Some one told me that our government in times of crisis has the right to seize our property, and put us in federal work farms. Is this true? If so I think that the y2k might just be the answer they have been looking for to accomplish this. This is very, very disturbing!!

Greg

-- greg wiatt (gwiatt@northlink.com), January 13, 1998

Answers

Yes, those EO's are in place and have been for years. That does not give the Federal Govt the 'right'. but they do have the 'power' to do this. Two different things that matter only to someone who is looking for a reason to fight back.

The real question is this: Does the Government have the man power to enforce these possible orders ?

-- Art Welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), January 14, 1998.

Here's a link where you can look at one of these executive orders for yourself:

http://library.whitehouse.gov/cgi-bin/pre_web_evaluate.cgi?PAGE=ExecutiveOrder&dataset=Dataset-ExecutiveOrder&PT=true&beg_doc=1&dbs=ExecutiveOrders&df=DDATE&sort_primary=DDATE%2BDESC&query=&fields=EONUM&query_EONUM=12919

Sorry it's so long, but this will take you right to it. Just hit the submit button on the form.

You can look at this two ways. Yeah, it's disturbing to think of the government seizing property left and right. The order gives them the power to "control the distribution" of all essential resources, *including services*. It also mentions transportation--all forms, "regardless of ownership." And while I expect the government will be in disarray like the rest of us, I believe they do have significant petroleum reserves, and if they get the military involved they could probably do a lot.

But if Y2K is really bad--if oil and power get scarce, if the banking system fails, etc.--something like this may be the only way to prevent mass starvation. It may be the only way to get essential medicines to people who need them. I don't trust the government too much myself, but I am also reassured to find that someone at least has plans to deal with major disaster--Y2K, nuclear, whatever. And I intend to do whatever I can to help.

-- Dennis Peterson (dennisp@bigfoot.com), January 14, 1998.

Better yet, just click here.

-- Dennis Peterson (dennisp@bigfoot.com), January 15, 1998.

It seems to me we can't bitch that the government is not doing enough to solve the y2k problem AND complain that the government is reserving the ability to act as necessary when push comes to shove. I for one love this country; there's no place I'd rather be. I support my country and will try to get them to act sooner.

-- Art Scott (Art.Scott@marist.edu), January 16, 1998.

Dennis:

Thanks for the LINK !! I've been searching for one month. Have saved and will read latter. BTW, I agree with you on the basic premise of said legislation: We MUST be prepared for a National Emergency. That, my friend, covers mucho territory: terrorism, y2k, etc. We CANNOT and MUST NOT allow Congress to "decide" appropriate action. This could take years. One individual {the president} MUST have the authority to implement IMMEDIATE procedures. If we look for a hidden agenda in these executive orders, we are merely undermining the authority of our President. Remember, we elect the President of the United States of America. We don't have to be "love it or leave it" advocates. Sure, the press withholds. But, if a citizen wants to research any facet of government, we the capability to do just that! Where else is that possible?

-- S. McDonald (clinton@infowest.com), January 17, 1998.

Glad you guys agree. The question is, what can we do, ourselves? What can we do to prepare our communities? The government won't be able to do it all.

-- Dennis Peterson (dennisp@bigfoot.com), January 21, 1998.

I don't mean to be the devil's advocate here, but think about what the government might do if the IRS fails. The main objective of many of our elected officials is to continue in power. Just food for thought.

-- Rebecca Kutcher (kutcher@pionet.net), January 21, 1998.

Rebecca, don't get me wrong. I have no great trust for the government. And the IRS is in such bad shape, I would be surprised if they didn't fail. The easy solution there, it seems to me, is to do away with the IRS and go with a simple flat-tax or national sales tax, which would require a whole new system anyway. IMHO, that's long overdue anyway.

The point I'm trying to make is, if things go beyond that--if the embedded chip problem turns out to be major, and we have serious infrastructural collapse--I would rather have the government "seizing" and distributing food, than have total anarchy. And if we don't want that to result in tyranny, we need to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. Freedom brings responsibility, and if we ignore that reponsibility to our country and our community, if we adopt an "every man for himself" attitude, then we will deserve to lose our freedom.

-- Dennis Peterson (dennisp@bigfoot.com), January 22, 1998.

Dennis,

Your statement, "I would rather have the government "seizing" and distributing food, than have total anarchy.", is exactly what is wrong with this country now. Here we go redistributing the wealth. My order for long term storage food for my family is on it's way. You, the government or anyone else will get it over by dead body.

Joe

-- Joe Stout (joewstout@iswt.com), January 22, 1998.

Dennis, "Freedom brings responsibility", I couldn't agree more. To me that implies that we all currently have choices. With respect to Y2K, choices to either prepare a fallback position or not. The US government has been trying to protect people from themselves for a long time now. Is it working? Will it work post Y2K?

Lets say you work in an office (or name the location) with 20 other people. All of you have the option to obtain health insurance to protect you pretty well against the costs and risks associated with illness. But the insurance will cost each of you about a grand (pick a reasonable number) a year. Five people in the office choose to take and pay for the insurance. Fifteen people choose not to. When one of those fifteen becomes sick and incurs a $15K hospital bill (about 4 typical days, incl. ancillary costs), the company owner calls a meeting. He explains the situation and by executive order requires the five of you who have health insurance to each cough up $3K to pay for the other guys illness. Would you stand for that? Would that be fair? Would you deserve to lose your coverage if you refused? How would you explain this to your family?

-- P. Larson (ptrades@earthlink.net), January 22, 1998.

Guys, I've voted Republican in every election, and am a fan of Rush Limbaugh, I'm not a "redistribute the wealth" kind of guy. But let's be serious here. If Y2K is nothing more than an economic disruption, even on the scale of the Great Depression, then your arguments make sense. But I'm talking about the absolute worst case, where food distribution and so on breaks down for a good long while and lots of people are starving, In that event, we have two choices. We can act selfishly, in which case a lot of people will die needlessly, or we can pull together and rebuild.

If we don't rebuild, we'll be leaving the government to do it. The federal government will not stand by while the country splinters into a million pieces. Neither should we. If we act as citizens, with a duty to our fellow citizens, then we will retain our status as free men as we pass out of the crisis. If we act as spoiled children, then we will deserve to be treated as such.

The fact is, a lot of people won't be able to make the kind of preparations you talk about. Maybe they're on fixed incomes, or they have to have access to modern medical care. Personally, I intend to stock up as much as I can--and then share it with as many neighbors as I can.

-- Dennis Peterson (dennisp@bigfoot.com), January 23, 1998.

Dennis, Charity is important--expecially for those unable to help themselves. However, in the worst case scenario you contemplate, don't you think literally millions of people will die--regardless of government intervention? How can it make any sense for the governement to seize control and insure that everyone will starve to death slowly over time. The recent freeze in the N.East is illustrative. They ran out of food and supplies at the shelters (didn't anticipate such a long disruption). However, it wasn't that big of a deal, because they were able to resupply from nearby areas. In the y2k scenario you contemplate (worst case), that won't be possible. We will be multiplying the freeze in the N.East all over the country! After the 10 day supply runs out--then what? Seizure of every ready to consume food product currently available in this country would keep the citizenry fed well for about two weeks--at starvation levels for about four. Why? Just in time inventory and production. The alternative: some (hopefully many) forward thinking and concerned people prepare and include extra for some charity. They band together with family and friends. This provides a core of people to provide leadership in the very troubled times that will emerge. A core of people willing and able to do the rebuilding work. A caveat: I'm not necessarily in agreement that the worst case scenario is likely. I do believe its entirely possible. My thoughts on the matter have taken a different track considering Rick Cowles recent comments on the power grid (www.euy2k.com, click on weekly column link). So, my questions still stand. Am I "childish" for this opinion? What is right about agreeing to starve to death a little more slowly while the government tries to take care of everybody?

-- P. Larson (ptrades@earthlink.net), January 24, 1998.

Mr. Larson, you make some good points. Like you, I don9t necessarily think the worst case is going to happen, but I do think it9s possible. 3Plan for the worst, hope for the best.2

No, I don9t think that in the worst case, millions will die no matter what. Sure, all those 3ready-to-consume2 factory-produced canned goods and TV dinners are likely to run out. But we9ll still have plenty of grain, and if you know what to do with it that9ll do in a pinch. (Sprout it a day and grind it.) The only problem (as is often the case where there9s famine) is getting it to where it9s needed. If the banking system fails, those piles of wheat will stay right where they are absent government action.

However, the large corporations aren9t going to evaporate without a fight either. If the monetary system collapses, they could conceivably contract with grain suppliers (offering to pay them back when things settle down) and keep their employees fed.

The biggest problem would be if we run out of oil. And that is a possibility--there have been concerns expressed within the industry about offshore platforms and the Alaskan Pipeline, and a report of a refinery that has to replace all their valves due to a Y2K bug in the embedded chips. I9m cautiously optimistic that our oil reserves will maintain us long enough to at least get a little fuel flowing, enough for essentials like food distribution. Here again, temporary governmental control of fuel distribution could be a big help. And even if the fuel runs out, if you have plenty of (preferably nonhybrid) seed and enough grain to last you until your first harvest, you can survive.

So I do think that the worst case can be weathered if we work together, government and corporations and you and me. You hit the nail on the head when you proposed 3a core of people willing and able to do the rebuilding.2 I9ve been thinking about networking with like-minded people, both in my community and over the Internet, to help form that kind of core. Ham radio people to help with communications, people with guns to help keep the peace, etc. If you go it alone, you have to spend a lot of money on a hardened, remote location. If we all take the same money and invest in our communities, I think we can do a lot better.

The one thing that I think can boot us into Yourdon9s ten-year scenario is if all the people trying to fix the problems feel they have to take to the hills to protect their families. We can and must maintain sufficient order and civilization so that does not happen.

-- Dennis Peterson (dennisp@bigfoot.com), January 29, 1998.

Dennis, in your post "No, I don9t think that in the worst case, millions will die no matter what. Sure, all those 3ready-to-consume2 factory-produced canned goods and TV dinners are likely to run out. But we9ll still have plenty of grain, and if you know what to do with it that9ll do in a pinch." - My question is just where do you think all this grain is located. As far as I know, we have no surplus grain any more. Years ago this was not the case, but because of trade agreements, greed, ignorance etc. there is no surplus. Our food system is at risk because of just in time food delivery, and our drive for mamimum profits. It costs money to store food that is not at the grocery store. Just my thoughts - Dennis DeLaurier

-- Dennis DeLaurier (ddelauri@intertex.net), January 30, 1998.

Well, that's true, and I'm not up on the latest status. I think you can get that information from a newsletter that the Walton Feed website links to. I do know that right now there are huge piles of grain rotting on the ground because of the Union Pacific mess.

Last I heard, though, we are a net exporter of grain. And although I'm not a farmer, I have heard that there's such a thing as a "growing season" and an "annual harvest." Just-in-time production doesn't apply to everything. Now, maybe right now we export all our surplus. We may be fortunate that the first Y2K failures are liable to start occurring at the beginning of '99. (Actually, there have already been a few.) Maybe by the time the harvest of '99 is ready we'll be sufficiently aware of the problem to keep some reserves for a change. Once again, the government has the authority to make this happen, though it may take more political will than the current administration has shown to date.

-- Dennis Peterson (dennisp@bigfoot.com), January 30, 1998.

According to the reports I have read, the United States government no longer stores grains or very little. The only grain stored is that in grain elevators and that belongs to farmers or the elevators. Sorry, but we will be on our own when it comes to food. Check out Geri Guidetti's site for updates on grain http://www.arkinstitute.com.

-- Rebecca Kutcher (kutcher@pionet.net), January 31, 1998.

I have heard a lot of talk about the government and the people working together. Are we looking for a miracle here. When did the government ever work "with" the people. The attitude of "they " know what is best for all of us will not and has not changed. I do believe that this will be the time they think they will be able to implement their plans for control. These plans have been on the board for years.

I have been trying to work with my community for 2 years. When I first started to speak about y2k people thought I was one of the "nuts". The attitude of it couldn't happen in this country prevailed. Even today I find many, many people who still feel the same way. We have spent too many years letting the government take care of our problems. Now we have one that they will not be able to handle.

Even my own family thought I was crazy. They are now thinking the way I did 2 years ago and still think I am too extreem. By the time they catch up with me it will be too late. The only thing I can do is prepare for all of us and when or if it happens I will be there for them.

I live on the west coast in some of the best farm land in the country. Yes there will be a harvest in 99 and even in 2000. I see the thousands of trucks everyday taking the food to all parts of the country. I see the machines that plant and harvest. This is an on going thing. They harvest and a week later a new crop is planted. Sound great but what will happen when the thousands of trucks either stop for lack of fuel or because of an embeded chip. When the machines that are used to plant and haravest stop, it can all be done by hand but when you are planting millions of seedlings at a time instead of 2 days of work you are now faced with weeks of work. When you take the food to the storage units to be sorted and sent it will be very difficult to do with out their computers. This is a very real concern among the farmers out here. They can not get any answers concerning their equipment.

If the comercial trucks are not running, saying nothing about trains, where will the government get the transportation to get the food the the people who need it. I am sure they do not have enough to do the job.

I have spent hundreds of hours doing research on y2k. I have seen the information go from a few articles from so called "nuts" to so many a day that I can't keep up. With the information that is out there, there is no reason that anyone should not be well informed. Please, Please, read everyday and tell everyone you can what is going on even if they think you are a little crazy

-- Carol Rizzo (car945@juno.com), August 16, 1998.

Just who is "the government"??? Where are "they"??? Why should I think that "they" will have MY family's best interests at heart? Think about the foreign aid stories we've all heard about where tons of food is sent to a famine torn country, only to be distributed to the military and officials, while the "people" continue to starve!

HOW can "they" organize and distribute food to ALL OF AMERICA????? It is NOT possible......even today with no disruptions of farming, transportation and communication!

Our system works better than any other nation on earth today, not because of government, but IN SPITE OF IT!!!!!! Our system works because of the profit motive, which makes people invest in the means of production, and others work for their living. The "government" skims off the top of our GNP and redistributes it...."they" PRODUCE NOTHING!!!! When or if the system is destroyed by Y2K, the "government" will not be able to replace it!

In the worst case scenario (which I am more and more convinced will be the case) we will be reduced to "each man (family) for himself". The only choice we have as a nation, is how WE (not "THEY") respond to the situation. WE can either come together in our local communities and take care of ourselves and each other, or WE can degenerate into savages. My advice: take the words "THEY" and "GOVERNMENT" out of your vocabulary and stand on your own two feet!!! Our ancestors did it, and so can we!!!!

Ok....I'll calm down now :)

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), August 16, 1998.