Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: blam

The best location to live at during an economic collapse is Detroit, hands down.

Most likely you would never know the difference when it happens.


96 posted on 05/02/2011 9:19:53 PM PDT by Max_850
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Max_850
The best location to live at during an economic collapse is Detroit, hands down.

Most likely you would never know the difference when it happens.

Here's another out-of-the-box suggestion: Washington, D.C. I know there's a large inner city presence, but if TSHTF you'd be living with a lot of scared liberals who - unlike many liberals - will have to live with the consequences of a bankrupt government. Right on their doorstep.

You think liberals can't be bellicose? Have a good hard look at World Wars 1 and 2. Poke around for who were pegged as the 'domestic terrorists' back then.

Frightened liberals, en masse, can become pretty authoritarian pretty quickly - especially if the frights they normally pander to hit them in their own homes. I'm pretty sure that D.C. would be very well protected during an economic collapse. The prospect of a government stripped of all of its power would frighten liberals into demanding authoritarian measures as a "practical" or "temporary" measure. They're that dependent upon government.

The downside to living in D.C., should TSHTF, would be having to live under martial law for a time. Also, the gun grabbers would be out in force and demanding total confiscation for "public safety" reasons. Given that downside, I have to admit that the above is largely rhetorical for FReepers.

While I'm advocatus diaboliing, the plush part any large city with a politically powerful upper class - the kind who consider widespread rioting in their neck of the woods to be an intolerable outrage, and have the political clout to get action - would be liveable. New York, although basically unaffordable, might make out fine except for known trouble spots. The feral yutes will effectively be sequestered in those areas. So, obviously, the cheap areas should be avoided like the plague.

The biggest downside in those big cities otherwise protected would be having to endure liberal authoritarianism. The other answers on this thread, I'm sure, work better as freedom choices. There won't be any "your liberty or your life" squeezes in those parts.

111 posted on 05/02/2011 10:18:54 PM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson