Category Archives: political

Book Review: Patriots, by James Wesley, Rawles

I recently had a friend recommend that I read Patriots by James Wesley, Rawles, published by Ulysses Press.  In the publishing page it states that this book had an earlier version, titled Patriots:  Surviving the Coming Collapse.

First note.  The author has a comma in his name.  I have never seen this before and consider it a bit unusual, but it certainly does identify him well.

This book is survival manual thinly disguised as a novel, in my opinion.  I am very glad that I read it, and consider it well worth your time and money to obtain and read.  However, I don’t think the book falls in the category of a great literary masterpiece or a great novel.  It does have interesting characters and an interesting plot, but there are long, somewhat awkward passages where technical details are discussed that tend the interrupt the flow of the story. In my opinion, the value in this book isn’t really the story, but the underlying question and message of the book:  are you prepared for a societal collapse into anarchy?  Are you prepared for a natural disaster that knocks power out in your area for several weeks?

A quick summary of the plot:  A number of friends decided while in college to setup a survival retreat and prepare for a calamitous collapse of society.  They each have a specialty(or developed a specialty) in some area that benefits the group as a whole.  Several members of the group have purchased land in Idaho where the group has setup a fortified retreat in the case of societal collapse.

In the scenario in the book, the government loses control after massive inflation causes a collapse of the markets.  Law and order breaks down, and the group members flee from their suburban existence to the relative safety of the group’s retreat in Idaho.  The book details both the defensive measures and the basic survival methods that the group employs to survive without a functioning government or even basic utilities or energy supplies.  Since there has basically been total societal collapse, a reliable electrical grid or readily available gas or diesel has become a thing of the past, and the group is forced to cope without electricity and rely on the fuel that they had stored for such an eventuality.

Eventually the group deals with visitors to their compound, some who are refugees, and some who are out for plunder.  Some time later, militia groups restore some order and the area begins to get back to normal.  This covers the first half of the book or so.  The next half is also rather interesting.

In the second half, a government has formed under the auspices of the United Nations, and is seeking to impose law and order in what remains of the United States.  A struggle breaks out between the freedom-loving militias and the UN troops who have come to implement gun control, national ID cards, and other such ideas.  A civil war breaks out between the militias and the UN troops.  Because the UN has modern military equipment, such as tanks and armored personnel carriers, and the militias have little more than guns and ingenuity, the militias fight a guerrilla war against the UN troops.  After several years of struggle and sacrifice, the militias win, and several amendments are made to the United States Constitution as law, order and freedom win the day.

The book is full of survival ideas and knowledge.  In fact, later editions of the book have added and index to allow easy access to particular information.  If you are vaguely interested in the topic of survival, it is likely you will enjoy this book.

While not likely to be studied by literature professors decades after its publication, this book is certainly a good read and it fulfills the definition of a good book in my mind because it makes me think.  In this case, it caused me to think what could happen if the banking system broke down, electricity wasn’t available, and gas was virtually non-existent.  I determined that I would be in dire straits, even if no anarchy and chaos occur.  This book takes me back to my Boy Scout days and the motto of “be prepared.”  Am you prepared?  Am I prepared for even a week without electricity?

For me, the answer was a resounding “no”.  I actually looked in my larder and realized that if the power is out, we’d be reduced to eating dog food within about a week or so if we couldn’t get to a grocery store.  Much of my family’s food storage is in freezers or refrigerators, and I don’t even have as much as a generator.  While I don’t think it is practical for me to take all of the steps that the characters in the book did to ensure their survival, I can at least prepare for a natural disaster that might affect this area.  What scenario is realistic?

Hurricane Katrina occurred several years ago and resulted in our power being out for several days, despite our being about four driving hours from the coast.   More recently, massive tornadoes devastated areas within an hour of where we live, causing widespread destruction and leaving many areas without power for several days.  We also are south of a large fault zone, but a large earthquake could conceivable affect us.  We don’t actually have to sustain a direct hit, just have the area that produces our electricity or where our food comes from to feel the impact.

The storm that I think is brewing that concerns me the most is the large number of impoverished people that live in my area.  Many of these people are dependent on the government for their food and sustainment.  If the government either has trouble giving money away because of long overdue fiscal restraint or inflation increases rapidly so these people are not able to feed themselves based on what is given to them, civil unrest or at least a dramatic increase in crime is likely to occur.  Were this to happen, I think I would be quite vulnerable.

I recommend this book, not because of its literary value, but because it challenges you to think about preparedness.

Does Taxing the Rich Work?

As our nation is in deep discussions about raising the debt ceiling versus raising taxes, and there is much debate in Washington DC about how to fix some of our deficit problems, I often hear that the rich should be taxed more so we can balance the budget.  The well-meaning centrists will note that we should cut spending and raise taxes so that we can bridge the budget gap and get our fiscal house in order.  I would submit that the way that we are taxing people isn’t going to really raise much revenue, and certainly taxing the “rich” isn’t going to get the job done.

One caveat before I begin:  I don’t believe that we need to raise taxes on anyone.  The problem is we have overspent, not that we have under taxed.  So if I had my way, we’d do what the states are required to do, and we’d cut spending if we have shortfalls in revenue so our budget would always be balanced.  I’ll admit that the 40% cuts that would be required would probably cause mass unrest as the entitlement majority finds themselves sucking on a dry teat and now having to do something radical, like work or be responsible in order to put food on their tables, cigarette smoke in their lungs, beer in their bellies, and lottery tickets in their wallets.

However, I think it is useful to look at our structure of taxation.  We have a progressive income tax in this country (in addition to many other forms of taxation).  As you report more income, you will move from lower brackets to higher brackets as you pass certain monetary thresholds, after you take your exemptions and any deductions that you may be entitled to.  Sounds simple, right?  It isn’t, but that isn’t my point.  Who has income?  What qualifies as income? Who are all of these rich people that the nanny state can plunder from?

One common stereotype of wealthy people is rich offspring of hard working parents, living off of an enormous trust fund and doing nothing but playing golf, polo, and other such activities of the idle rich.  There may be people like this;  I’ve never met any, but I live in Mississippi at the moment, and I can’t imagine why people with wealth would want to live here.  I’m off on a tangent; the real question is do these trust fund babies have income?  In short, no.  They might have some interest or capital gains from the funds being in the bank, but they are not working and generating income.  Their income is portfolio income, and is taxed differently than earned income.  So do these rich people have income that can be tapped using our progressive income tax?  No, they don’t.  If you have accumulated a giant pile of money, and just live off of it, assuming taxes have already been paid when the money was earned, you don’t have to pay income tax as you spend it.  The “idle rich” don’t have income and so can’t fix our income problem without our actually going after their wealth, which would amount to a bill of attainder, and be constitutionally prohibited (for those of you who still care what the constitution says).

What about the wealthy investor class like Warren Buffett?  He has famously claimed that the rich don’t pay enough in taxes.  Mr. Buffett has much of his capital at risk, and is paid in return by dividends, capital gains disbursements, and the like.  These generally are classified by the IRS as capital gains, and are taxed at substantially lower rates than income.  However, this income is different because it is generated by having some capital at risk:  gains are not guaranteed and you might lose your initial capital.  (Even Warren Buffett, although he has an enviable track record.)  Wage income doesn’t have a generally negative income possibility (unless you get sued or incur some penalty or fee):  the worst thing that could happen is that you lose your job.  Investments that might generate capital gains could lose value, and you could even lose all of the money that you invested.

So how can we raise more in taxes?  I believe the simplest way would be to not tax income at all, but tax consumption instead.  When the trust fund babies spend, they would be taxed.  When the wealthy investor spends his capital gains, he would be taxed.  Such a taxation scheme would have several beneficial consequences.  First, it would eliminate the complicated and expensive record keeping required to comply with the current laws that tax income.  While notionally we are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, when we are taxed we have to prove our innocence to the IRS by a complicated record keeping process.  We are required to submit records that we shouldn’t have to in a free society.

In addition to reducing the record keeping and improving privacy, a consumption tax would capture tax revenue from numerous people who don’t have reportable income either because they are spending already-taxed income (the “idle rich”), or because they don’t report their activities because they are illegal for some reason.  For example, I doubt many drug dealers report their incomes to the IRS, and illegal aliens also don’t typically request to pay taxes either.  It would eliminate the ever popular “just pay me in cash” scheme that many people use to avoid income taxes.

It would also tax the poor and middle class.  There are some good ideas such as the Fair Tax that would provide a rebate up to a certain level to avoid taxing the poor and making the tax system slightly progressive.

I don’t believe taxing the rich is the way to go, but if you are going to be fair about taxation, a consumption tax makes much more sense and would be more effective than the current income tax system.