All is not well in the UK's Socialist Utopia

[cronus]

Ideas will keep you alive. That is why I've suddenly found GodDarwin and all that jazz here in the UK.

[Coito ergo sum]

In that situation, there will be no feeding of the bulk of the population. There are no systems in place for that. Millions of people will die, and the government won't do a thing about it. In that sense, individuals stockpiling a reasonable supply of storable foodstuffs and water is quite a reasonable thing to do.

No doubt millions will die but whether millions survive or not is going to rely a lot more on what central or at least regional forces are left to keep order not how many tins of tomatoes any one individuals will have in their cupboards. My survival will rely on others well guess what no change there

You're constantly on about these false dilemmas.

Having a month of dry and canned goods, and water, supply in your house could keep you alive for a month. Obviously, there are other factors at play and of course humans being social animals rely on each other for survival and survive better in groups. Nobody denies that.

You're like Blanche Dubois, saying "Whoever you are, I've always depended on the kindness of strangers," while the kindly psychiatrist leads her away to the mental institution.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every man for himself - the American dream at its best..

Congratulations, Rum, you've won the red herring of the day award. Keep up the good work.

[Coito ergo sum]

We are talking end of the world type scenarios here, magnitudes greater than New Orleans. In those circumstances there aren't going to be any rights there is going to be survival and to keep large numbers of people alive needs a lot of force. The use of peasants was obviously a joke but if British civilians try to take food supplies they will be shot, if Americans try it considered they have handguns I suspect they will just be blown up with tanks instead but the result will be the same

In that situation, there will be no feeding of the bulk of the population. There are no systems in place for that. Millions of people will die, and the government won't do a thing about it. In that sense, individuals stockpiling a reasonable supply of storable foodstuffs and water is quite a reasonable thing to do.

There are certainly plans to feed the bulk of the population , not going to work in a completely out of the blue all out nuclear attack but assuming there is some sort of indication of upcoming conflict restrictions on movement and hoarding of food will almost certainly become a serious crime before the crisis begins. Will there be enough left to do any good who knows? but I certainly put more faith in that than my ability to survive hiding under the stairs with my supply of baked beans.

It has nothing to do with what you put your faith in. Having food in your house let's you have food to eat. If you have a basement with enough food and water to take care of you and your family for a month or two, then you have enough food to take care of you and your family for a month or two. How in the world does that reduce your faith in the government being able to handle food shortages? Answer -- it doesn't have anything to do with it.

It is not a choice between doing a reasonable amount of things to help enable you to survive for a period of time and having a government with systems designed to address crises. There is nothing wrong with having both. Why do you insist on it being better that everyone not even TRY to help themselves? What is to be gained by that? At a minimum, if half the people had a 30 days supply of food and water, than in a crisis that lasts about 30 days or less, the government would have a 50% smaller burdern. What in the world is wrong with that?

[Rum]

Every man for himself - the American dream at its best..

Congratulations, Rum, you've won the red herring of the day award. Keep up the good work.

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. A theme that comes through in this thread is cooperation in the face of adversity versus the stand alone every man for himself individualistic approach.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every man for himself - the American dream at its best..

Congratulations, Rum, you've won the red herring of the day award. Keep up the good work.

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. A theme that comes through in this thread is cooperation in the face of adversity versus the stand alone every man for himself individualistic approach.

Where do you get that? Who is suggesting that humans not cooperate productively?

What you're doing is taking that nonsensical red herring that is often floated by Yerpeeins -- that Merka is all about lawlessness and "every man for himself." Merka has never been about every man for himself, and that isn't what the old concepts of "rugged individualism," or freedom or liberty are all about. I guess maybe you're just recasting the old Yerpeein' canard that Merka = stereotypical "wild wild west" with gunfights at high noon and posse comitatis justice, and whatnot.

FFS -- taking steps to be able to survive for a little while if the god damn power goes out and the shops are closed is not the same thing as suggesting that every man/woman should fend for themselves and fuck everyone else in an anarchic frenzy of gunfire. Christ, man. You take Seth's posts and then attribute them to the entire United States, FFS. American dream at its best is, to you, "every man for himself?" How is that NOT a red fucking herring?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

C.E.S., Seeth is "devil take the hindmost". How could you have missed that?

[Coito ergo sum]

C.E.S., Seeth is "devil take the hindmost". How could you have missed that?

Well, if he said that every man for himself was "Seth's Dream" I would have no argument. Maybe Seth would, but it seems that assertion is closer to the mark with Seth. But what Rum said was that it was the American Dream, which is, of course, bull-sized bollocks. It's another example of the same shit folks keep saying I overreact to - the Yerpeein superiority complex. Here, it's another bit of the "Merka is crazy and Yerup is reasonable and rational in all things" concept.

[laklak]

Every man for himself - the American dream at its best..

I imagine it would be more of a nightmare. However, it's a nightmare with historical legs. Perhaps you trust your government to take care of you, but after FEMA's less than stellar performance post Katrina I have a slightly different view of mine. Response to Sandy was a little better, but there were areas without power or water for weeks after the storm.

Are you not prepared for emergencies that are likely in your area? Hurricanes are a fact of life in coastal Florida, just as tornados are a fact of life in the plains states. Are residents of Oklahoma who build storm shelters and keep emergency supplies some sort of survivalist nutters, just waiting for society to disintegrate so they have a chance to use their assault rifles?

I find the complacent attitudes many UK posters have unfathomable. How you went from a nation that withstood the blitz to a society afraid to change the plug on a lamp and willing to starve to death in a row house while waiting for the government to hand out emergency rations is frankly mystifying.

[Pappa]

Every man for himself - the American dream at its best..

Congratulations, Rum, you've won the red herring of the day award. Keep up the good work.

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. A theme that comes through in this thread is cooperation in the face of adversity versus the stand alone every man for himself individualistic approach.

Unless I missed a bunch of posts (quite likely), I didn't get that at all from this thread. It's seemed more like "Government intervention in the face of adversity versus the stand alone every man for himself individualistic approach".

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking personal responsibility for ensuring you'd be prepared for some calamity.

[Animavore]

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking personal responsibility for ensuring you'd be prepared for some calamity.

I agree. It's why I keep a wire coat-hanger handy

[Gawdzilla Sama]

C.E.S., Seeth is "devil take the hindmost". How could you have missed that?

Well, if he said that every man for himself was "Seth's Dream" I would have no argument. Maybe Seth would, but it seems that assertion is closer to the mark with Seth. But what Rum said was that it was the American Dream, which is, of course, bull-sized bollocks. It's another example of the same shit folks keep saying I overreact to - the Yerpeein superiority complex. Here, it's another bit of the "Merka is crazy and Yerup is reasonable and rational in all things" concept.

I just ignored that one, because, really, it was the Rum talking.

[MrJonno]

It has nothing to do with what you put your faith in. Having food in your house let's you have food to eat. If you have a basement with enough food and water to take care of you and your family for a month or two, then you have enough food to take care of you and your family for a month or two. How in the world does that reduce your faith in the government being able to handle food shortages? Answer -- it doesn't have anything to do with it.

A month or two for a family what planet are you on?, maybe I could just about store 4-5 days food at a stretch and that's for 2 people. What do you have in your back garden a warehouse with its own generators and fuel supply .

I can quite comfortable say there is zero chance of me ever dying of starvation in a major disaster got what 48 hours without water? , food isn't even worth worrying about.
Not to mention they isnt enough food in the world for everyone to have 2 months worth of food, you are quite literal murdering people if you started hoarding like that. Almost certainly in an emergency food hoarding would be come a very very serious offence quite possibly a capital one even in the UK.

[Coito ergo sum]

It has nothing to do with what you put your faith in. Having food in your house let's you have food to eat. If you have a basement with enough food and water to take care of you and your family for a month or two, then you have enough food to take care of you and your family for a month or two. How in the world does that reduce your faith in the government being able to handle food shortages? Answer -- it doesn't have anything to do with it.

A month or two for a family what planet are you on?, maybe I could just about store 4-5 days food at a stretch and that's for 2 people. What do you have in your back garden a warehouse with its own generators and fuel supply .

Nonsense. A few buckets in the corner of the basement and you can survive. http://www.samsclub.com/sams/augason-fa ... 5610448.ip Add a few skids of canned goods. This isn't about surviving on leg of lamb and roast turkey every night -- it's about having some food around to survive on in an emergency. A few large jugs of water and a family is set for a while, especially if they have a filtration device in their home to use to clean water without heating it.

I can quite comfortable say there is zero chance of me ever dying of starvation in a major disaster got what 48 hours without water? , food isn't even worth worrying about.
Not to mention they isnt enough food in the world for everyone to have 2 months worth of food, you are quite literal murdering people if you started hoarding like that. Almost certainly in an emergency food hoarding would be come a very very serious offence quite possibly a capital one even in the UK.

Of course there is enough. It's not hoarding. Just a few buckets of dried goods and a few skids of canned goods. On a rationing system, people can survive on small amounts of food. Water is important, but also easy to plan for a month's worth of survival.

If that's "hoarding" then there is something wrong with your legal system.

[laklak]

I figure the 11,000 gallons of water in the swimming pool will help. If I run out I'll just shoot looters and drain their blood.