Five common Piles of Prepper BSComments are disappointing. No one calls BS on this guys description of BS.
not after an economic collapse anyways, in fact, I look for the opposite to happen, with hordes of people packing it up and leaving rural areas for the cities to look for work (when things settle down and after the initial riots that will occur in some areas). Recent examples of this happening after an economic collapse; include present day Greece, Argentina 1998–2002, the former USSR in the 1990s, New Zealand in the 1980?s and the U.S. Great Depression of the 1930?s.
In all the examples given above none saw a huge influx of refuges fleeing the cities to the country, but the opposite reaction with people leaving the rural areas for the cities in hopes of finding work.
This is probably true, but I think its more for safety and supplies than "for work." - I agree there will be no Golden Horde- and that they will most likely die in place for the most part. Does it matter if its 100 gangs of twelve, 10 gangs of twelve or 1? One gang of 12 raiding your farm is enough right? You are pretty much dead in any of those scenarios right? You duty is to take as many as you can so there are fewer for your neighbors. Maybe your neighbors come to help because they know they are next.. Its really that simple.
There is also a good possibility that the federal government will take resources from rural areas (food for example) and redistribute those resources to urban areas after an economic collapse (a new form of welfare?) so why would they want to come and take it when the federal government will do it for them?
I do know that any and all government resources will be put toward helping urban areas after such an event. As I’ve said before an economic collapse does not mean a government collapse – those in power will only tighten the screws and take from you to redistribute to the cities…
And the Feds who will do this are paid with what? I think in this country an economic collapse WILL lead to a Federal government collapse - or at least a vast diminishing of their power. The Feds minions will know that their pension are BS, and be disgruntled to start. The fed can either pay them less or pay them the same (or more ) in blue dollars-- but then the inflation issue starts all over again, and that is if you can convince the country the new Blue Dollars are money instead of bits of paper. Add into that the existing culture of non-accountability in a Government entity and these minions are going to do as little as possible ..
To add to this, we have a festering Rural/City, Right/Left , and racial divides, and we are all armed. Its far more costly for the Feds to try this - and my understanding is in Argentina didn't try to take from farmers and rural folks on behalf of the cities. They got aid from "outside." During a dollar collapse there will be no "outside" and if there is, that will not be Pro-American or want to help. The only powers the Fed can call on would be Russian or China and they are unlikely to provide anything but soldiers, and soldiers are likely to worsen the situation.. When the Feds come to take what you have, especially if they are foreign troops, you shoot, because if they are taking crops without payment you can bet they will take guns at the same time. End of story. You shoot. And they won't do it long, because you don't risk getting shot at for blue dollars and no pension.
You see most people want law and order and will work together to achieve that end. Crime will no doubt increase after an economic collapse (and most other disasters), with home invasions, robbery, murder, kidnapping and rape being all to common, but such offenses will still be against the law, both legally and morally, and people will demand that the perpetrators be apprehended and justice served, even if that justice is via the rule and judgment of a local warlord or governor and a public stoning in the street.
Yes, but that isn't the rule of law. Its Mob rule, and its different and the rules are more whimsical and fluid. That is why it was perfectly fine to hunt Jews in Nazi Germany. Yes there will continue to be consequences for anti-social and destructive behavior. There will also be consequences for not paying tribute to the warlord. etc.. Oh, and if the Fed gov is still powerful enough to confiscate food - why are there warlords again? Justice will be for those in charge, not for the "little people" however defined. Even a few Hours without the rule of law could result in all out civil wars in some areas- especially if one group tries to take from another - be that city mice against urban mice , blacks against Hispanics, or Leftist Govt vs Patriots.
You will not be able to kill your neighbor because he looked at your wife with lust in his eyes, or trespassed on your property without there being repercussions brought against you.
In broad daylight with witnesses? You are probably correct. But there will be a lot of unexplained and investigated "disappearances" - Especially if this turns more into a Civil War. A stranger in town might very well be gunned down for the slightest infraction or suspicion they are there to cause trouble. And blue dollars aren't going to pay someone to risk their lives trying to investigate these crimes - not to mention depending on the community the sheer volume of these crimes might make investigation impossible. No, the police if still operating they will show up, fill out the paperwork and then go to the donut shop (if its still operating). They don't have pensions anymore either, and its not worth getting killed - especially now. They have a wife and kids at home too you know. The only investigations will be for those in power- and you will simply be disappeared if you kill a cop or close friend of a cop. Consequences yes, but not the consequences of the rule of law. A lot of old grievances are going to get settled, and a great great number of the perpetrators will never be "caught"
Those that use unjustifiable lethal force against another person will be held accountable if caught, no matter how bad the economy gets or how deep and far reaching the crash. To think otherwise is a sure way of ending up in jail or worse.
Jail? Yeah, we can afford to have people manning that and feeding the inmates. Worse will be the option chosen. And "if caught" becomes the key phrase. IN a town where gunshots are heard almost routinely, is anyone going to venture out of town to see if you just shot a looter on your land? Won't most consider Looting in this situation a capital offense anyway?
Come on let’s be realistic, could you live in the woods with no outside support for four to six years?
Woods? No dummy. I have a house and neighbors at the bugout location as well. My problem is the urban area between.
And guess what… you’ll be on your own. No one will come to your rescue – if the looters manage to take control of your isolated cabin in the woods, they can stay for as long as they want and do what ever they want to you and your family, and no one will hear your screams for help.
Robbers, thieves, rapists and murders will seek out isolated retreats,because of there isolation, I know this goes against what some other self-appointed “survival guru” has repeatedly told his readers, but recent history and common sense prove that I’m right. Armed and organized home invasions will be a constant threat for isolated families.
Um, wouldn't that require a Golden Horde? If you are isolated they still have to find you. Yes, no one will hear you or rescue you so you will probably be targeted if they find you. If the golden horde consists of 2 gangs, the chances of finding your little hovel amongst the 1000s to choose from goes way down - as does the payoff for them - not every rural place with people is going to be a "rich target"
And Hunkering down with a community has its risks too.. - oh that guy trades silver, or looks like he is well fed....and even within- groups require trust and you can be just as screwed if someone in your group betrays you. There is no safe course, so those who choose complete isolation ( in hopes that no superior force finds them) aren't doing it "wrong" - they simply weigh the very unknown and unqualified risks differently.
