Questions for survivalists

22moon_Obama_29067_LIAR.gif
 
apple0154 said:
And the solution is so simple. Prevention, by ensuring some people do not go hungry while others have enough for hundreds.
Click to expand...

Your idea that the gov't will feed everyone is fine. Your idea that the gov't should confiscate my personal property to do so....well.....not so much.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
pray tell, how do you figure that?
Click to expand...

How is the government going to sustain itself if there's a civil war? As I mentioned earlier troops are not going to fight for their country when their families are at home starving. Why would they fight for a government that led the country to such a state of affairs? After securing food for themselves the first thing on the list would be to throw the remaining government out.

in 6 months, my family, myself, and others who stockpiled for 6 months will be alive while those of you who only put away a month will have died. Then those of us alive can come together and gather the resources that are left, game in the woods, anything of value. We'll have plenty of land on which to plant gardens that we won't have to worry about people coming to steal or confiscate it.
Click to expand...

Come together and gather resources? That sounds like heretical, communist talk! After spending the last 6 months trying to kill folks who were doing that very same thing, coming together and gathering resources, now that you've run out of food you're going to do the same thing?
 
apple0154 said:
Come together and gather resources? That sounds like heretical, communist talk! After spending the last 6 months trying to kill folks who were doing that very same thing, coming together and gathering resources, now that you've run out of food you're going to do the same thing?
Click to expand...

I think the difference is that he is not advocating taking someone else's food by force. Growing crops, hunting game, and gather the resources to start rebuilding is different than a mob trying to ransack your home because you have planned ahead.
 
apple0154 said:
Come together and gather resources? That sounds like heretical, communist talk! After spending the last 6 months trying to kill folks who were doing that very same thing, coming together and gathering resources, now that you've run out of food you're going to do the same thing?
Click to expand...

not even close. we're not going to have to kill people and steal their resources like you are planning on doing.
 
Good Luck said:
You really are naive to the point of being completely without anything resembling intelligence. Tell us, in the event of a catastrophic collapse in which cities are left without resupply, when things are at that level of disruption, how, exactly are the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan supposed to get themselves home in order to support your murderous roving packs? Second, what makes you think they ARE going to support the government (assuming the government is still running things)? Those in the military tend to take my view of preparations, not yours. There will be those willing to accept and act on illegal orders, but there will also be those who will not - and the two factions will probably end up fighting each other as society continues to collapse around them.

And you REALLY think the roving bands are going to be even remotely civilized? "gather the people together" LOL Do you really think, once people in the cities realize there are no more trucks delivering food to the stores, they will cooperate with each other and other roving bands "for the good of the nation"? Do you really see starving people asking law enforcement for help and following their instructions, allowing law enforcement to take away what they may have managed to gather for themselves to give to others who were not as successful in finding food? Do you really think people will be satisfied with their "fair share" if that "fair share" is not enough to keep them from starving to death? If so, your naivete is actually worse than your love of mommy government. If people are not getting enough to eat who are USED to getting plenty, they will do whatever they can to get as much as they can, including turning on each other. No one is going to stand for government taking subsistence level supplies away from them so that more people can have less-than-subsistence supplies. You want reality, people will be turning on each other, killing for what the other has, long before they have the time to notice a particular house looks like a good place to raid. And when said house sends a few of them to the pavement, the rest are far more likely to continue to prey on each other than try to force themselves on a known lethal area. People take the path of least resistance - and that path is preying on others who are not armed. By the time people become desperate enough to consider attacking a known defended hold, they are likely to be too weak to be a threat anyway.

The bottom line, IF the worst happens and cities lose the ability to be resupplied, people will be looking for enough food to get them to the next day, and they will not give a ripe pig fart for the continued existence of government - INCLUDING law enforcement. You really are an ignorant droon. The absurdity of your description of the way things could/should happen post disaster would be funny if your support of a totalitarianism in government were not so dangerous.

And the role of government, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, is to protect the rights of the people - NOT to protect itself at the expense of peoples' rights.

THAT is the role of our government. A totalitarian government puts itself above the people, places the existence of the state above the rights of the people. A government of free people does not - and in that strength will be more likely to survive where a totalitarian government will not.

But it has been apparent for a long time that you love the idea of totalitarianism, so your precious mommy government can hold your hand, feed you with your little spoon, tuck you in at night, read you a nice bedtime story from your collection of Dr. Seuss, and make all your decisions for you so you don't have to worry about anything resembling personal responsibility.

BTW: it does not matter if there is plenty of food. If transportation breaks down, cities will be without food no matter how much in in the granaries and warehouses out in the country. Also, if transportation breaks down, people will be on foot for the same reasons the trucks aren't running. Food storage tends to be where the majority of food is grown, which in turn tends to be a hundred miles and more from high urban areas. How many miles do you think you can make in a day, weakened from hunger and possibly (probably?) sick from drinking unclean water? How many people do you think will actually make it to the rural food stores, guarded or not? Of those, how many will have the strength left to forcibly take it from those who are guarding them?

Now I would hope that people in charge of granaries would have some system set up to provide for those refugees who make their way out of the cities. Large granaries and food processing warehouses do have enough food to share, within reasonable bounds. The self- limiting actions of refugees from large urban areas would probably assure those who make it to the stores will be few enough to not overwhelm the stores.

However, if a family has a few months of food stored up, and the disaster looks to make it unlikely they can attain more before they are likely to start running out, then I would NOT expect those people to put their own children in danger of starving in order to feed others. A parents' FIRST responsibility is to their children, period. NOT to government, nor society, nor even community, unless such INCREASES their chance of survival. Feeding refugees from limited stores DECREASES the chance of survival. An individual may make such a choice. A parent (or grandparent) would be remiss in their primary responsibility to make that choice.
Click to expand...

So what are you going to do when you come out of your hole after 6 months? Join groups and collect resources like SmarterThanYou plans on doing? What will have changed? All the bad people will have died and only the good ones remain? Don't you realize you'll be faced with the same situation whether you face it right away or in six months?

The groups who faced the problem at the beginning had a 6 month head start. They have the granaries and the meat packing plants and the guns and ammunition and....they've gathered up the resources while you and others like you stayed holed up. What reception do you expect to receive when you show up? Are they going to share with self-centered, don't-give-a-damn-about-anyone -but-me people who show up six months later? How do you think they'll deal with a bunch of rag-tag, survivalist squatters who show up on their land? They'll remember having run into similar folks who wouldn't share. And as a group they'll take whatever you have managed to gather and share it among themselves. The survivalist will be the outcast, viewed as the capitalistic, greedy, self-centered people who caused the crisis and to be eradicated like a blight on humanity.
 
apple0154 said:
So what are you going to do when you come out of your hole after 6 months? Join groups and collect resources like SmarterThanYou plans on doing? What will have changed? All the bad people will have died and only the good ones remain? Don't you realize you'll be faced with the same situation whether you face it right away or in six months?

The groups who faced the problem at the beginning had a 6 month head start. They have the granaries and the meat packing plants and the guns and ammunition and....they've gathered up the resources while you and others like you stayed holed up. What reception do you expect to receive when you show up? Are they going to share with self-centered, don't-give-a-damn-about-anyone -but-me people who show up six months later? How do you think they'll deal with a bunch of rag-tag, survivalist squatters who show up on their land? They'll remember having run into similar folks who wouldn't share. And as a group they'll take whatever you have managed to gather and share it among themselves. The survivalist will be the outcast, viewed as the capitalistic, greedy, self-centered people who caused the crisis and to be eradicated like a blight on humanity.
Click to expand...

your viewpoint is entirely too optimistic. people who can't think ahead far enough to plan for 6 months should realistically have zero chance at surviving that long without nanny state government feeding them.....which most likely isn't going to happen.
 
WinterBorn said:
(Posted by apple0154)And the solution is so simple. Prevention, by ensuring some people do not go hungry while others have enough for hundreds.
Click to expand...

Your idea that the gov't will feed everyone is fine. Your idea that the gov't should confiscate my personal property to do so....well.....not so much.
Click to expand...

If the average wage is sufficient to feed a family what person deserves compensation sufficient to feed 100 families? If the average wage is sufficient to buy a home what contribution to society could anyone make that justifies their reward of 100 homes? Or 100 doctor's appointments?

Food. Homes. Clothing. Medical care. What individual deserves 100 times what the average person is entitled to?
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
If the average wage is sufficient to feed a family what person deserves compensation sufficient to feed 100 families? If the average wage is sufficient to buy a home what contribution to society could anyone make that justifies their reward of 100 homes? Or 100 doctor's appointments?

Food. Homes. Clothing. Medical care. What individual deserves
Click to expand...

this might be hard for you to believe, but we here in America live in a country where our property is ours, not the worlds, not societys, and not yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top