If the government can borrow against the future earnings of children and the unborn why can’t we? That actually works really well for me since I have no children. Borrow against any hypothetical progeny’s ability to repay said debt.

In the interests of full disclosure my sister’s first husband wasn’t worth a damn. She knocked it out of the park with number two though.

Absolutely. If it did though, I suspect we’d be contemplating options not currently on the table because the government puts the kybosh on them. The revolution here was more like Bleeding Kansas than what is typically thought of. I’d hope it didn’t get down to that but it might. And we’re 100 miles or two days ride on horseback from the Cherokee territories in this state. Whole thing was part of the Seven Years War and a pay disagreement the Cherokee had with the Crown for raiding the other side that escalated.

Speaking as someone who’s home county has seen its population double in my lifetime from migration from other states, in the absence of the state I suspect my family and the other families in the area that go back centuries would be contemplating a range of options not currently on the table in regards to people coming in from somewhere else and wanting to have any sort of say in how things operate here. On a post about the topic the other week in a local group I heard someone say anyone who moved here after 1960 is part of the problem, the response was anyone after 1760. I might put it somewhere in the middle. Here of course meaning the county not the country. Of course in the absence of a government able to tax and fund infrastructure and a government created central bank able to loan large quantities of money to developers to build large scale housing developments our population probably wouldn’t have doubled in 40 years.