sorry but the statistics show they work. The statistics show it and from personal experience I know people that do not go out to bars and get hammered because of the chance they may be stopped. Boothe you can not dispute facts. Facts are facts and you can not change that. you can tell all the lies that you wish but when you personally experience facts no one can tell you differently.

            • eric
              January 12, 2014 at 6:51 am

              Yes, Clover, checkpoints “work.” So let’s have more checkpoints. Checkpoints at every driveway; after all, that would “work” even better. And checkpoints at the entrance to every town/city, too. Strip searches. Anal/vaginal probes. Restraint collars. Biometric chips.

              We’d be so much safer, having entrusted government with limitless authority to “protect” us.

              One of two things must be true about you, Clover.

              You’re either none-too-bright, as evidenced by your inability to comprehend that if it’s acceptable to randomly stop/search people to identify “drunk” drivers, then it is also in principle acceptable to stop/search people for any generic reason you can gin up.

              “Drunks” pose a threat to others – ergo, everyone must accept government agents stopping/searching everyone randomly. For the same reason (logical chain, Clover) one could posit that because “child abusers” exist and are a danger to others, everyone must accept government agents randomly searching their homes – just to be “safe.”

              Your feeble mind will twitch and the words will eruct: But that hasn’t happened! You exaggerate! But Clover, what principle would you argue against such a proposal – when such a proposal is made?

              There is none. And that is the point. You’ve accepted – endorsed – tyrannizing people for one thing. That necessarily means you’ve accepted tyrannizing them in principle for anything.

              Or, you’re simply malicious. A violence-luster who enjoys forcing others to Submit & Obey (or have others do the forcing on your behalf, so you can voyeuristically revel in the wet work).

              I suspect you’re a mish-mash of these two repellent attributes.

              A dumb thug.

          • Darien
            January 12, 2014 at 3:31 am

            Eric:

            It’s not clear to me that going too slowly and refusing to yield is an “aggressive” act, at least not if we’re defining “aggression” strictly. “Aggression” I would define as “intentionally violating another person’s rights.” Now, the guy who gets in front of you and then slams on his brakes, sure, that’s aggressive — he’s trying to precipitate a collision with your car, which is a clear violation of your rights. But the guy who’s just noodling down the road and holding people up? I don’t believe he’s actually in deliberate violation of anyone else’s rights. This, to my mind, makes him a dick, but not an actionable dick.

            • eric
              January 12, 2014 at 6:30 am

              Hi Darien,

              Being conscious of other traffic and that you’re blocking it and refusing to yield is indeed an aggressive act. The person is using his vehicle to obstruct the free movement of others; he is taking their time.

              Part of driving – good driving – is paying attention to your environment, including the cars around you. A good driver constantly scans his mirrors and anticipates the need to yield to faster-moving traffic.

              Then does so, before he creates a rolling roadblock.

          • PanarchistamericanHelot
            January 12, 2014 at 4:11 am

            “Aggression” is, “intentionally violating another person’s rights.” and, taking what isn’t theirs. I.e. your time, your space. ? No?

            Anyway, I’m waiting for clover to answer Tor’s question, Why does he post here?

            • eric
              January 12, 2014 at 6:24 am

              Hi Panarchist,

              Clover is this site’s remora (excuse the mixed metaphor). He clings on eternally. We figure he’s either a government troll, an angry menopausal old cat lady or a mildly retarded old man typing away in between Wheel of Fortune marathons at the rest home.

          • Me2
            January 12, 2014 at 10:24 am

            Clover – “Facts are facts and you can not change that.”

            Really Clover? What evidence is there that you even comprehend what a fact is? Certainly none in your posts.

            Here is a hint, it’s not whatever BS or strawman you make up to support your idiotic assertions.

          • dom
            January 12, 2014 at 11:15 am

            Clover is a paid-per-comment government troll!

            Here’s his new mark I just created:
            government troll

          • clover
            January 13, 2014 at 9:22 pm

            Eric I liked your comment “Part of driving – good driving – is paying attention to your environment, including the cars around you.” Would that also hold true to the guy that passed me a couple of weeks ago on snow packed and icy roads at 60+ mph and within 30 seconds went flying off the road? Did he have the right to endanger me and the other person in my car, along with the others on the road he passed, when there was a poor environment for driving? What rights did I have to keep him from totaling my car? Government Troll

            I hear your constant complaints about the left lane guy blocking others. It is my observations that the left lane blocker was one of your own kind. He refused to be blocked behind the slower cars in the right lane because guys behind him refusing to let him over when he signaled even with cars coming from well behind him. That long line of cars in the left lane often act like you do and say you were in the left lane first even though you stay there.
            Then there are the times when the traffic is heavy and a guy moves to the left lane passing other cars continually but you get furious at the guy for not breaking the speed limit by a far greater amount. Eric it is not a clover that is blocking but your own kind.

            Editor’s Note: Clover received 25 cents for this comment.

          • BrentP
            January 13, 2014 at 11:31 pm

            Clover, why don’t you tell us how you trolled the poor guy until he got so angry that he lost his temper and just gunned it as hard as he could? He probably only wanted to go 5-10mph faster than you but if you do like you do here you probably intentionally obstructed him. Probably went a step further and slowed down. You certainly didn’t pull to the side and let him by. Why not tell the full story Clover?

          • January 14, 2014 at 2:20 am

            @Eric- How in the flying crap is not moving your car out of someone’s way an aggressive act? By what logic can you construct that as an aggressive act?

            Mind you, it may be a jerk thing to do. But its not aggression. Since the road is no more actually owned by you as it is by whatever clover of the day.

            And this just gets back to my point about needing to allow for libertarians to get a few things wrong, because we all get something wrong at one point. I believe you just blatantly did so here.

            Think of it this way. Say clover doesn’t yield to faster traffic, such as yourself. Would you advocate police punishing him in some way for this? If not, than his actions are not aggression. If so, I think you need to defend that because I’m not getting the logic.

            • eric
              January 15, 2014 at 8:00 am

              David,

              If I deliberately use my body to block you in, to prevent you from walking by me, is this not an aggressive act?

              How is it less aggressive if I use my car to do the same thing?

              Most people understand that to do the former amounts to a provocation – that you’d have every right to push me out of the way, if it came down to it. (This assumes you’d first politely said, “excuse me” and I ignored you and it was obvious I was deliberately trying to prevent you from proceeding.)

              Even Clovers understand this – which is why they rarely try to block people with their bodies. Because they know it’s obnoxious – and that they’re inviting a confrontation.

              Yet, they feel no compunction about doing it with their car. The car is their Superman Suit. It makes them feel invulnerable.

              But the same principle applies.

          • BrentP
            January 14, 2014 at 12:32 pm

            David, most of the blocking and impeding is a direct result of the speed kills conditioning. Of how people are taught. Teach people correctly and this problem goes away.

            Germany IME had little in the way of obstructionist drivers. It’s just the way people are taught.

            Last night I had a conversation with a clover. Big back up at a traffic light… the second I was in… second car up in front of me couldn’t keep up with a garbage truck. She signaled a right turn and slowed her smoothvee to a crawl…. the green expired then yellow, then she brakes. The left lane cleared. This was the 6th time bandit of the evening who couldn’t keep pace with a heavy truck. Mind you I can out accelerate garbage trucks on my bicycle and I would have made that green on a bicycle with enough to spare for three cars or more behind me. There’s no excuse for this IMO. So I have the window down a bit I just say ‘do you have a right foot’…. she heard me and said I have ‘issues’. To her it was perfectly acceptable not to keep up with traffic. Those behind her did not exist and did not deserve any effort or courtesy on her part. It’s how she was taught to drive… to leave these huge gaps in front to be only concerned about what’s in front… to go slow and safe. To people like this traffic back

            Teach people properly and this goes away. They need to recognize what they are doing is rude and then the great majority will stop doing it. Instead in the US they are told the person who wants to go faster is bad/aggressive/whatever. 99.999% the person who wants to go faster just wants to get on his way. They are trained to be obstructionists. German driver training is throughput based. That’s all that’s needed, to change the view.

          • BrentP
            January 14, 2014 at 12:37 pm

            arg… To people like this traffic back ups are something beyond their control. They do not understand how their behavior creates them. They do not recognize anyone behind their a pillars because it is how they are taught.

          • Darien
            January 15, 2014 at 11:21 pm

            Eric:

            If we’re being clear that we’re only talking about the intentional jerks — not the people who are merely ignorant, or too afraid to speed up or move over, but just the people who *could* move, and know they *should* move, but deliberately refuse to — then I’m getting closer to agreeing, since the mens rea requirement of aggression is filled.

            The trouble is that I can’t isolate which discrete, identifiable right these people are violating. If they’d stopped you from using your car at all — boxed it in, for example, so it can’t be driven — then I’d see it, since, frankly, they’ve effectively stolen your car (as they have tacitly asserted the right to control your use of it). I’m not convinced, though, that refusal to give way constitutes the same offense.

            I don’t view this situation as quite analogous to the guy who steps in front of you while you’re walking and refuses to move — he seems more like the guy who slams on his brakes. They’re both intentionally provoking a direct confrontation. This situation I view more like the guy with a full shopping cart who sees you have one item in your hands but won’t let you go ahead of him in the checkout line. Is he a jerk? Absolutely. But is he aggressing?

            • eric
              January 16, 2014 at 8:46 am

              Hi Darien,

              The whole thing’s a matter of common courtesy, of being attentive to your surroundings. A good driver is not oblivious; he regularly scans his mirrors and adjust his driving so as not to be an impediment to other drivers. This driver will be aware of an overtaking car long before it actually draws in behind him; by simply moving right or picking up speed, the situation is defused. Traffic flows.

              I drive fast – usually. But there are times when I drive slowly, because I have to (as when hauling stuff in the truck). In that case, I roll down the window, use my hand to wave them by – and slow down/pull onto the shoulder a bit to make it easier/safer for them. People appreciate this – and I sure appreciate it when the courtesy is returned.

              In my opinion, this is the proper etiquette. It’s not my job to enforce a speed limit; it’s certainly not my place to waste someone else’s time. They may have a good reason to be driving faster than I. Who knows? In any case, it’s no skin off my nose to yield/let the faster-moving car get by. He goes his way, I go mine. Everyone’s happy.

              By being oblivious – by not making an effort to avoid impeding other drivers – one simply ratchets up the tension out there. Needlessy so.

              That’s my 50… now back to the bathroom for another session of worshipping the Kohler….

      • eric
        January 9, 2014 at 2:29 am

        Hi Linda,

        If you take rights out of the equation – as most people do without even thinking about it – then every question is purely an ends-justifies-whatever-means, utilitarian discussion.

        The typical person is utterly oblivious to this – but the people who matter (the true sociopaths manipulating them) understand exactly what they are doing.

    • Tionico
      January 10, 2014 at 5:16 am

      I have never repprted annual miieage to my inurance company, they’ve never asked either. If they start, why, I’ll simply drive a reasonable number of miles, then swap instrument clusters, drive as much as I want, then toward the end of the repprting period swap back to the original. Simple fix. Tw million miles or so with no accidents, my last moving violation twenty years ago, should be no prlblem.

      • eric
        January 10, 2014 at 7:25 am

        Hi Tionico,

        It’s harder to do this with OBD-equipped cars. The computer remembers the mileage. Removing the cluster/changing out the speedometer/odometer won’t alter this. Now, of course, there are ways to hack the system – but it’s another layer of difficulty.

        • El_Gordo
          January 10, 2014 at 9:43 am

          But nothing could be simpler than swapping out the computer. Two screws hold the wiring plugs in.
          Two screws hold the computer in.

          A spare computer for a mid-90’s car cost me < $100.

          It carries the added bonus that if confronted with a CME or EMP, doing that swap will probably get your car running again.

          I think that because the fuel injector circuit is fused (and most of the sensors) the injectors will likely be okay, the other sensors, if blown, will cause codes but probably not disable the vehicle.

          I wish someone had some test data of exactly what happens to a car hit by an EMP. An all-steel car is kind of a Farraday cage by design.

  14. ekrampitzjr
    January 7, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    Brandonjin, these shopping mall parking lots might well have been plowed clear to prevent lawsuits from wrecks and injuries during drifting. With the present problems with sue-mania, that reason seems much more likely.

    In my experience in my state the private property owner is completely responsible for clearing parking lots on his property, much as I’m on the hook to clear my sidewalk for safety reasons. Typically malls and the like here will hire a contractor or might even have their own equipment. The state and municipalities do not normally clear private lots here. Of course, other states might have a different policy.

    • Brandonjin
      January 7, 2014 at 7:52 pm

      I hear what you’re saying, ekrampitzjr. It makes perfect sense for parking lots that are used, and have thru-traffic. However, the only reason someone would go to the parking lot of an out-of-business store, or abandoned mall after snowfall, is to drift. They receive little to no traffic. Nobody has any other reason to go to the store, as it’s been out of business for some time. I’m not sure who owns it, or who plowed it, but I see no reason to waste time plowing half of the snow in these areas. If it were to avoid litigation, then why not fully plow the lots? It was certainly still possible to loose traction in the lots, just not without putting unneeded stress/wear on the car. Also, they didn’t do this last year.

      • GW
        January 8, 2014 at 9:30 am

        Ah Brandonjin – what you say is the folly of youthful thinking.

        EK is right – it is the private property owner that facilitates this action to cover their own arse – not becuase they want to, but because it will be their fault if you or your friends get hurt.

        Remember in today’s world you ae not responsible for your own actions – but Papasan Sam is (that would be all the rest of us).

        Maybe time to give up “drifting”?

        In my day the craze was “Bumper Skiing” – but then not to many cars actually have bumpers that you can hold on to these days.
        (Not that I ever did that as a youth, nor am I advocating atempting this action).

        • Brandonjin
          January 8, 2014 at 2:15 pm

          So, everyone has to plow their out-of-business lots, but only half of the snow? I still don’t get why they don’t just do all of it. There’s no way I could successfully sue someone for crashing in their lot when there is no longer a business there.

          Yes, I gave up drifting 5 days ago, not really my choice though.

          Thanks for the reply.

          • Jean
            January 8, 2014 at 3:43 pm

            “All of it” costs more, and they’re getting no income from the property.

          • Brandonjin
            January 8, 2014 at 4:43 pm

            It does cost more, but it’s not as “safe”. It’s still possible to crash in this scenario, if you’re a clover. So to fully avoid the possibility of litigation, you’d think they would just plow it all. Perhaps to avoid the possibility, they only need to plow in the criss cross to insure safety from lawsuit.

      • Boothe
        January 8, 2014 at 3:39 pm

        Brandonjin – There is an unused small parking lot here in front of Wally-World. For the first four years I lived here, it was the unofficial local “For Sale By Owner” car/truck/boat/camper/motorcycle lot. Everyone loved it. Hardly anyone on their way to Wal-Mart or the strip mall nearby by would pass up a ride through to see what was for sale. I bought an SUV, a motorcycle and boat out of that lot. Then some bonehead parked his bike out there unsecured and someone stole it in the middle of the night. He goes back and tries to sue the property owners (Wal-Mart apparently leases the property, but doesn’t own it). This boneheaded Mr. Buttnugget was unsuccessful with his litigation, but the owners weren’t happy with the perceived threat. The next thing we knew, signs were up warning that vehicles parked there for sale would be towed away at the owners expense. Just one Buttnugget ruined it for the rest of us.

        Probably some Buttnugget drifted his car on a snow covered parking lot, somewhere in Amerika, hit a lamp post or a storefront and then sued over the “attractive nuisance” the owners allowed to exist on their property. Based on some legal precedent like that, I’ll bet the abandoned store owner’s liability insurer has said if you want to keep your policy in force you must plow and cross plow to stop this reckless behavior. So much for personal accountablity and so much for snow drifting. Or as Eric so aptly points out, it only takes a spoonful of feces in the ice cream to ruin the whole gallon.

        • Brandonjin
          January 8, 2014 at 4:38 pm

          Boothe, thanks for the story, and sorry for the outcome of the situation. Seems like it would be applicable to my situation, and the more I think about it, the more I believe you’re right. Since they just started doing this this year, I’m betting last year someone managed to crash in an open, deserted parking lot, and tried to sue.

          People use the “one person CAN ruin it for everyone” mentality, with firearms. As such, one elementary school shooting should justify taking away guns for all, but it does not happen.

          It does happen for empty parking lots though. So where is this line drawn? On the number of people it effects? Certainly fewer people are upset over plowing 50% of a parking lot vs taking away guns, but I’d like someone to entertain the question on where the difference lies.

          • BrentP
            January 8, 2014 at 5:25 pm

            I call this the government school or grade school mentality. Alternatively the prison camp or occupied town mentality. One person gets out of line, everyone is punished.

            The reason I go with school is because that is where I first noticed its practice. I was in 6th or 7th grade at the time when it hit me that were being group restricted, group punished, etc but the reality a few individuals were the cause. But what I think happens instead of having that waking moment it just sticks with people. It becomes how they think.

            So when Bobby Buttnugget does something wrong, hurts himself, hurts someone else, the call goes out to ‘do something about it’. To restrict everyone. It’s just how people think because it is how they were taught to think.

            Guns are no different from doing doughnuts in a parking lot. The call for mass restriction and mass punishment goes out after someone taking FDA approved drugs flips out per the known side effects of taking this stuff and shoots a bunch of people. There is just been enough resistance to it so far that it hasn’t all stuck. The mentality is quite universal across subjects though.

            Now in most places this is where I get called a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or worst. But there’s no conspiracy. Those who run this collective simply plant a seed that gets just about everyone thinking the way that is best for those that run the collective. Everyone is free to reject it, but largely they don’t. That’s why control of the schools started before that of the money. Conditioning how people think is how society is controlled. Small inputs, big results.

            Now you might ask why such a resistance for guns? Well I am not exactly sure, but it’s probably just something more people who aren’t conditioned can put energy into fighting. It’s also that people feel more than think. Guns are an emotional topic for many, they’ll fight out of emotion just as much as logic and principle. So for this one topic more fight is put up. Most things people don’t even pay attention to. They won’t even know there is a law or court decision until they get nailed on it themselves.

            Just yesterday I saw news story from Australia that people were angry about being ticketed for leaving their car windows open a crack when parked in the heat… why is there a law? because bobby buttnugget’s ute got stolen or something when he left the windows down too far.

          • Darien
            January 8, 2014 at 8:31 pm

            I’m very happy to see that “Bobby Buttnugget” has become a keeper. :-)

          • Boothe
            January 9, 2014 at 12:55 am

            Brandonjin – I fully concur with BrentP’s analysis. The Prussian school model works on the vast majority of its victims, there’s no doubt about it. But there are those of us it does not work on; we’re the “red pill” people and we want to see how deep the rabbit hole really goes. We the remnant want to know and often aggressively seek out the truth no matter where the rabbit hole takes us. And when we find out what’s really going on or identify glaring discrepancies in the official story and write about it, we become a thorn in the side of the PTB. But one thing stands their way of squelching us; our guns.

            The crux of the gun issue in Amerika is that private firearms ownership is the quintessential indicator of Liberty. It is the fangs of the Bill of Rights. Without the ability to rise up and mount a defense against tyranny, the rest of the Bill of Rights is just so much paper rubbish. The right to keep and bear arms is the final check and balance in this system of government. How so? Well because it is the right to shoot the bastards when they’ve finally stepped far enough over the line!

            Guns are a very emotional issue it is true. Without a gun, my ex-wife would have been a rape victim. You can bet your ass she gets emotional over any proposal that would disarm her. My current wife has stopped a couple of potential problems with her gun. She feels the same way as my ex- if you want to take her gun. Guns are a fundamental part of what it means to be American; it is ingrained in our psyches. We understand that a government that fears us is the best kind and if we fear the government we are living under tyranny.

            So the the difference lies in the fact that sliding around on someone else’s snow covered parking lot may be good fun, but it is not a right. And the owner of the parking lot is well within his rights to tell the rest of us to stay off his property and we know this. But when the government comes in and says they are going to start taking guns from the peaceful and law abiding, this signals an act of naked tyranny and many of us recognize it for what it is; a violation of our rights. The natural response is to push back and that is what many, and so far, enough of us do, publik skool education notwithstanding.

          • GW
            January 9, 2014 at 7:31 am

            The fact that there is no business operating out of the building is immaterial – when one sues they always go for the deepest pockets to pay off the requested “bribe” (lawsuit).

            Many business – Kmart / Walmart etc are set up as umbrella corporations to purposely muddy the waters and protect against losses (lawsuits or otherwise).

            Let’s take Kmart as an example and I may not have the company names exactly right but the gist is the same.

            KMC is an “Investment” Corporation which owns the underlying business called KMART.
            KMC also owns a second called KMC PROPERTIES.

            So right there the wealth of the greater business that we know in the vernacular as KMART is spread out among 3 different entities.
            KMC INVESTMENTS owns all the stock.
            KMART owns all the merchandise.
            KMC PROPERTIES owns all the land.

            So if you get hurt in the parking lot and sue KMART you have no standing because they don’t own the property – they rent it from their sister company.

            That is why you need a lawyer to figure out who to sue and also why the Property Owner plows the parking lot – so Bobby Buttnugget doesn’t go “drifting” there.

          • BrentP
            January 9, 2014 at 11:03 am

            A lot of the splitting into multiple corporate entities is done for tax reasons not so much liability. These constructs take advantage of how the tax code is written.

          • Brandonjin
            January 9, 2014 at 10:11 pm

            Thanks for the clarification and education everyone.
            Brent, it makes sense that this mentality sticks with people, and I see how those that rule the collective appreciate the train of thought. Certainly makes control easier.

            Darien, I’ll call him Mr. B.

            Boothe, a personal side-effect I have with the red pill (I call myself a red-piller, but still feel I have quite a ways to go) is the need to want to know how certain things actually work, the truth, but never being able to satisfy that thirst for information, as true understanding is not allowed in the real world. Quick example: For me, I’d love to simply take a tour around the innards of Area 51, and absorb what those at the top of our government are working on, have constructed, and have found. But I’ll never be able to do that, ever.

            I am very glad we have a right to bear arms. Maybe we should have the right to do more things. Is it possible to have too many rights?

            GW, it seems very wise of the companies divide their assets under the umbrella. The knowledge certainly has me seeing things differently. Just a reminder though, Mr. B was in fact the one who did drift there, and made it so everyone else can not.

          • methylamine
            January 10, 2014 at 12:24 pm

            @Boothe–

            The crux of the gun issue in Amerika is that private firearms ownership is the quintessential indicator of Liberty. It is the fangs of the Bill of Rights.

            I used to think L. Neil Smith was over-simplifying with his pure emphasis on the 2A. And I still think the FIRST state apparatus we should dismantle is the central bank aka “Federal” “Reserve”.

            Plenty of snarky little progressive shits on forums taunt libertarians for being cowards and not using their guns–“What good is it doing you?”

            Well for one thing–it’s there. The guns are there, and here, and everywhere…and the tyrants know it, and fear it with the craven fear a hyena feels for a lion. Why else are they so dedicated to removing them?

            In fact the guns are ALREADY protecting our freedom, even before we start using them. Does anyone doubt the agenda would have moved much more quickly had the guns not been in the equation?

            And as we move to the next stage, they’ll play a pivotal role. They are not the answer–this war won’t be won by force. It will be won by principle and persuasion–but the mopping-up of tyrants will have to be done by force.

            The gun-grabbers aren’t done, but they’ve had their asses handed to them over the last 12 months. Household gun ownership is up a stunning 5%–to 39% of households. I guarantee it’s much higher–after all, what would you answer to some cold-caller asking if you own guns?

            Record sales, month after month, year after year, since Obomber was selected. Every time I go to the store or the range, I see people buying AR’s–most recently, a group of (very) pretty Asian girls buying two pink-stocked AR’s. When you see giggling cute girls, Asian girls, buying militarily-competent semi-auto rifles…

            …game over, gun-grabbers, and fuck you and the naggy horses you rode in on!

          • Jean
            January 10, 2014 at 6:59 pm

            RE: Guns, I read something recently that’s been sticking in my craw… Wish I could find it.
            The writer made a point, by stepping through the restrictions, that the people became dependent on, even welcoming OF, tyranny – because of how bad “everywhere else” was.
            Because, no matter what – they had their guns! No one would ever try “THAT” here, because we could resist!

            And the author pointed out the restrictions, the “without cause” searches, the inconveniences, etc.

            Another one a while back pointed to the other end of things…
            People were organizing to protest the gun laws where they were. It walked you through the whole week, signing petitions, hoarding arms, concealing things, public protests… and one person, at the final rally, felt sick… As (s)he watched the schoolbus pull up, taking their children to (gunvernmint) skool.

            There IS no line. People don’t WANT to think. They want to be cared for. Humans are LAZY. Indifferent. (And I’ve read we cannot even handle thinking of ourselves in teh future, as thinking it’s US. The future Us is someone Else. mentally, it’s the Other. “Not Us.”)

            Good example, talking politics with my best friend in High School, we were both middle-class, white, privileged (IE, upper middle class), Catholic, from intact two-parent family, dumbass kids. Sophomore and Junior, I think. We were talking one of the wars, I think Desert Storm, and teh question was, who should make the decision? (I’m leaving a lot out; that was finally the question I posed to him, basically: Who decided when it was time to DO something?)
            His answer was, “A better man then me.” (And that’s a quote.)

            I asked him the same question I’m hearing in several spots here, only the converse (I think).
            It’s the same thing: Who decides when you’ve had enough sugar? Or had enough driving time? Or enough arsenic? Or enough adderol? Enough cholesterol? Sunlight? Electricity? Water?
            I explained it was on HIM to handle things. Micro or macro, if HE wasn’t “the better man,” he had no right to complain.

            Because everyone is different, there’s a problem.
            It’s one of the reasons I believe in the Judaeo-Christian traditions and rules: It posits a higher power, and keeps those who WOULD aggress (but are fundamentally cowards) in line, because SOMEONE is ALWAYS watching, and you’ll answer afterwards: whether it’s Set or Lucifer matters little, just as there are those who ARE evil, and will DO evil, regardless: But like a lock on your car doors, it keeps honest people honest. Lock makes it too much trouble to get in; the theif who would be a thief regardless? Breaks the window….

            Counter-example is the ButNugget who does something “reckless” and “stupid” and then sues. “Drifting” into a lamp-post, say, and then suing everyone possible, just hoping for a payday.

            I did something like that… I was a kid, 13 or so, out in the sun for too long one day. No water. There were kids who had a skateboard ramp set up in the park, I had my bike. I agreed to ride my bike off the ramp. I did so. I blacked out on “takeoff” which might’ve saved my life. 36 stitches and a broken clavicle later… I proceeded to sue… NO ONE. Not that I knew anyone to sue, regardless – the thought never even ocurred to me.
            I did something stupid; I had to heal up. End of story. No one MADE me do it, I was probably sun-poisoned, dehydrated, and did something very dumb, and came within about 2 inches of literally killing myself.

            Hey, shit happens. Deal with it.
            You went drifting? Lost control, or drifted too far, and hit the lamp post or a sleeper? On you. You DECIDED to do it.
            It’s like getting into the wrestling ring and complaining because you got body slammed.
            Well… DUH!

            The truth is, there IS no difference – just as there is no difference for suing someone ELSE for something STUPID _YOU_ did. Attacking through the law, such as suing, is still aggression. If it is RESPONSIVE is the question, for the NAP types. IE, you got attacked by the owner (because you were there, no warning); or the owner placed you in imminent harm, such as sending you into their mine, knowing the mine would collapse (and not telling you.) This would be retalliatory on your part, instead of offensive violence.

            As a result, the owenr’s (in your example) defense is to plow the lot enough thay you are discouraged from doing the “risky” behavior. Pro-active defense, if you will, from the ButNugget who’ll show up in court with a neck brace and physical paralysis attested to by a doctor… and demand a million dollars for “injuries”… and their first stop will be the shrine at Lourdes, where there will be one HELL of a miracle…

            Can’t say I blame the owners…. It’s ridiculous, but we’ve allowed the camel’s nose so far into the tent, we’re 69ing the beast… From the underside.

            It’s just that resistance over $0.15 for each of us takes too much work – easier to NOT fight a ILGWU for their extra tiny bit of taxes, and just WORK an extra hour – and earn FAR more than we’ll pay in taxes. (Sort of.)

            And so the world goes round, and we get ground
            under the millstone, ‘neath the crushing sound.
            And our bones they break,
            and our lives THEY take,
            and our children, they do it again…

            (Not bad for off the cuff… but it shows how punch-drunk I am. I can’t do poetry to save my life when sober and conscious. And I haven’t had a drink yet today… :-P )

          • Brandonjin
            January 11, 2014 at 10:43 pm

            Jean,

            “Who decides when you’ve had enough?”
            I bet we’d generally agree that each person knows themselves best. But taking a look at some of the worst of humanity, maybe someone else actually should make their decisions. Shame natural selection is not allowed to take place.

            “But like a lock on your car doors, it keeps honest people honest.”
            +1 I like it.

            “Hey, shit happens. Deal with it… It’s like getting into the wrestling ring and complaining because you got body slammed.
            Well… DUH!”

            Exactly. This is how I thought things were, for my scenario. It’s definitely how things SHOULD be. I agree. Given what’s been discussed, if it was the owners, I wouldn’t blame them for doing what they have to do to avoid another attempted lawsuit. As you say, “we’ve allowed the camel’s nose so far into the tent”… I really wish I had heard about my local Mr. B who crashed.

            “who’ll show up in court with a neck brace and physical paralysis attested to by a doctor… and demand a million dollars for “injuries”… and their first stop will be the shrine at Lourdes, where there will be one HELL of a miracle”
            Interesting how that works. Reminds me of the people who get real good at finding a job in their last two weeks of unemployment benefits.

    • Darien
      January 7, 2014 at 9:46 pm

      Up here, there are four types of roads — state roads, borough roads, municipal roads, and private roads. Each one is the “responsibility” of a different group — the state, the borough, the town, and the landowner, respectively. It leads to some fairly interesting shenanigans.

      For example. Where I live is on a “municipal” road… in an unincorporated town. It’s fed by a “borough” road, and to get to work I travel down that road onto the Parks highway, which is a “state” road. Here’s the good part. The owners of a major local trucking company also live on my road, so they make sure it’s kept up very nicely. The borough road? Well, they’ll get to that… eventually. The state road? Later still. So you get the odd net result of a rinky-dink back road that’s totally clear and drivable leading to a significant road that’s choppy and unpleasant, and then you turn on to major state highway that’s almost impassable.

      Good work, snow bureaucrats!

  15. Brandonjin
    January 7, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Pay by mile tax is interesting. So they’ll charge the commuter guy, who’s car gets 40mpg, more than they’ll charge the rich guy who drives 100 miles a year in his 10MPG lambo. Today though, even though commuter guy uses more gas a year than the rich guy, the rich guy gets the gas guzzler tax. I wonder if they’ll fix a car’s MPG into the specific charge of each mile’s tax.

    They will not track us… Didn’t they say they’re not spying on us?

    “It will be the end of the American love affair with the car.” This reminds me of a story I’d like to bitch to you guys about. After the snowfall on Thursday/Friday, Friday night, me and some friends decided to go “drifting” in the snow. Our town has two malls, one is functioning, the other is completely dead. You know how big malls and their parking lots are…
    Well, the state won’t plow the fucking roads, but they sure as hell will plow a deserted mall parking lot (not even fully, just a criss-cross pattern) to make sure you can’t drift without ruining your tread. We checked the parking lot of a grocery store that went out of business afterwards, and that too, was plowed in the same criss-cross pattern. It genuinely depressed me. I don’t know if it was the city or the state, but fuck them both.

    They’re truly trying to disconnect any enjoyment possible, and the automobile. All part of the plan, as you contend.

    • Jean
      January 8, 2014 at 1:49 pm

      Ready for sniper school yet…?

      • Brandonjin
        January 8, 2014 at 2:07 pm

        Yes. I’m not 100% sure about what you’re implying, but certainly.

        • Jean
          January 8, 2014 at 3:43 pm

          I only imply that knowledge is always useful; how you use that knowledge is always up to you….

          I’m sure the logic will settle eventually. :-)

          • Brandonjin
            January 8, 2014 at 4:48 pm

            LOL

            I’m all for bettering myself and enhancing my skills.

            I guess, since they’re taking away this hobby, I’ll take up a new one… ;D

      • methylamine
        January 10, 2014 at 12:10 pm

        Getting there, Jean, getting there.

        Got 90% in the head at 300yds with 50BMG this weekend. I’m better with 7.62×51, because the 50 moves that huge column of air through the muzzle brake as it fires. You really have to have perfect NPOA and get your center of gravity behind that thing so it doesn’t torque over as it fires.

        “Stand your ground; don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”–Captain John Parker, April 19, 1775

        Let me put in a good word for The Appleseed Project–a group of patriots who teach basic marksmanship in (practically free) weekend courses. I’m an OK marksman…been shooting since I was 7. But what these guys teach in a weekend is worth a decade of hunt-and-peck learning on your own.

        • eric
          January 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm

          I really need to get outside with the rifle more…. 90 percent in the head at 300 yards… hat tip, sir!

          I’m ok with a pistol at defensive ranges (20 yards or so). Enough to hit center mass accurately.

          I need to get better….

          • methylamine
            January 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm

            Thanks Eric–but honestly it’s no great accomplishment. The head on my target is about 9 inches on average–it’s oval-ish.

            9 inches at 300 yds is 3MOA…the rifle is capable of 1MOA, meaning I’m moving it six inches on average.

            With the 7.62 or 5.56, I’m about 2.5MOA.

            To put that in perspective though–that same day there was a guy with a .338 Lapua on the 600 yard range, shooting a 4-inch steel target like a metronome…”BANG!…ding…BANG!…ding…”

            He had a 20x scope.

            Guy next to him? Yeah, he was the one who embarrassed me. ‘Cuz he was going “BANG!…ding…” with a 5.56. With iron sights.

            I figure a 4-inch at 600yds is like shooting a quarter at 100yds–roughly 2/3 of an MOA, or 2/3 of an inch at 100yds.

            I’m OK to 200 with iron sights. I’ll try 300 next time I’m out, just to see. The Appleseed guys reckon you SHOULD be able to hit a man-size target at 500 reliably with iron sights.

            Maybe I should get my Lasik touched up; I hear the new lasers can get you 20/15 or even 20/10!

        • January 10, 2014 at 2:40 pm

          Spend some range time with something that chambers the 7.62x54R cartridge. I highly recommend the 189 gr. Winchester heavy soft load, but the standard 149 gr. Sellier & Bellot steeltip shows the same characteristics. Its a reasonably heavy but super high velocity load almost impervious to windage, no torque on the rifle (just a hard mule kick straight into your should – make sure you use a prone position) and highly predictable elevation drop per 100m. Please don’t bother getting a feel for the round on those $149 Mosin Nagant carbines… do yourself a favor and make sure you bring a snaiperskaya or a dragunov. You’ll be amazed how easy it is to create good groups at 500m or even 700m.

          • methylamine
            January 10, 2014 at 5:22 pm

            Thanks Deet!

            I’ve heard good things about the 54R round. Problem is, I don’t want to proliferate calibers. I’m standardized on 5.56, 7.62×51, and 50BMG.

            I’m looking at some bolt-action 308 guns like the various Remington 700’s and the Savages. From what I’ve read–please correct me if you know different–is that it’s practically impossible to get a semi-auto as accurate as a bolt.

            I’ve heard of accurized M1A’s as well. Heavy gun though. Cracked up one time reading a forum–the guy was extolling the virtues of the M1A as a survivalist’s gun and he said when he runs out of ammo he’ll be swinging the damn thing like a battle club while loudly singing the Marine Fight Song…while the AR guys are poking feebly with their flash suppressors.

            That said, there are some really desirable Les Baer and LaRue AR-10 clones…big bucks for the accurate ones though. I think Les Baer guarantees 1/2 MOA–and sends a five-shot proof target to back it up!

            OTOH…it’s four grand.

            Remind me again…did I mortgage my left nut for a Boss 302 Laguna Seca or was that the right one? And was the other one pending something else?

          • Shoal Creek
            January 12, 2014 at 12:46 pm

            @Methyl,

            Regarding bolt action vs semi-auto, it is easier to build an accurate bolt action rifle, thus you will find relatively inexpensive bolt action guns from Remington and Savage that are quite accurate. That being said, if your willing to pay for a good quality semi-auto, you will find several that are every bit as accurate as any bolt gun–and if they aren’t, a quick visit to any good gunsmith will make them as accurate. The trick is finding a good gunsmith, which is only slightly easier than finding a good mechanic.

          • methylamine
            January 12, 2014 at 4:26 pm

            @Deet–I’ve also read about and seen the 338 Lapua Magnum in action; a really impressive round, twice the energy of 308Win. Unfortunately still damned expensive, around 3 bucks/shot.

            @Shoal Creek–now that’s interesting. I’m a novice as far as gunsmithing knowledge. I have read that part of accuracy is how true the bolt face is to the axis of the barrel, and how accurate and repeatable the headspace is. This favors bolt action, as they’re positively engaged each time. But the trueness is easily corrected for either, I imagine just by lapping the bolt/barrel hookup point?

            I’ll so some more reading. If I can make a semi-auto 1/2MOA I’ll be very happy not to spend 4 grand on a Les Baer.

          • Giuseppe Crowe
            January 12, 2014 at 9:19 pm

            Hi Deet, et al,

            I traded last year an M94 and an old Spanish mauser for a Swiss K31 in excellent shape. It’s sort of an impractical gun in many ways but I love shooting it…..hit pretty well with iron sights at 100 and 200 yards. Not really like the folks who compete, but that’s not my bag. There’s a youtube video of a guy shooting at 1000 yards at an 10″ steel target with iron sights and he hits it two out of five times….I’ve been using Swiss milsurp ammo. For my purposes, in the accuracy vs. ammo availability vs. cost, .308 is almost ideal. I have a bolt action Tikka T3 and it’s more accurate than my ability to shoot it. I agree with methylamine below about standardizing on calibers. I have chosen .308 and 5.56 with dies for both for practical rifle calibers. The K31 is a novelty but really a wonderful one. The 50BMG is too rich for my blood.

            I don’t hunt, my shooting is simply a hobby with possible application in a SHTF scenario. I’d rather not have to use the skills for self-defense but would not hesitate for a New York nanosecond in a me or them situation. What do others do for places to shoot? I belong to a club that has pistol, skeet and 100/200/300 yard rifle ranges. $75 a year……

          • Boothe
            January 12, 2014 at 11:29 pm

            Methylamine – One issue with most semi-automatic rifles is that they have hammers that fall on an arc. This includes the M1 Garand, M14/M1A, AR variants and so on and so forth. Bolt action rifles typically employ a striker that drives straight into the primer. Here’s the essential difference: When the hammer impacts the firing pin, it drives the rear of the firing pin upward, which in turn drives the tip of the firing pin and the cartridge base down, driving the bullet nose upward. As the bullet exits the cartridge it basically bounces off of the leade and then resonates back into true as it goes down the bore. This causes harmonics that can adversely affect accuracy. This is one reason that the USMC resisted going from their tried and true 1903 bolt guns to the “new fangled” M1 Garand for national match use back in the day.

            Another issue is chamber tightness. A semi-auto, especially when employed for martial service where reliability is literally a matter of life and death, must have a slightly loose chamber. This is to allow for dirt and debris clearance under field conditions. Since you can “cam” a cartridge into a bolt gun’s chamber with its locking lugs, you can get away with a tighter chamber which contributes to its accuracy.

            This is not to say that you can’t build a very accurate semi. Of course you can, but you will put more money (or man hours) into it to achieve the same accuracy that you’d get from many “off the shelf” bolt actions. When you start tightening things up to decrease your group size, slick up the trigger and lighten its pull weight, stiffen the stock, add match springs, gas piston, spring guide rods (M1A as an example) you can easily end up with a very accurate match rifle that is not really suitable for defensive use.

            I’d say stick with a purpose built bolt gun for tactical / sniper use and a reliable semi like an M4rgery or AK variant for CQB. If you need longer range with reliability, it’s not unreasonable to build an AR-10 or M1A that will turn in 1.5 to 2 MOA performance. At 800 yards that will be a 12 to 16″ group and most of us won’t shoot that far anyway. Heck, even a good hunting rifle like a Browning or Model 70 Winchester will probably shoot that well out of the box. Slick the barrel up with some David Tubb honing rounds, polish the sear, bed the action and with some decent optics (and ruling out a lemon), you’ll most likely have a great shooter.

            The main thing is to get a weapon that feels good to you and works well for you; then practice, practice, practice! As the old saying goes, beware the man that only has one gun; he probably knows how to use it. ;)

          • methylamine
            January 13, 2014 at 1:34 am

            Boothe–really great info, thank you.
            Very much stands to reason, too, re: looser chamber for greater reliability but with less accuracy.

            I’ve had exactly one jam in thousands of rounds of 5.56 in one of my AR’s; very dirty chamber, and the round just didn’t go into battery. The forward assist wouldn’t push it in enough…and more alarmingly, it was very tough to extract. I couldn’t get it out at all.

            So with great trepidation I dropped a cleaning rod down the muzzle–gun pointed down range–and gave the round a solid tap. Finally it extracted.

            Not something you’d want happening in the heat of the moment, I imagine.

            As far as accuracy–it’s all relative anyway. My guns are more accurate than I am; I’m a 2 or 2.5MOA shooter at 200 yards, so my lust for a 1/2 MOA gun is more for bragging rights than my current ability to exploit it!

            The HK91 and its PTR91 clone are advertised as 1MOA guns. The HK91 comes with a 3- or 5-shot proof target that’s 1MOA. I wonder what they do to achieve that? As delayed blow-back designs, perhaps they can run their chamber tighter than a gas-operated gun?

          • Boothe
            January 13, 2014 at 11:11 am

            Methylamine – The HK91 / G3 is indeed a delayed blowback roller locking action. Here are some contributing factors that may be what gives this rifle a reputation for superior accuracy. It has no piston & op rod which are items that are often replaced on an M1A to “tighten it up” when building a National Match rifle. I’m not completely sure why these parts affect accuracy, but I suspect it has to do with two things: Since recoil starts almost immediately upon the bullet exiting the cartridge, due to operating clearances, those parts start to move too. Depending on how much “slop” or tolerance stack-up is between them, it could cause the rifle to pull slightly one way or the other at the gaps close and the parts impact each others’ mating surfaces as recoil overcomes their inertia. Think of it like the inertia driven device that locks auto-retracting seat belts. Without all those moving parts the G3/HK91, I believe, would not suffer from that affect through the recoil impulse. You also have the gas venting into the cylinder as the bullet passes by the gas port, which starts the ejection / loading cycle. Depending on timing, this could occur just as the bullet exits the muzzle, here again moving the rifle ever so slightly or changing barrel harmonics.

            You may also be right about the chamber dimensions, although I would suspect it will still be loose since we are talking about a combat rifle built to mil-specs. What could be a factor is German precision in cutting the chamber. Of course the barrel itself employs polygonal rifling, which is argued by some in the firearms community to be more accurate than conventional land and groove rifling. Polygonal rifling for those of you who don’t know is where the bore (i.e. the interior of the barrel) itself is cut or formed into a polygon (i.e. like a pentagon or hexagon) and the rifling are more or less facets, rather than cut grooves and raised lands. This essentially swages the bullet into the shape of the bore and some folks believe this makes a more accurate barrel. Polygonal barrels are also supposedly easier to clean. Glock pistols use this type of rifling too.

            Another factor is that the G3/HK91 has arguably the best set of combat sights ever put on a service rifle. Good sights make for better marksmanship. In addition to that, the ones I’ve fooled with over the years had decent triggers (for military rifles) too. Add all that up: fewer moving parts, excellent sights, German manufacturing precision, decent trigger pull and polygonal barrel, and I’m not surprised these rifles have a reputation for accuracy. They have a reputation for one other thing too; they tend to extract and eject cartridges in such a way and with so much force that they ding up brass pretty badly. So if you are a handloader that want to reuse his brass, you would be far better off with an M1A or AR-10 variant if you must have a semi-auto.

          • methylamine
            January 13, 2014 at 11:37 am

            @Boothe–

            Yes, that makes sense…no gas port, no pistons or rods hanging off the barrel contributing movement.

            On the aggressive ejection–hell, yes! I can attest to it. Mine hurls that fuckin’ brass out of the chamber so hard you could kill the guy to your right…and forget reloading it, it leaves a big dent in the side of the case almost every round.

            I’ve seen adapters for the G3/HK91 that look like the bump on an AR’s ejection port, that supposedly lessen this tendency.

            The 91’s are a brilliant design. I’m surprised the delayed-blowback hasn’t been replicated more. Simple, accurate, and reliable–so much so that the South African and Rhodesian forces refer to the G3 as “kaffir-proof”.

            *kaffir–Afrikaans slur for black people. Originally from Arabic, “kefir” or “kafir”, meaning simply “infidel” or “non-believer”. If uttered in public now, it’s a near-instant death penalty. Much worse than “nigger”.

        • Giuseppe Crowe
          January 13, 2014 at 6:20 pm

          My big issue with The Appleseed Project is their pricing structure….e.g. free for “LEOs” and military. Should be the other way around…..

          • Boothe
            January 13, 2014 at 9:06 pm

            Guiseppe Crowe – Unfortunately, there are still a lot of Amerikans that worship at the alter of the military & police. And you can figure a lot of the guys that run Appleseed are military and cops (or veterans thereof). But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There’s a lot of good training to be had at Appleseed and anything that puts the fear in the PTB, such as high power rifle marksmanship, is a good thing.

  16. ric
    January 7, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    My uncle has a country place
    That no one knows about.
    He says it used to be a farm,
    Before the Motor Law.
    And on Sundays I elude the Eyes,
    And hop the Turbine Freight
    To far outside the Wire,
    Where my white-haired uncle waits.

    Jump to the ground
    As the Turbo slows to cross the Borderline.
    Run like the wind,
    As excitement shivers up and down my spine.
    Down in his barn,
    My uncle preserved for me an old machine,
    For fifty-odd years.
    To keep it as new has been his dearest dream.

    I strip away the old debris
    That hides a shining car.
    A brilliant red Barchetta
    From a better, vanished time.
    I fire up the willing engine,
    Responding with a roar.
    Tires spitting gravel,
    I commit my weekly crime…

    Wind-
    In my hair-
    Shifting and drifting-
    Mechanical music-
    Adrenalin surge…

    Well-weathered leather,
    Hot metal and oil,
    The scented country air.
    Sunlight on chrome,
    The blur of the landscape,
    Every nerve aware.

    Suddenly ahead of me,
    Across the mountainside,
    A gleaming alloy air-car
    Shoots towards me, two lanes wide.
    I spin around with shrieking tires,
    To run the deadly race,
    Go screaming through the valley
    As another joins the chase.

    Drive like the wind,
    Straining the limits of machine and man.
    Laughing out loud
    With fear and hope, I’ve got a desperate plan.
    At the one-lane bridge
    I leave the giants stranded at the riverside.
    Race back to the farm, to dream with my uncle at the fireside

  17. Robert
    January 7, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    And from public-transport-for-all, Gary, it’s just a short step to the front-end loaders from “Soylent Green.” Those are the ultimate “people movers,” after all. :-o

    Oh, and Flo honey, I got an idea for where you can plug that Snapshot thing of yours …

  18. Garysco
    January 7, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    All along the road to forced public transportation for slaves who can’t afford the luxury of a personal car.

  19. Tor Minotaur
    January 7, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    We gonna jump down turn around, pay a bale of taxes, jump down turn around pay a bale a day.

    We gonna get on the ground and pay a bale of taxes, keep our hands where they can see ‘em and pay a bale a day.

    We gonna pay, pay, pay, pay, pay a bale of taxes,

    Pay, pay, pay, pay, pay a bale a day.

    Lead Belly – Pick A Bale Of Cotton – live 1945

    – P.S.: I think the mailing address zip code is 24079 not 2407 as listed above.

    • Jean
      January 8, 2014 at 1:27 pm

      Tor, makes me think of the results of your lyrics….

      So many failed with no tale to tell.
      And it’s only remembered be the stain they left
      On the axe.

      (http://lyrics.wikia.com/Dark_Lotus:Pass_The_Axe)

      :-D

      • Tor Minotaur
        January 10, 2014 at 6:11 am

        Dark Lotus – Pass The Axe

        Another Dark Lotus

        • Jean
          January 10, 2014 at 11:13 am

          Every year there’s more of us / and all we do is fill the box…
          [...]
          I can see you near the bed when I look through this tiny crack
          You become much older now and I don’t see you turning back
          Seven years in darkness I can only hope my wish comes true
          That one day I’ll get you in my hands…AND I’LL PLAY WITH YOU!!
          _____

          But Uncle Sam thinks the box is locked…. :-D

          • Tor Minotaur
            January 10, 2014 at 3:01 pm

            “None of you seem to understand. I’m not locked in here with you. You’re locked in here with *ME*!” – Rorschach

            This scene is an excellent portrayal of how to defend oneself while complying with NAP.

            Additionally, through an immediate and impressive response, future violence is likely avoided from other would-be aggressors.

            Most likely they will find other less challenging victims to dominate and live off of.

            • eric
              January 10, 2014 at 3:18 pm

              I love Watchmen – and always admired Rorschach’s character the most.

              Owl was number two.

          • Jean
            January 10, 2014 at 5:47 pm

            Didn’t someone comment (to ME) a while back about Rorschach being an uber-clover? Can’t find it now, but I looked into it a little mroe. Movie-wise, I can’t see it.
            He’s much like Batman in a sense; the human face IS the mask, the creature he has become (whether Rorschah or Batman) is the real person.

            I never had the patience to get through the graphic novel, though.

            BTW: Rorschach, then Comedian. But I’d wager everyone guessed that already… ;-)

            • eric
              January 10, 2014 at 6:01 pm

              If you like the Comedian, you’d really like the Punisher. He’s my kind of guy, too!

              Ever see this?

          • Jean
            January 10, 2014 at 7:50 pm

            Eric,
            Can’t watch while at work. (Capping off… Dunno, 11 hours today? After 14 on Wednesday, and 9 yesterday…. I’m an idiot. But anyway…)

            I’ll check when home. But all three punisher films were good one way or another.
            Dolph Lundgren got the nihilistic attitude.
            Thomas Jane nailed the story pretty well. (Based on “Welcome Home, Frank” IIRC.) Showed the dedication and the planning.
            Warzone was ugly and brutal, good for the combat aspect. Also decent from the point of view of Punisher’s willingness to do what’s necessary: to WIN, even if he’s only the corpse with his arm up when it’s done.

            I haven’t found any that were “the punisher” without being official, though. Probably need to go looking…

            BTW: Punisher: Born. Vietnam is too far away for most of the wet-behind-the-ears types today. (also a lifetime away in combat. Insurgency is probably close, but the jungle vs the desert, i’m guessing a lot has changed, especially our soldiers, and it wouldn’t make much sense.)

            Pity, that, I liked “Born.”

            BTW, no one understands Punisher Jane’s “Statement of intent.” I can’t comprehend what’s so hard to get there. It’s no different from Harry Callahan throwing his badge away. He’d worked outside the law; the badge was inappropriate. He was, in a sense, a disgrace to the uniform – and knew it. Accepted it as “cost of doing business.” Cop to Vigilante. (and yet, in the second film, he went AGAINST the cops-as-vigilantes.)
            Frank Castle was no different. A Cop, of a sort, and a decent enough character (person) insofar as the cop-role allowed. Looking to arrest, and not interested in killing; also not presented as interested in being Officer Friendly, but certainly didn’t give a crap about “THE LAW” as inviolate. Interested in the big fish, major dealers of drugs and weapons. IE, heart in right place, head firmly up @$$.

            Which was point 2: Sometimes, the law is inadequate. Sometimes, you need to highlight (shame) the inadequacy.
            The sheep can’t understand that “THE LAW” could ever be inadequate.
            They also don’t understand that vigilantes (by definition) aren’t punished for “taking the law into their own hands” in the sense of “they are a public meange / danger.” The Vigilante is punished BECAUSE HE SHAMED THE LAW FOR BEING IANDEQUATe, he “took the law (as written) into his own hands,” and “made himself judge, jury, and executioner.” Which TPTB consider to be the ULTIMATE threat: A person who will think, AND ACT. THAT man is a threat – can’t be told, “The system failed.” He knows the system is DESIGNED to fail. That it enriches those who “game” it, and ennobles the venal and corrupt. That that is the DESIGN of every system, ultimately – to break the very reason there WAS a system developed.

            Punisher is good; Comedian (though psychotic) was “better” in the sense there was more poetry. Punisher is practical: Kill them. JAne’s Punisher had some “poetry” in it, that he was there to “punish” Saint… but still killed Saint in the end, rather than leave him to suffer.

            Personally? Some of what I see around me these days? Princess Bride is appropriate. “To the pain.”

            Or maybe…
            Ever seen, “Hellraiser”?

            It doesn’t HAVE to end….

          • Jean
            January 10, 2014 at 10:33 pm

            Eric,
            COOL… :-D
            Looks like I’ll be on YouTube a bit tonight…

    • Tionico
      January 10, 2014 at 5:01 am

      not THIS was a treat. This is certainly the earlierst film I’ve evere seen of Ledbetter…. thanks.

    • clover
      January 10, 2014 at 11:29 pm

      CloverI just wonder where you were Eric before the first automobile was on the road so you could of put a stop to such progress. Where were you at when they first allowed brakes on automobiles? Heck a good driver don’t need none of those darn brakes. Automatic transmissions? Heck a good driver don’t need that. Jack? Just use a long pole. Where were you Eric to stop all the advances we already have? Why drive a car? A good horse used to work just fine 100 years ago. Why didn’t you put a stop to those gas drinking machines?

      • eric
        January 11, 2014 at 7:42 am

        Oh yes, Clover. I surely miss those early cars that didn’t come with brakes.

        Your knowledge of all things automotive is, as always, encyclopedic. Matched only by your mastery of rhetoric.

        • Me2
          January 11, 2014 at 12:49 pm

          Clover – “Where were you at when they first allowed brakes on automobiles?”

          You can’t be for real. Kudos on your exemplary emulation of a moron.

          Gee Clover, remember when a man had to walk in front of the car with a red flag? Maximum legal speed was 4mph (2 in the city). Seem reasonable to you? It was THE LAW. So why do you now apparently support the current ridiculously high speeds and lack of ‘red flag man’? It would be much safer than today. Just because it is the law?

          • clover
            January 12, 2014 at 12:11 pm

            Tell me this Me2 , how in the world were people able to survive with speed limits of 2 to 4 mph when people today are not able to survive with speed limits as slow as 30 to 80 mph? Why is that Me2?
            governmet troll
            If you say that speed limits are just for income purposes then why don’t we still have 2 to 4 mph speed limits?

            Editor’s Note: Clover only collected 25 cents for this comment.

            • eric
              January 12, 2014 at 12:54 pm

              Another incoherent response. Might as well listen to a dog barking.

          • methylamine
            January 12, 2014 at 4:37 pm

            Um, Eric, both my dogs are smarter than THAT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *