Community Crisis Planning for Societal Collapse
Read and think carefully about all of the issues raised in this lengthy article from SurvivalBlog.
Alternatives should be discussed below.
It's one thing to say "F*#k that!".
But how will you do things, as your AO goes the way of Bosnia, Haiti, or Somalia?
Or haven't you yet thought through the consequence layers stemming from Fed/state/local governmental financial collapse?
Tempus fugit.
posted by Concerned American | 4:46 PM
12 Comments:
Better yet read the responses from readers after the article...
Great discussion from differing of opinion!
statist! If I want to give my extras for the common good I will. But the collective had better not come around "appropriating" from my stores.
Mr. Rawles seems certain he'll be part of the command structure, with an attitude like that.
"If you let people keep" their food and fuel and other scarce resources, and their nonhuman family members if they can support them, then you'll win their hearts and minds.
I would advise it simply because it's the right thing to do, and because even in extremis, people are still free sovereigns. I wonder whether able-bodied workers would be ... um, PREVENTED by force from ... er, seceding from the collective.
The hellholes he talks about are that way BECAUSE OF authoritarianism, not because of anarchy. Warlords in competition, taking what the people have AND KEEPING IT.
I don't see any reader comments, Anon. Maybe the heat was too hot.
It will be important for the community to come together VOLUNTARILY for mutual aid and survival. FORCING the prepared to help the unprepared is just another socialist dictatorship. Rawles despises anarchy. Seems to like authoritarianism, though. Maybe it will fly in some communities. Not in Free America.
In other words, this thug thinks he has to take our stuff at gunpoint so other thugs won't take our stuff at gunpoint. Brilliant.
He is a thug, and if he tries to take my stuff or my neighbor's stuff, he will be treated as a thug.
He just wants to set up a small State. People who take your money at gunpoint, no matter what their purpose in doing so is, are thugs.
A good end does not justify evil means.
"In his book, Pirates and Emperors, Noam Chomsky recites a story from St. Augustine’s City of God about a confrontation between Alexander the Great and a captured pirate: “Alexander the Great asks the pirate: 'How dare you molest the sea?' The pirate replies: 'How dare you molest the whole world?' the pirate replied. 'Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor.” St. Augustine called the pirate's answer "excellent and elegant."
http://www.turksam.org/en/a195.html
FYI, Rawles didn't write that piece, it was sent to him by a reader.
Defender,
Rawles didn't write the article. The wannabe thug named J.I.R. did.
I see many good points to the article - however any "new" society or governing bod to assist with those that were not prepared needs to leave those that can take care of themselves alone.
He makes the statement: "Anything owned by an individual for his own use is his property and must not be touched." -which I totally agree. BUT, then talks of taking privately held vehicles if "yours" - as Mayor - doesn't work due to EMP.
I am a survivalist - just like many of his readers. I prepare daily for a major disaster/TSHTF event. To think that the new government" would come knocking on my door and want to take what I have stored for MY FAMILY to distribute to those that failed to prepare - ridiculous.
But wait - that'swhat Obama wants to do now - take from those that have and spread out to those that have not.
Hmmmmmm.......
Rourke
ModernSurvivalOnline.com
Ah, didn't catch that about Rawles not writing it.
My mistake - thanks for letting me know.
Rourke
Apologies to Mr. Rawles. Thanks for clarifying.
Ask yourselves this question: What if your local city/county government structure is corrupt and/or incompetent? In my little corner of Amerika, I would not trust my local officials(with the possible exception of the Sheriff)at all. Having been a volunteer with my corrupt little city for over 3 years, until I bailed, I saw first hand how they dealt with unpleasantness. They ignored it! Back in 2005 when a pretty good earthquake jolted us they dithered about sounding the Tsunami siren because they didn't want to scare the tourists.
When the Schumer hits the fan here in Toonerville, the local VFW, Marine Corps League, the Ham Radio people and volunteers in Search and Rescue will rise to the occasion. The politicians will wisely shut up and stay home, if they know what's good for them.
It's very easy to shout "statist" and "wannabe thug" and other nasty words.
However it is a fact, easily observed from any study of history, that individuals - no matter how sincere of their correctness - get absolutely steamrolled by organized groups in times of chaos. This is why city-states formed in the first place. Like the man says: starving people don't have much in the way of choices. They aren't going to worry about your moral arguments. They are just going to take, unless someone gives them a third option in between the mob and death.
The whole point of the argument presented is to try to channel events into a course short of total disaster, so that the basic fabric of society still holds together somewhat, at least in the local area. Absolutist moralism does not have an answer for that. It will not work. It will not result in anything short of total collapse, because for it to work requires the vast majority of the people involved to buy into it (and thus to be at least partly self-sufficient - which is absolutely not the case in nearly any modern community), and for it to fail requires a much smaller plurality to say "fuck this, gimme now".
If you want to ignore that, you can. You will just be making yourself a guaranteed early casualty.
Rollory wrote: "They aren't going to worry about your moral arguments. They are just going to take."
Which is precisely why they are thugs.
I've stated earlier that I hold some things in higher esteem than my physical survival. I place more value on moral integrity than life itself. I know such people are often slaughtered when it hits the fan. I'm all right with that. It is far better to die while remaining a human, than to live by becoming an ape.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home