|
Scenario #3 - also not completely crazy.
The big problem is the guy, glen, is a fucking wack job who can't focus.
The methodology of presenting the scenario's is incomplete and scattered, not to mention they never once look at what they say they will look at, which is what an apropriate response should be.
At on point in the third scenario one of the comentators points out that tax raises will be massive to cover the debt and the obligations of the government. Then they propose that tax riots might end up happening. This part isn't completely unrealistic and has precedence. Clearly there were tax riots in Boston but tax increases were also a cause of the fall of the Roman empire. The Romans were used to paying for the benifits of being a citizen through expansion and conquest, when the expansion reached a point where the returns on conquest were simply not enough to cover the cost of organzation that the Romans were used to taxes had to be imposed. This is where I differe from Beck's team, they say that tax rates of 80-90 percent could happen by 2014, this is unrealistic but it doesn't change the scenario. Taxes don't need to go that high before people start revolting. Of course the revolt could be simply in not filling taxes.
I don't see the possibility of gangs trying to control cities as unlikely either. LA, from what I know, already has gang controled areas. New Orleans saw gangs take control of disaster hit areas when Katrina hit. This is also what happend in Iraq. The initial response of people in Bagdahd to lawlessness was to join into 'gangs' based on religion and region (neibourhood).
I can also see lots of people trying to resist authority based on 'the constitution'. Many of these people will have some twisted idea of what the constitution is or how it is applied but they will be to arrogant to realize it.
Two quotes of Glen's were priceless:
"I am against government"
"Where does god fit in all of this"
Nutter.
|
