SurvivalBlog.com

James:
Some of the arguments made against J.I.R.’s article reminds me of a scene in Gone With the Wind, in which the southern gentry are talking of coming war and Rhett Butler steps in and tells everybody that the North is better equipped for war; and that all they, the southerners, have is “…cotton and dreams of victory.” Obviously this was met with indignation, but Rhett Butler was right. As preppers we are our own group who thinks we are better equipped for “war” and can also be blinded by our own arrogance. Even amongst the prepper/survivalist groups we must remind ourselves that we will not necessarily be the Leader of the Retreat, or be able to fend off gangs and hordes with all our bullets and band-aids, as has been addressed on this site before, regarding the myths and realities of TEOTWAWKI.

While I am not a Kumbaya Community-is-the-answer-to-everything survivalist, and I love Ayn Rand, we must be humble enough to consider the real possibility that we will need both the individualism and the community effort during different phases of post-TEOTWAWKI living to make it.

Capitalism is not a world or society without government. It is a society with little government, but there is still government. JIR is right, we need some authority. As Ben Franklin said (essentially) “laws are made for the weak more than the strong.” We might consider ourselves strong, but we all have a breaking point. And the strong won’t be the only survivors.

I don’t think JIR was saying anything that wasn’t portrayed in the excellent book “One Second After”. In that book the same small-government/redistribution/community efforts were portrayed and to many who have read this book it all made sense at the time. And one of the leaders in the story who made it all a success was a man with military experience. Let’s not demonize the very people who have seen the effects of socialism and anarchy more than most of American society; probably even more than most of us survivalists who get our view of socialism mostly from history books and the evening news.

I would also like to point out the account of Joseph in Egypt in the Holy Bible. Joseph was put in charge by Pharaoh to prepare the land for seven years of famine. Joseph did, and when the famine hit there was a system of how the food was distributed to the people when their own resources ran out. First the people paid for or earned food. Then land was sold to Pharaoh in exchange for food, then some families were relocated, and a percentage of crops went to Pharaoh. Some might read this and think Pharaoh took advantage of his people. Some might read this and see a righteous leader (Joseph) who saved an entire nation and retained the dignity of the people by having them purchase the food and gave them seeds to work the land. All this was possible because Joseph/the Lord/Pharaoh controlled it.

Perhaps the real point is: Do you trust your leaders? Are your leaders those who would be successful like in “One Second After”? Are they righteous men like Joseph? Or are they socialists?

The Mormons and some other churches have what they call The Law of Consecration or something similar. On paper it might look like communism but is meant to follow the example of Joseph. Food is to be gathered from the members and distributed by religious leaders whom they know and trust, much like the LDS Church’s food cannery and welfare system works today. They know it works because they’ve been doing it for decades, but so far the food has come from the church. There will be a day when the members will be called upon to provide it.

In the book “One Second After” citizens made individual efforts to feed their families, and a soup kitchen was also provided by the community. Some shared a kill; some ate their pets at home. Bottom line, I hope that whichever system is used that I am given the choice. I’ll die fighting for my right to chose. – Rebekah A.

Mr. Rawles:
Nobody has yet mentioned that community leaders might simply ask for donations and assistance or offer payment or barter of some sort from those that had excess, rather than demanding. That might not work with major corporations (like Wal-Mart), headquartered elsewhere, but certainly private citizens and local businesses might respond. Even the local Wal-Mart manager has a certain amount of authority to donate items.

Then, hopefully, local authorities could equitably distribute the donated items. We might take a lesson from those 33 Chilean miners who subsisted on two day’s rations for seventeen days having no idea when or even if they might be rescued. There must have been some unified decision making there and it seems that some type of leadership in these situations would be better than every man for himself. Order might eventually break down but at least an effort would have been made to see that as many as possible had their needs met for as long as possible. – Karen Y.

JWR:
First let me say I totally disagree with JIR on his idea of taking anything from someone else by force for the better good. I never sided with anyone who took something that wasn’t theirs’ -it’s called stealing, plan and simple if it’s not yours don’t mess with it. and more people today should get their hind ends kicked for doing just that- messing with other people’s stuff.

Second, David D. said basically that people with guns will fail in the end and why. personally I don’t think he’s correct or logical in his thinking- he talks about community and I am on his side with that – everyone in the groups (the community) has to carry their own water! people who use drugs, or have issues taking care of them selves will die after TEOTWAWKI – people who can’t take care of themselves aren’t going to make it. it’s a fact of life the entitlements people have today have led to soft living, and when that ends people who can’t adapt to a hard life aren’t going to survive.

But people who are armed in my opinion are going to be the only free people left.

I would say after reading a new book called Resistance to Tyranny (by Joseph P. Martino Ph.D.) that even as he points to other information in his book as a reference the basic idea is you stop being free if your coerced out of your freedoms, and giving up your right to self defense you are asking to be killed. His book in the first pages paints a really grim picture of true history, the kind of things that schools don’t teach about anymore

He states: “The evidence is clear. Genocide is impossible when the victims are armed and able to resist. Disarming the population is always the first step to genocide. Gun registration is always the first step to gun confiscation. Moreover, the experience of Germany and Cambodia shows that the government that does the disarming may not be the government that commits the genocide. Once a ‘decent’ government has disarmed the people, on whatever pretext, the way is open for a tyrannical government to oppress them. The Hitlers and the Pol Pots succeed only because the people have previously been disarmed.” Later, he states: “Even if you survive under tyranny, you lose your freedom. Freedom is ultimately the most important thing. No matter what your personal or political objectives are, from animal rights to vegetarianism, you can’t accomplish them if you lose your freedom. Freedom is the prerequisite for any other economic, political or social activity, from rearing your children to holding a job to providing for your own spiritual welfare. “

As Joseph Story wrote, “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes with out resistance, is by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” History bears him out.

I want to say to David D. I respect your position on gun ownership. As a man you have every right to never touch a gun as long as you lives. By your own choice, but don’t ask me to give up my freedom to defend my self or others to some how make you feel a little better about the world…if anything you should be worried more people will give up guns and history will repeat it self and the genocidal cycle will happen again here in America. You all have to know people that lived in the places it did happen all said it couldn’t ever happen there, to them, either! – Fitzy in NEPA

Hoping for a godly response by the citizenry for as long as possible.

Sir:
I read the article with interest but must note what I consider a major flaw or so in almost every bit written on societal crash. Everyone assumes that government will simply go away and that the folk will be free to flee to their well prepared retreats in the country. I think both ideas are off. First, the only organized folk with guns in most communities are the police and they are just as likely as anyone else to band together to provide for their families and friends. In addition, every retreat idea I have read of seems to think that the thousands fleeing from wherever will bi-pass the perfectly good place retreatists have set up so as to keep them pristine for their owners. Worse, some seem to think they will have magic warning of the disaster/attack/crisis that everyone else does not get, sort of like the heads up found in the novel Alas, Babylon.

I disagree. I think folk who plan will get no more notice than anyone else, will be in their homes when TSHTF and will be part of the thousands trying to get out of town. I suspect most will arrive at their well prepared retreat and find it already occupied by some other family who found it first.

What do you do then? How do you deal with local authority acting as thugs and looting as they need?

In short, what do you do when your plans go down the toilet. Perhaps planning for situations where ones pans have gone to hell and ones retreat is occupied might be in order.

I also spent a good bit of my military career planning for war or natural disaster. The biggest problem encountered was logistics, the second unrealistic plans involving logistics. If you need a head start to the retreat, it will not happen…plan for that as well. If you have a place to go, have a plan to take it back from squatters. If you plan to defend yourself from starving bikers or societal parasites, also plan to deal with remnants of local government. Jim V. in southern Idaho

I believe that J.I.R.’s article “Community Crisis Planning” was an excellent article and has caused some superb discussion on what is a very sensitive issue and something we should continue to discuss and explore in depth. Stop pillorying J.I.R.! Instead, thank him for his thought provoking article because if things go bad in the future, you WILL SEE his model in operation. Why do I say that?

CPT Rawles:
As an Army officer of 22 years, my first read of J.I.R.’s article just sounded like basic common sense; I am in command and my mission is to preserve law and order…and then save lives. This is exactly what we do when we show up in Haiti , Somalia or the Messedupistan of your choice. This is what we (the Army) do and it works well; clean up the streets and get things working (often at gunpoint). Remember, we’re used to working in an extremely hostile environment with very limited resources…and a blank check.

Now fast forward to TEOTWAWKI when things are a mess. Do you expect key leaders to use critical thinking skills under a high stress situation to come up with the perfect innovative solution for a working economy and strong security? No! We’re not economists or lawyers! We will default to what is “tried and true” and as a simple as possible to implement. Focus will be on short term solutions rather than long term consequences.

So we’re back to the “fix Messedupistan” model that J.I.R. laid out for us. You don’t have to like it, but it works and I guarantee that you will see it. (Yes, you will “fight to the death” to defend your property rights, but unfortunately you are expendable since there will be many people and not enough food.) More importantly, this system may start working in very close proximity to your location and might start eye-balling your well stocked farm with fuel, food, etc. So no one is going to be standing on their own for very long.

Soooooo I suggest that we continue to contemplate/develop/critique social models to set up a successful community that maximizes personal freedoms (and property) while still being able to get things done and respond to the outside threat of a totalitarian/socialist/militaristic organization that will come rolling down the road to your town. Forstchen’s novel “One Second After” gave some great examples of setting up a community council, but a lot of things need to be worked before a crisis. How do we set up a ration book system when fiat money is worthless? (How will we print it? Who approves it?) What laws will be implemented during an emergency and what laws will be suspended? For how long? What rules will be needed for the community council? What are the checks and balances on power? It would help all of us if we had an SOP or “hand book” to get the community started on the right foot with the 80% solution the day after TEOTWAWKI. Thank you J.I.R., JWR, and all the comments to improve our knowledge on this subject. – Conn in “The Death-Zone-Suburbs-Near-Washington”

Mr. Rawles,
I am relieved to finally read your comments on the J.I.R. article. After reading the article you posted earlier, I was alarmed that it might have represented your viewpoints. Suffice it to say that the organized armed “police” that J.I.R. suggested to commander resources for their own, as well as “community,” use were no more than armed brigands. Moreover, his idea of assuming the authority to impose whippings, etc., as punishment for disobedience to his rule violates all principles of free men. I would much prefer to fall as a free man resisting such people and rule, rather than become a subservient subject under them. Sincerely, – Gene C.

Jim,
It looks like I hit some people in the “hot button” with this article. They are absolutely right on all points. This plan really stinks. I just don’t see any other way to maintain the level of cohesion a small community is going to require to survive the tribulations they are going to face. I am still hoping to hear some rebuttal from someone with an alternate solution. Yeah, I don’t like socialism either, but show me an alternative.

1. When the larger towns start doing “food sweeps”, your community is going to have to fight as a team or it will die as individuals.

2. Somebody has to have the authority to get things done. You need to stop refugees at the border or the community may be doomed. Someone needs to organize labor to help the farmers, repair machinery and do a thousand other things. Someone or something has to provide central organization. As much as we hate to admit it, government provides some useful services. Sanitation, information exchange, law enforcement, water and a stable currency are just examples. It provides a framework for everything else that you need to happen. Without police enforcement, everyone is on their own. Some of your readers might like that, but I have seen it up close and I don’t like it at all.

3. Without any way to pay for services, the town employees are going to quit reporting for work and your local government will dissolve. My ideas for reestablishing a local economy are radical, but I don’t see any other way to pay for services. Does anyone have an alternative? Or are we advocating anarchy instead?

4. Anarchy is not stable. Someone is going to take power. Without some kind of functional government, whoever is strongest will take whatever they want. Look at somalia and ask yourself what would prevent that from happening here. Would you rather have an elected town mayor doing business as I outlined or would you rather have a warlord who takes what he wants and kills dissenters?

I think a lot of the folks who responded negatively are very distrustful of government. What they are missing is that this is a democracy and they are the government. They are the community! They need to get involved and take charge of it. That’s their police force and their rules that are being enforced. I am not advocating an armed take-over. I am advocating the only solution that I see to prevent one. – J.I.R.

Jim,
As the author of the article being discussed, I would like to address the concerns expressed by “Rocky in the Midwest”

This is a good example of the kind of reactions you will undoubtedly run into if you attempt to confiscate someone’s property. He is exactly right and justified in being indignant. He has worked hard and accumulated his property lawfully and has every right to use it as he wishes. Morals aside, confiscating privately owned property not only causes anger and resentment, it’s just a bad idea on many levels. Doing so will destroy your local economy. I suspect that Rocky is a pillar of his community and will be instrumental in rebuilding the economy after a crash. He is exactly the type of person who will probably hire locals and begin to rebuild.

One of the most important things you must do is get consensus from your community. If the majority of the people think, like Rocky, that the Wal-Mart and other corporations still have property rights and their property is off limits, then you probably cannot proceed with the course I outlined. You have to convince your town that confiscation and redistribution of goods is in their best interest. You also need to get a consensus on which goods to confiscate and work out how you will compensate people for what you take and use.

The thing you must get across is this: Without some kind of redistribution of scarce resources and a working police department, nobody’s property is off limits. Most of the people in the community are going to be hungry very fast. Nobody just sits down and starves to death. They are going to attempt to find food or whatever their family needs. Hungry people loot. I believe this is inevitable. Without someone guarding it, Wal-Mart is going to be looted. When people get hungry enough they will try to take Rocky’s cattle themselves. I believe it’ better to attempt to maintain order and community cohesion, even if it requires extreme measures. “Let them eat cake” sounds like a recipe for anarchy and mass starvation. Just my two cents. – J.I.R.

James:
I agree with “Rocky in the Midwest”. There will need to be leadership in the communities that develop after TEOTWAWKI, but that leadership needs to be democratically decided or you will end up with a dictatorship. The original author is proposing Socialism. As for my “preps”, I have prepared for “Charitable Giving” as required by my God, but will eliminate the first man who confiscates (without my consent) anything in my possession because those items are needed for my family’s survival.

Mental preparation is as much or more important than physical preparedness and those who have not prepared mentally will be a great burden for all that they come in contact with. I agree that performing triage for refugees might ideally be performed by someone with medical background, but medical personnel deal with hurt people and most refugees, being able-bodied, will need to be triaged in an entirely different manner – based on the need(s) of the local community and the refugee’s ability to value add. That type of triage takes an entirely different type of leader than a nurse. Probably someone like Rocky in the Midwest that is prepared to defend his own. – Mel in Texas

Dear Editor:
J.I.R. plans on conscripting the police force and able-bodied men into armed gangs who pillage food and fuel stores to control them for their own purposes. He probably should have included plans for a secure fortress from which to issue his edicts because it is likely that after he sets the terms of engagement, property owners will respond in like manner. When his gang eats the stolen food and everyone else goes hungry, the rough stuff will begin in earnest. Let his plans be a warning to everybody. Especially if you live in a small town, petty tyrants must be put down. Once they begin stealing at the point of a gun, there is only one way to answer: get rid of them or get away. Property owners who respect the rights of others can rebuild. Thugs can only destroy, consuming your resources. Protection of life and property is a cost, but we who produce will choose whether to outsource the cost, and if so, to whom we will outsource it. We will not outsource it to those who would commandeer our resources and use them to rule over us. – John D.

James:
I read and reread this posting several times. This man suggested a crisis response that sounds like communism under Joseph Stalin. He thinks the small town mayor should go out into the countryside and confiscate all of the livestock, feed, grain and seed, gas and diesel, and heavy equipment. He states that the highest priority for this is to maintain the power of the city government and allow the city cops to maintain their patrols. He later gets around to talking about farming and raising food, but mostly he talks about small gardens. I believe this author has always bought his food in the store and he does not know beans about farming.

He specifically talks about taking all the grain stored on the farms and all the livestock held in confinement buildings. I would love to see the mayor and a bunch of city folks confiscate and then herd 1,000 feeder pigs down the road and into town. Where does he plan to pen them up? Just who is going to butcher them? And how are you going to preserve the meat?

The reason that farmers keep several hundred gallon of fuel on site, is because they need it to plant and harvest. Taking away their fuel will leave the field unplanted or the standing crops unharvested. You also need grain trucks and the fuel to transport it. And just where is this small town going to store 20,000 bu (1.2 million pounds) of grain they might get from one small farm. Now try that from the entire county. Unless they have a local elevator they would have to dump it in the middle of the street.

The answer to this conundrum is quite easy, the grain, the fuel, and the livestock belongs on the farm and so do the people. The unemployed people from the small town need to move out onto the active farms in the area. The farms will need the additional labor and the extra folks with guns to protect the food. Those larger farms with substantial grain bins should be selected as primary storage areas for the community. You do not attempt to farm by hand or using horses, but you farm using diesel tractors and all available fuel goes to farming. You prepare for this possibility by building a local plant for processing of soybeans into biodiesel.

I am certain that growing, storing, and transporting food is more important than keeping a bunch of fat cops in patrol cars. The socialistic, almost communistic type centralized command and control this author suggest would ensure a famine in the breadbasket of the world. Frankly, I find his point of view absolutely terrifying.

This is one of the most thought provoking postings I have even read, thanks. – Hick

James:
This piece (and the largely warm response to it so far) deeply undermines theories of survival based on individualism and reliant on guns, fortresses, and hoarding. Though I can imagine certain kinds of short-term crises where a guns, fortresses, and hoarding strategy might work, a years-long collapse is certain to lead to the kinds of issues raised by J.I.R.

I completely agree with J.I.R.: Long term, communities (a dirty word to radical individualists) must organize and work together. And so all of a sudden on a survivalist web site like yours, someone has gotten real and is talking about community, the dangers of anarchy, the rule of law, justice, the protection of the weak, and even redistribution of property. In other words, government, the very thing most survivalists demonize the most. This is unavoidable. No guns-based, hyper-individualistic strategy could ever work for long.

That’s why I’m a left-wing survivalist. To me, the key is cooperation and production. Though the old self-reliant American lifestyle was fading when I was a child in the 1950s, the infrastructure and social fabric that supported community-based self-reliance had not yet decayed. I understand pretty well how it all worked, because I saw my relatives living that way on their family farms, and I did my share of the kind of farm work appropriate to children. I grew up and moved away, and I lived in the city for many years (San Francisco, the city most hated by guns, fortresses, and hoarding types). But when I saw what is all too likely to happen, I moved back to remote farming country where people still have fields, pastures, barns, farming equipment, and skills. This community-based strategy is based on getting to know, and trust, your neighbors. It’s all about planning, based on your own location, for the kinds of issues raised by J.I.R.

Those who are not in love with their guns, and who find heroic, Ayn Rand notions of individualism laughable, find these realities easier to see.

I recommend a rather funny essay by Charles Hugh Smith on why gun-worshiping hoarders are bound to fail. The essence of it is this: “Because the best protection isn’t owning 30 guns; it’s having 30 people who care about you.” – David D.

Dear J.W.R.:
J.I.R., the author of the “Community Crisis” article, is apparently a statist. He believes that confiscating people’s belongings is appropriate in an emergency.

Theft of another’s property is never appropriate! Period! It’s called looting among right-thinking people. The author of this piece says that some people own too much stuff. Because of that, some of their stuff should be stolen and given to others who don’t have enough stuff. This idea is called socialism.

He also says that “anarchy is the dirtiest word in the English language and should be avoided at all costs.” Anarchy has many definitions. The most important one is Society Without Government, which is not at all a dirty word, or an evil definition. It means free-market capitalism, a system which the author of this piece believes cannot work without proper controls put in place — in other words, the establishment of not-free-market, non-capitalism.

[A brief flame snipped, for the sake of civility,]

The same author used exactly the same line about anarchy in a column in January 2010. True anarchists believe in the ability of humans to get along without the assistance (or interference) of government. It is true democracy — with the codicil that if you are better armed, you have a better chance of living undisturbed by those who seek to control you. No, that’s not a complete encapsulation of the term’s meanings, but it’s more than enough to respond to this unwise scheme. – Daniel C.

JWR Replies: I am strongly in the camp of defending property rights. History has shown that socialism is a slippery slope. Once it starts, it is hard to halt. Although J.I.R is well-intentioned, the distinction between 100 cases of canned chili that is owned by Wal-Mart corporation and a Butler silo full of wheat that is owned by an individual land-owning farmer is likely to be lost, in the midst of a crisis. Once they begin redistributing assets, “The Committee”, or “The Town Council”–or whatever they call themselves–will inevitably start eyeing smaller and smaller increments of foodstuffs or land as worthy of confiscation and redistribution. Recent examples of this excessive collectivist zeal have been embodied by Chairman Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Recognizing human nature and the excesses that total power inevitably engenders , I believe that is preferable to be absolutist in defending property rights. Once the “taking” begins, then who has the power to stop it? Lord Acton said it best: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I must also reemphasize that charity ceases to be charity when it is directed under brute force or coercion. Conservative Christians are among the most charitable people on the planet. But don’t force us to give. That is just plain theft, and many of us will fight to our deaths to stop it. If I ever have to choose between quasi-anarchous individualism and socialism, then I’ll take the former, not the latter.