# Forming the Neighborhood Tribe



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

This was inspired by *******'s post.



******* said:


> Guess I'm an inclusive prepper, because I prep to provide for my neighbors on our rural lane. They don't know that I do, but they are included in my preps. They are included because I know most of them plus many have resources that could be used during a crisis. They are also included because I'd rather see my neighbors as part of a community & not a threat. So I guess I'm for tribalism. Such a lifestyle has worked all throughout history so why not during a crisis?


http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/...ned-new-term-old-idea-inclusive-prepping.html

I think the same, too.....but I don't really have a clear plan about it. All I know so far is that I'm buying extra food (oats) for neighbors.

For those who are thinking of, and actually secretly prepping for neighbors too, let's talk about how do we
go about this.

To start:

When, how and what do we tell neighbors?

Pooling our food? Anything edible and drinkable in houses should be pooled in one location?
Pooling our resources - anything useful (duct tapes, nails, medical supplies, etc.,) should all be pooled in one location?

Do we choose the best location (house) to become our supply depot and main quarter (where we cook and eat) - and move all our supplies there? Or, should we (the one who prepped for neighbors) keep our supplies in our own house even if there's a better location available?


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Well, I have the excuse of living in a hurricane area, so that's one way to kick it off. 2: I work in a kitchen, so it's my job to prepare food in advance, and generally be ready to take care of ppl, and I'm an Eagle Scout. I usually lead with those.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

Even if preppers don't think of doing this, you never know. Unforeseen circumstances may just force you to form a tribe......so it's best to have a plan for this scenario.

Of course, things usually never pan out the way we planned them, but it's better to have some ideas about it.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

I hate the idea of "pooling food or water" because there are always the useless, unprepared people that my resources have to be used for, same people will be useless and lazy in the future.

Personally, screw the tribe and their inevitable commie rules, I will leave if I can.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

TG said:


> I hate the idea of "pooling food or water" because there are always the useless, unprepared people that my resources have to be used for, same people will be useless and lazy in the future.
> 
> Personally, screw the tribe and their inevitable commie rules, I will leave if I can.


This^^^^

(Unless the "tribe" is willing to carry "shit buckets" from the latrine...:vs_laugh


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

TG said:


> I hate the idea of "pooling food or water" because there are always the useless, unprepared people that my resources have to be used for, same people will be useless and lazy in the future.
> 
> Personally, screw the tribe and their inevitable commie rules, I will leave if I can.


And I think the useless and lazy people would end up being the most dangerous......


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

rstanek said:


> And I think the useless and lazy people would end up being the most dangerous......


They ALWAYS are!


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Such organisations of people faced with basic survival fail unless everyone puts in a 100 percent. Jamestown and the Pilgrims both had to go from a communal type approach to if you do not work, you do not eat.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

My family used to own a Linden Tea farm in Southern Ukraine, they had a great relationship with surrounding farmers and traded a lot of goods, gave many local villagers life-long jobs, everyone worked hard! 
Then the first wave of communists came in 1905 and demanded everyone pool their resources and have a communal organization, of'course, everyone refused so all the homes, trees, fields and surrounding farms were burned to the ground. My family and the rest of the farmers tried to rebuild, then the 1917 revolution happened, everything again got taken away by the communists and their collectivization rules, most of my family members who protested were murdered and the rest sent to the border near Mongolia, some to Kamchatka and the rest to other Siberian areas, others were forced to stay in Ukraine and work on the collective farms, eventually dying from hunger because all of the fruits of their labour were sent North to feed the new government officials.

All of these "pooling of resources" garbage is NEVER voluntary and never will be because the unprepared people will always be in the majority and have the loudest of voices, this will never end up benefitting the people who work the hardest.

Communism, because this is exactly what you describe will always be a bad idea.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

we get the Clintons and their BS ''It takes a Village'' joining this website lately? .... what's with all the kumbaya and let's save the poor sheeple from themselves ....

if you want to screw yourself over and get you & yours killed that's just about the best way possible - have something in your possession that means life & death - and the entire frigging neighborhood knows about it ....

we have yet another prime example running it's course in the Caribbean - if you think your area wouldn't get that desperate & wild - think again - Air Jordans gets the fever going in the US ....


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

TG said:


> My family used to own a Linden Tea farm in Southern Ukraine, they had a great relationship with surrounding farmers and traded a lot of goods, gave many local villagers life-long jobs, everyone worked hard!
> Then the first wave of communists came in 1905 and demanded everyone pool their resources and have a communal organization, of'course, everyone refused so all the homes, trees, fields and surrounding farms were burned to the ground. My family and the rest of the farmers tried to rebuild, then the 1917 revolution happened, everything again got taken away by the communists and their collectivization rules, most of my family members who protested were murdered and the rest sent to the border near Mongolia, some to Kamchatka and the rest to other Siberian areas, others were forced to stay in Ukraine and work on the collective farms, eventually dying from hunger because all of the fruits of their labour were sent North to feed the new government officials.
> 
> All of these "pooling of resources" garbage is NEVER voluntary and never will be because the unprepared people will always be in the majority and have the loudest of voices, this will never end up benefitting the people who work the hardest.
> ...


I appreciate you sharing your personal history. Also quite right as well.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

double post


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

I believe trade is the best way to build relations with the neighbors assuming they have something to trade for. But,,, If they have little worth trading for then even considering a "communal tribe" is foolishness. 

Also by using trade as the bonding factor you won't reveal much of what you have unless the other person as a lot of good stuff too so you guys do a lot of trading. "I'll trade you these potatoes for some of that canned spinach". 

Trade can be used for defense also. "I'll watch your back yard if you watch mine". Or "I'll help defend your property if you help defend mine".
When times are hard and the bullets are real putting yourself at risk to defend someone who can't or won't help defend you and your property is a bad choice.

Putting food away for your neighbors is a noble idea but one that may breed resentment in the long run. They are eating the oats you gave them and you are eating a Mountain House Chili-Mac. Still any food is better than no food and your neighbors asking for food will multiply like pigeons on the sidewalk as you toss food. Then after a few months and the food is getting low and you stop feeding the masses, they are hungry, their children are hungry, and you have the food. 

That situation will not end well for anybody.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

rstanek said:


> And I think the useless and lazy people would end up being the most dangerous......


They already are. See my post on bums.


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

Barter but have backup or overwatch ...


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Guess I'll disagree with most here. My whole plan of survival during a SHTF crisis is by building a neighborhood tribe. I don't mention it to my neighbors now, for the reason @Kauboy stated yesterday.



Kauboy said:


> The only way these communities can sprout is organically, out of necessity, AFTER the feces has struck the revolving blades.
> Only when people are ready to recover will they actually work together to accomplish the ideas of this kind of community.
> Beforehand, and during, they will revert to their baser instincts, and do whatever they can to do that's best for them, and even rationalize evil if they need to.


Do I think it will be easy? No! Can I think of a better way to survive? No. Point is, all thru history humans have survived thru forming a community. We are not loners. It is in our DNA to form groups as we don't have the built in tools to survive alone. We need others to help with all the functions of living, from security, to hunting, to gathering, to farming, etc. Now a survival community just can't sprout up just anywhere. If you are in a city... good luck. Communities have always needed the same old things, such as good water, good weather, good land for agriculture, good location for defense, and so on.

Sorry, @TG, you can't compare a community of folks that voluntarily come together for survival to communism, where outsiders came in & took the land. What you would compare what I propose would be more like the hamlets & villages of rural Russia prior to communism or to maybe the small villages that sprung up in America as the settlers headed west.

@charito, there are no guarantees in life and certainly won't be during a crisis. But I think a neighborhood community (tribe) provides the best means of survival. You have to plan ahead and pick your location carefully. My location is not perfect but is the best I can have and still run my business and be a part of the modern world ( as opposed to heading for the wilds of say Alaska). I live at the end of a narrow, dead end lane well out into the country. This lane is off of a small county road on the way to really nowhere of note... not a route you would expect mass hordes of evacuees. There are 11 households on this mile long lane, and they are who I prep for & who I'd attempt to build a community *after* a crisis. All would have resources that could be valuable to survival, if nothing else than working security. There are two lakes on the lane plus many smaller ponds like mine, which is stocked with grain fed catfish. There are two medium sized (several hundred acre) farms on our lane and both raise cattle. One is also in the dirt business so has all sorts of heavy equipment. A dentist lives on our lane as do two nurses. Many folks have gardens & one is a beekeeper. Many are hunters, to include the family closest to my home. They don't grow a single plant, even around their house, but they hunt & fish constantly. I'd say all are gun owners as most every day I hear guns going off. This morning, while I was planting broccoli & collards in the garden, someone a few houses down was shooting an AR rapid fire.

As I matured as a prepper, I realized no matter how much I had, I'd never be safe by myself. Would I want to survive while my friends & neighbors starved? Would they starve quietly or would they come after me & mine? No matter how many ARs I have or how much ammo, all it would take is one shot from a deer hunter, turned sniper, to end my journey.

These thoughts & realizations made me to change my prepping to include the folks on my lane. My intent would be to use my preps to calm the neighbors after a crisis. To let them know between what I have & what they have, we can survive until we become self sufficient... if we stay calm & work together. As Kauboy stated, when one's life is on the line & the lives of their family, is when people stand a chance of working together. We would have to secure what we have and I feel certain, most food and at times (first year maybe) most folks would locate at my farm or on the larger farms as we all three are at the end of the lane.

I expect there could be issues in the group, from time to time, and hate to say it but those folks would be dealt with harshly. Folks that try to take from us would soon find out what a Slippy pike is.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

Pooling resources almost never happens voluntarily during or after a crisis, the unprepared are always the loudest and always demand everyone give up what they have "for the greater good". If one in your "tribe" refuses to give up what they have, the tribe collectively decides to take it away from them forcefully.

Being completely alone may not work but honestly trading food and resources is always best, pooling everything is just not beneficial in the long run, the lazy will always benefit more than the hard-working.

Yes, I may be jaded but I have valid reasons.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

TG said:


> Pooling resources almost never happens voluntarily during or after a crisis, the unprepared are always the loudest and always demand everyone give up what they have "for the greater good". If one in your "tribe" refuses to give up what they have, the tribe collectively decides to take it away from them forcefully.
> 
> Being completely alone may not work but honestly trading food and resources is always best, pooling everything is just not beneficial in the long run, the lazy will always benefit more than the hard-working.


I know that I'm not lazy & the two farmers certainly aren't. My hunter neighbor works outside all day in construction and I know he isn't either. So for me, the way I see it, these four families will be the start of the community. We are all friends & know each other well. I feel rather certain they would eventually agree with me that we'd be better off if we could add other neighbors to the group. The farmers would need help protecting their herds and it will takes lots of manpower to farm the land... especially if the equipment is not working. If we ran into the situation of other neighbors not wanting to work or demanding too much, well then they would be dealt with. As far as taking anything forcefully, that would not happen on my watch.

Once again, location is critical. Country folk from Mississippi ain't like the general population of the USA. I'm betting we would have gotten along real well with your Cossack relatives.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

TG said:


> Pooling resources almost never happens voluntarily during or after a crisis, the unprepared are always the loudest and always demand everyone give up what they have "for the greater good". If one in your "tribe" refuses to give up what they have, the tribe collectively decides to take it away from them forcefully.
> 
> Being completely alone may not work but honestly trading food and resources is always best, pooling everything is just not beneficial in the long run, the lazy will always benefit more than the hard-working.
> 
> Yes, I may be jaded but I have valid reasons.


This is true. But, the unprepared will most likely be the first to die off. They will find the pickins not so easy at the inceptor house. I suspect a few of my neighbors will be the same.

Both @Kauboy and @******* are correct. Things should coalesce but it will take time to do it. Others will need to find out on their own that they cannot survive long by themselves. Then a small community can be formed. It won't be easy and it will take time but I believe it can happen in some places. Each will have to figure out what they want and what they can bring to the table to negotiate.

Some communities will not make it. Being self centered they will all eventually die off by pure stubbornness or trying to take what others have.

Many thugs and the truly lazy should the first to die off. Not all of them will and will organize into gangs. This should cause communities to come together.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

A SHTF may go in a completely different direction than imagined here so far. 

Your ability to act independently may be removed by the National Guard or the Army taking control. They may have SOPs to lock down food supplies quickly, and nationalize farms 'for the good of the nation as a whole.' Executive Orders are already on the books to do just that. It may not exactly resemble TG's collective, but would an American version be much better.


----------



## ntxmerman (Aug 5, 2017)

If I were in a situation like @*******, I would do the same. My circumstance in a large suburb makes it unfeasible, which is why I consider bugging-out to be my most viable option.

Maybe because I went to a small college, lived in a small, close knit condo community, and have some family members who live on "compounds" I like the idea of a community situation, but not a collective sharing situation. Jamestown taught us it absolutely would not work even among those most devout of Christians who took significant risk and expense to come to the new world.

That being said, I'm thinking of ways to identify others in my neighborhood who might be of a similar mindset. Depending upon our circumstances, I can see a possibility of us uniting if there is a strategic advantage. Right now I don't see it.

There is so much discussion of bugging-in, I'm trying to find a way to make that viable. I just can't see it being viable. The other risk of bugging-in for any period of time will decrease the ability for me to a) get to my bug-out location and b) get into the community before the local residents create their own militia with the goal of keeping others out.

Even though I plan to bug-out, I am beginning to make some preps for bugging-in. I have an in-law and a couple of single female friends who live in the neighborhood. If something happens where I can't get my daughter out, I would be safer with them joining me at my house (and they would be safer as well). Therefore, my mental idea of where I am headed is to prepare for a family of 6 instead of 3. If I get stuck where I am, I would much rather be stuck with 5 armed able bodied people instead of 2.

My home could support 3 small families. If we had 3 small families living here, we could be a fortress in pretty short order. But, if I don't know who those people are in advance and their commitment level, it isn't practical to make that investment.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

sideKahr said:


> A SHTF may go in a completely different direction than imagined here so far.
> 
> Your ability to act independently may be removed by the National Guard or the Army taking control. They may have SOPs to lock down food supplies quickly, and nationalize farms 'for the good of the nation as a whole.' Executive Orders are already on the books to do just that. It may not exactly resemble TG's collective, but would an American version be much better.


Executive Order 13603 signed in 2012 nationalizes everything.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

They can't cover every square inch of land at once. It will take time to implement across the country. I think there are those who will refuse to comply.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

How to form a larger community is a really big question that I can't answer now. I'm in a new community and I don't trust any of my neighbors yet, maybe never. So I can only answer the little questions, like where can I scrape together some time and money to get my preps together this day, this week, this month.? All I know for sure is that I'll take care of my loved ones. That's all. Beyond that, I have to trust God to lead me with the big picture.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

inceptor said:


> Executive Order 13603 signed in 2012 nationalizes everything.
> 
> https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...order-national-defense-resources-preparedness
> 
> They can't cover every square inch of land at once. It will take time to implement across the country. I think there are those who will refuse to comply.


same thing happened in WW2 - all kinds of business owners refused to comply or tried a work around - they eventually had their businesses seized and went to jail - you either did it their way or they shut you down and put someone in place that would .... plenty of farmers had their fields seized and worked by others - the War Board allocated everything and measured production against assets/expenditures ....


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> It may not exactly resemble TG's collective, but would an American version be much better.


I hold no illusions that it would be any different.
Look at Venezuela.


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

My plan regarding my neighbors is to first achieve a neighborly friendship with them, so that they will respect my opinions. I don't tell them I'm a prepper, and don't force the issue that prepping is important. If the issue can be brought up within the context of casual conversations, I'll lament about the problems America faces, and if they agree that those problems are serious, THEN I'll give them some advice to do at least a little prepping, just in case. If they're not very aware of the problems I bring up, I suggest they Google them. The next time I meet them, they may want to talk more about whatever we last discussed, whether it be the problems or prepping. For most of the neighbors I know, the problems or prepping never came up. I'm OK with that, because I don't want them to ever think I'm a hard-core prepper, -even the ones I trust or am particularly close with. Desperate people do desperate things, and having a lot of people at my door looking for a handout is not something I'd look forward to.

I plan on helping organize my community *after *SHTF, when they understand the need to be organized. I live in a suburb. The organization would be loose, -common defense and common services, (like procuring wood and water). The strictest rule would be: "What's your's is your's, always and under all circumstances, unless you voluntarily relinquish it." Nothing would be shared unless it was donated or bartered for. To do anything else is to invite Socialism.

There would be community supplies, but the community has to either buy or lease them, unless they are given as a donation. How would that work? If every working member of the community earns a chit for every 4 hours of work they do for the community, and these chits are redeemable for wood or water or services, people who donate communal goods could receive extra chits or priority for services. If you donate a wheelchair, you get priority for medical help over those who did not donate and are not emergency cases.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

TGus said:


> My plan regarding my neighbors is to first achieve a neighborly friendship with them, so that they will respect my opinions. I don't tell them I'm a prepper, and don't force the issue that prepping is important. If the issue can be brought up within the context of casual conversations, I'll lament about the problems America faces, and if they agree that those problems are serious, THEN I'll give them some advice to do at least a little prepping, just in case. If they're not very aware of the problems I bring up, I suggest they Google them. The next time I meet them, they may want to talk more about whatever we last discussed, whether it be the problems or prepping. For most of the neighbors I know, the problems or prepping never came up. I'm OK with that, because I don't want them to ever think I'm a hard-core prepper, -even the ones I trust or am particularly close with. Desperate people do desperate things, and having a lot of people at my door looking for a handout is not something I'd look forward to.
> 
> I plan on helping organize my community *after *SHTF, when they understand the need to be organized. I live in a suburb. The organization would be loose, -common defense and common services, (like procuring wood and water). The strictest rule would be: "What's your's is your's, always and under all circumstances, unless you voluntarily relinquish it." Nothing would be shared unless it was donated or bartered for. To do anything else is to invite Socialism.


Sounds good!



TGus said:


> There would be community supplies, but the community has to either buy or lease them, unless they are given as a donation. How would that work? If every working member of the community earns a chit for every 4 hours of work they do for the community, and these chits are redeemable for wood or water or services, people who donate communal goods could receive extra chits or priority for services. If you donate a wheelchair, you get priority for medical help over those who did not donate and are not emergency cases.


Sounds terrible.
Only those with extra can benefit from this system.
You're literally inviting class warfare into your community.
"Why do the wealthy get all the benefits???"

Donations are a great idea, but should be accepted with no strings.
When you are trying to keep a community safe and civil, you CANNOT prioritize anything based on perceived wealth.
Doesn't matter if it makes sense. It will only foment division.
With a "no strings" donation setup, those who give are doing what they feel is right, and those who receive are grateful and thankful, not envious.

Civilization must reach a certain level before classes can be seen as beneficial, and not taking sides.

EDIT: BTW, welcome! If you wouldn't mind, drop a line in the Intro section, and let us know a little about you.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> A SHTF may go in a completely different direction than imagined here so far.
> 
> Your ability to act independently may be removed by the National Guard or the Army taking control. They may have SOPs to lock down food supplies quickly, and nationalize farms 'for the good of the nation as a whole.' Executive Orders are already on the books to do just that. It may not exactly resemble TG's collective, but would an American version be much better.


The movie "How I Live Now," showed some of that....but the scenario was short-termed.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

ntxmerman said:


> If I were in a situation like @*******, I would do the same. My circumstance in a large suburb makes it unfeasible, which is why I consider bugging-out to be my most viable option.
> 
> Maybe because I went to a small college, lived in a small, close knit condo community, and have some family members who live on "compounds" I like the idea of a community situation, but not a collective sharing situation. Jamestown taught us it absolutely would not work even among those most devout of Christians who took significant risk and expense to come to the new world.


Define devout "Christian." Jonestown was developed for a different motive, I think. I don't think a devout Christian would've done what Jonestown founder did. Also, it was founded at a certain time - not during chaos. And the leader was unstable, to say the least.

We can't really point to Jonestown as an example. It was a sect.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

TGus said:


> I plan on helping organize my community *after *SHTF, when they understand the need to be organized. I live in a suburb. The organization would be loose, -common defense and common services, (like procuring wood and water). The strictest rule would be: "What's your's is your's, always and under all circumstances, unless you voluntarily relinquish it." Nothing would be shared unless it was donated or bartered for. To do anything else is to invite Socialism.
> 
> There would be community supplies, but the community has to either buy or lease them, unless they are given as a donation. How would that work? If every working member of the community earns a chit for every 4 hours of work they do for the community, and these chits are redeemable for wood or water or services, people who donate communal goods could receive extra chits or priority for services. If you donate a wheelchair, you get priority for medical help over those who did not donate and are not emergency cases.


I don't know if we would even care whether it's socialism or not at that point when we're all trying to survive. 
All we can think of at that time - when we've seen, or heard of marauders roaming atound - is the high likelihood of safety in numbers.

If it's going to be a community, and if the purpose is to not have your neighbors as a threat - "what's yours is yours..." doesn't solve that! What if their supplies don't last as long as yours.....and they start looking your way? That's the quickest way to have the community divided, and at each other's throat.

Pooling all resources together makes for an inventory of what the community have, and how much. Do we need to ration?

What the community have would buy us some time. From there, you can all come to an agreement what needs to be replenished asap, and how to go about sustaining and protecting the community.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

As suggested in my previous post those of you who intend to run a "Community food bank" and believe that you can control who gets what based on how much they help the group I'm glad that you aren't in my area. When your system collapses I wouldn't want to be around.

For those who want to just give away lots of stuff to neighbors keep in mind that's the definition of a welfare state with you being the state. We all know how well welfare works and the rioting that occurs when the payment is a few days late.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

charito said:


> I don't know if we would even care whether it's socialism or not at that point when we're all trying to survive.
> All we can think of at that time - when we've seen, or heard of marauders roaming atound - is the high likelihood of safety in numbers.
> 
> If it's going to be a community, and if the purpose is to not have your neighbors as a threat - "what's yours is yours..." doesn't solve that! What if their supplies don't last as long as yours.....and they start looking your way? That's the quickest way to have the community divided, and at each other's throat.


Exactly. Sharing the resources is not fair. Sharing resources with "lazy, selfish" folk who didn't prepare isn't fair. Is it socialism? Who knows & who will care at that point? What sharing does is builds a community quickly... not over years. It removes the threat from those that didn't prepare. Keep in mind, when push comes to shove, normally good folks will do whatever necessary to survive. I'd prefer that whatever to be helpful, such as working the gardens & orchards, providing security, gathering, etc. Having hungry neighbors envious of your preparations means that "whatever" becomes dangerous.

Folks, I can't stress enough you aren't Rambo. No matter your background or how well you are armed, the last thing you want is conflict with folks you know & who live in close. It will not work out well in the end. Your hungry neighbor who normally is a deer hunter suddenly becomes a sniper. You want your perimeter secure & that perimeter has to be much larger than your own home or property. I have no doubt conflict will come but it is best if that conflict is from outside... not from your neighbors. As in the military, a group can survive better than an individual. In a large conflict, you need a bigger group.

Just seems most preppers only think of feeding their family group and give no thought how to stay safe... beyond having several trusty ARs.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

John Galt said:


> As suggested in my previous post those of you who intend to run a "Community food bank" and believe that you can control who gets what based on how much they help the group I'm glad that you aren't in my area. When your system collapses I wouldn't want to be around.
> 
> For those who want to just give away lots of stuff to neighbors keep in mind that's the definition of a welfare state with you being the state. We all know how well welfare works and the rioting that occurs when the payment is a few days late.


Then what is the alternative? Play Rambo? You really want to kill your hungry neighbors just so you can survive? You think you & yours will survive all conflicts because you are a prepper & you are superior? I hear a lot of folks putting down this style of prepping but I've yet to hear a single suggestion of how to better survive.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

******* said:


> Then what is the alternative? Play Rambo? You really want to kill your hungry neighbors just so you can survive? You think you & yours will survive all conflicts because you are a prepper & you are superior? I hear a lot of folks putting down this style of prepping but I've yet to hear a single suggestion of how to better survive.


No, But I do believe in helping people who will in turn help me, not just create a welfare state. As I posted earlier the better way to handle things is trade, not welfare.
But go ahead and be Santa Clause, but you'd better have the reindeer hooked up for a fast escape when the food you intend to give away runs out.

I played around with the idea of putting food up for the neighbors but what happens when the food runs out? Not to mention the huge cost to provide 2000 calories a day to 50 people for a year. And where there is free food you will attract predators, both rodents and human.

Your job is to protect and support your family. Attracting welfare specialists and predators to your front porch is not the way to protect your family.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

double post.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

> John Galt;1373050
> 
> I played around with the idea of putting food up for the neighbors but what happens when the food runs out?


See? There's the flaw to your plan. You don't wait for the food to run out. 
You all start working to sustain the community long before your food runs out. That's why you have to pool all resources to get an inventory on how much time you have.

You have to start getting food/water/medicines/more ammo as soon as you can - day 1, preferably.

Go fishing, hunting. Some can scavenge, gather firewood, and plant gardens. You've got to know the strong points of your members, and use their skills. Some can be responsible for sanitation, defense, etc.,

The goal I think, is to get your community fortified as soon as you can. You have to protect what the community have.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

John Galt said:


> No, But I do believe in helping people who will in turn help me, not just create a welfare state. As I posted earlier the better way to handle things is trade, not welfare.


And if folks have nothing to trade, do what, kill them off? What items do you expect folks will have during a SHTF crisis that you will want?



John Galt said:


> Your job is to protect and support your family.


Exactly. That is the whole point of community. That is the only way to have a semblance of security unless of course your name is Rambo. I am no Santa Clause, as I don't like people. That being said, I am enough of a realist to know during a crisis, my family would not be safe if I only concerned myself with ourselves. You can't survive long term in a bunker. We have to get outside to grow our food, clean, gather, etc.

Once again, give me a better realist option than building a small community. I've yet to hear one.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

charito said:


> See? There's the flaw to your plan. You don't wait for the food to run out.
> You all start working to sustain the community long before your food runs out. That's why you have to pool all resources to get an inventory on how much time you have.
> 
> You have to start getting food/water/medicines/more ammo as soon as you can - day 1, preferably.
> ...


Exactly. My stores are for our community to survive the worst case scenario... the crisis hitting at the end of the growing season where you have to wait months before food production can start again. The whole point is to provide the glue to hold the families together until all can work on becoming self sufficient. The first year will have some bonuses. The wildlife will be plentiful for a bit plus the cattle herds will be large. All this should buy time for a more sustainable self sufficiency.

The goal is long term survival... not hunkering down in a basement for years, afraid to walk outside.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

The community members have to understand one thing: 

you're all together because it's more likely to survive in a group. You watch out for each other, because if the group dies out - you won't last long either.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

I regularly help my neighbours and will have some food saved for them but will be very careful how I offer my help AFTER a real crisis, my family and their security comes first.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

> Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
> Your job is to protect and support your family.


I've got my husband, and two 17 year old boys staying with us. 4 is better than 2.
But who am I kidding? I know it's just a matter of time.....even if we got an arsenal. Of course, a lot of marauders will be armed to the teeth, too!

What more, if they know you're well-armed, chances are they'll assume you're protecting something! 
They'll be on you like flies to honey.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

******* said:


> And if folks have nothing to trade, do what, kill them off? What items do you expect folks will have during a SHTF crisis that you will want?
> 
> Once again, give me a better realist option than building a small community. I've yet to hear one.


Strong communities have always started with trade. Socialists communities where the population is dependent of the government for food ect have always grown weak over time and failed or had to focus on allowing some free trade.

And stop being melodramatic with all your statements about killing people. You're sounding like Hillary Clinton.

As for what neighbors may have to trade there are quite a few cows, goats, good fishing ponds, and their knowledge in many areas that would be helpful, all good trading items. Many dabble in farming an acre or two or have horses.

But even in an urban area without the advantages my area has I think just giving food away would bring a lot on unwanted attention to your family.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

TG said:


> I regularly help my neighbours and will have some food saved for them but will be very careful how I offer my help AFTER a real crisis, my family and their security comes first.


Yes. That's why we have to know our neighbors.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

John Galt said:


> Strong communities have always started with trade. Socialists communities where the population is dependent of the government for food ect have always grown weak over time and failed or had to focus on allowing some free trade.
> 
> And stop being melodramatic with all your statements about killing people. You're sounding like Hillary Clinton.


There's nothing that stops a community from doing trade outside the community. I don't say no trading.

But wouldn't it be safer going out there to trade with a group, rather than by just you? How do you know the other party is planning to trade? You'll have to take your chances, wouldn't you, everytime you go out.

When you go out to trade, you either take your family along with you (and leave your stockpile unattended0, or leave them to man the fort. Depending on the numbers in your family, you can't be there to protect them while you're out trading. And you just might be followed by bad guys on your way back home.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

John Galt said:


> And stop being melodramatic with all your statements about killing people. You're sounding like Hillary Clinton.
> 
> As for what neighbors may have to trade there are quite a few cows, goats, good fishing ponds, and their knowledge in many areas that would be helpful, all good trading items. Many dabble in farming an acre or two or have horses.


Of course some will have something to trade but you have yet to state how you would handle neighbors that have nothing of value to trade. They have to be dealt with one way or another. My method is to include them, under the understanding there are no free rides & they will work their asses off like the rest of us. Your methods seems to ignore the issue & assume it will go away.

Which is more realistic?


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

TG said:


> I regularly help my neighbours and will have some food saved for them but will be very careful how I offer my help AFTER a real crisis, my family and their security comes first.


TG, what I propose is EXACTLY that... security for my family. The question is what is the best method to secure your family? What is realistic? Is it realistic to assume your neighbors will die off quietly while your family is well fed? You really want a threat to your family in so close... maybe right next door?

My intent is not being Santa Clause or to start some commune or socialist republic. Is it socialism to help folks during a crisis? Is it socialism for my church to send folks & aid to hurricane stricken communities? Do we require them to barter for that gift? To trade for it? In my system initially there would be no test for entry into the community, besides being a family on our lane. Yes, there would be requirements to stay in the group but I really don't expect any real fights when everyone is facing the exact same threat of extinction.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

charito said:


> There's nothing that stops a community from doing trade outside the community. I don't say no trading.
> 
> But wouldn't it be safer going out there to trade with a group, rather than by just you? How do you know the other party is planning to trade? You'll have to take your chances, wouldn't you, everytime you go out.
> 
> When you go out to trade, you either take your family along with you (and leave your stockpile unattended0, or leave them to man the fort. Depending on the numbers in your family, you can't be there to protect them while you're out trading. And you just might be followed by bad guys on your way back home.


Considering that we will already have at least 4 people in the house along with neighbors with their own food and whom we trust I suspect that we will do ok.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

******* said:


> Of course some will have something to trade but you have yet to state how you would handle neighbors that have nothing of value to trade. They have to be dealt with one way or another. My method is to include them, under the understanding there are no free rides & they will work their asses off like the rest of us. Your methods seems to ignore the issue & assume it will go away.
> 
> Which is more realistic?


As I mentioned in a previous post there is a fair amount of food in this area. Not to mention 2 feed mills 5 miles away. But I still believe my previous policy is valid even in an urban environment. If you feed the masses they will have little reason to work hard to feed themselves and if you only feed the ones who work hard you will be alerting others that you have plenty of food and tempting them to take what you have.

I will not help those who aren't willing to help themselves nor will I attract the attention of those who may steal what my family needs. Instead we intend to be "the grey man" and quietly trade with people we know when possible. I can't think of a single house within a mile that doesn't have a useful skill or food producing ability worthy of trading with. .I also know every person within a mile of my home, some better than others, and I trust them enough to not be overly concerned.

Yes, If I see a neighbor's kid who seriously needs antibiotics and I have some I will give them but I strongly suspect the neighbor would find some way to repay me, it's just the kind of area I live in.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> Of course some will have something to trade but you have yet to state how you would handle neighbors that have nothing of value to trade. They have to be dealt with one way or another. My method is to include them, under the understanding there are no free rides & they will work their asses off like the rest of us. Your methods seems to ignore the issue & assume it will go away.
> 
> Which is more realistic?


You're asking him what he will do, but failing to actually conclude your own point.
You will make them understand "no free rides", but those are only words.
If they don't live up to whatever arbitrary expectations you've set for them, what happens next?

As much as you folks may wish it, "pooling of resources" doesn't work. It never has. Human nature, and survival mentality see to that.
You will ALWAYS have those who will stash away extra, or steal more than their "fair share", or never contribute enough to justify what they take.
Let's take the 400lb fellow that we all know. He can't do much with respect to manual labor. Hopefully he has some trade skill. He demands 4000 calories a day.
Does he get it?
You'll effectively be making him starve on only 2000.

So... what's fair? He gets what others have provided, or gets what he provides?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

I think the best thing to do, if you plan on working with your neighbors, is to have SPECIFIC neighbors sounded out...

Honestly, the thought of an entire neighborhood sharing food probably means you giving all your supplies out and running out very quickly... not really a plan. 

There one guy that lives a couple of blocks away who's house looks just like mine... I don't mean the structure, rather the rain capture system, the garden all over the place, he had a "Don't Tread On Me" flag flying long before it was stolen & corrupted by the Tea Party... 

I've made it a point to become friends with him, but even still we don't "talk about it" by mutual consensus... other than once, when I said "you know, if things go bad" and he replied "yep, I do". There's one I can count on.

Here's where it gets hard though... I've got one family in the neighborhood who's just no good. I know that now, and they would be a real problem if the SHTF. I've also got several "little old widow ladies" in the neighborhood who would, basically, be useless for anything not domestic (this sounds sexist, but really, what's an 80-year-old woman who's been a 'housewife' all of her life going to do in a neighborhood protection situation?

Big, interesting topic and one I don't have very many answers for, because I can't feed the whole town but I sure can't imagine letting the little old lady across the street starve to death either.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> Is it socialism to help folks during a crisis? Is it socialism for my church to send folks & aid to hurricane stricken communities? Do we require them to barter for that gift? To trade for it? In my system initially there would be no test for entry into the community, besides being a family on our lane. Yes, there would be requirements to stay in the group but I really don't expect any real fights when everyone is facing the exact same threat of extinction.


Good sir, surely you can differentiate the merits of a system of charitable and willful giving from that of a compelled giving, right?
Your church freely *chose* to give to those in need.
The early church *chose* to pool their resources in EVERYTHING.
They did this because they all lived in Christ.
There were still those who chose to withhold, and God struck them dead for their deception.

In a society where you give all your resources up for the rest of the community, and if you do not, you are blacklisted or punished, that is NOT the same thing.
TG gave us an example of the latter, and it has been repeated throughout history.
Until you can guarantee the former (a Christ-centered socialism), you are playing a losing game.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> You're asking him what he will do, but failing to actually conclude your own point.
> You will make them understand "no free rides", but those are only words.
> If they don't live up to whatever arbitrary expectations you've set for them, what happens next?


Next? Out of the group. If they cause more trouble, then maybe a Slippy pike.

It seems that many here are confusing this concept of prepping for a SHTF event to the general ails of society today... especially when words like communism or socialism comes up. Yes many folk today are worthless pieces of crap and I might find a few on my lane but I doubt it. I'd compare my style of prepping to what happens after a disaster, where all good folk step up to assist. Where there is no thought of payback or trade... just compassion. This is not long term socialism... just a short term plan to hold a group together.

I just don't think many folks, even preppers, give proper thought of how to survive a severe crisis, where society breaks down. I don't think they realize how dangerous it will be, no matter how much food you have or how many guns you have. Compassion is not high on my list of reasons for doing what I do. Safety in numbers is.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> Next? Out of the group. If they cause more trouble, then maybe a Slippy pike.
> 
> It seems that many here are confusing this concept of prepping for a SHTF event to the general ails of society today... especially when words like communism or socialism comes up. Yes many folk today are worthless pieces of crap and I might find a few on my lane but I doubt it. I'd compare my style of prepping to what happens after a disaster, where all good folk step up to assist. Where there is no thought of payback or trade... just compassion. This is not long term socialism... just a short term plan to hold a group together.
> 
> I just don't think many folks, even preppers, give proper thought of how to survive a severe crisis, where society breaks down. I don't think they realize how dangerous it will be, no matter how much food you have or how many guns you have. Compassion is not high on my list of reasons for doing what I do. Safety in numbers is.


Right, out of the group.
So, just like John, a likely death sentence for them.
And, in all likelihood, another security threat that has intimate knowledge of your operations.
That doesn't sound like a great solution either.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

John Galt said:


> If you feed the masses


Who said anything about feeding the masses?

Just like you, we're talking about the neighbors we know. Our only difference is, our plan of pooling our resources. That's how I understand it.....


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Good sir, surely you can differentiate the merits of a system of charitable and willful giving from that of a compelled giving, right?
> Your church freely *chose* to give to those in need.
> The early church *chose* to pool their resources in EVERYTHING.
> They did this because they all lived in Christ.
> There were still those who chose to withhold, and God struck them dead for their deception.


Where have I stated about compelling anyone? What I will give to my neighbors is a gift with strings attached. You receive the gift if you agree to work for the good of the community. No one will be compelled to join & no one will be compelled to give. If you can make it on your own, good for you. Just don't come running to us when a gang of folks heads your way.



Kauboy said:


> In a society where you give all your resources up for the rest of the community, and if you do not, you are blacklisted or punished, that is NOT the same thing.
> TG gave us an example of the latter, and it has been repeated throughout history.
> Until you can guarantee the former (a Christ-centered socialism), you are playing a losing game.


Where have I mentioned being black listed or punished for not joining the group? You really think that is a big concern? You really think all these folks are prepared to defend themselves & their property when society collapses?

I hear a lot of opposition to my plans but hear nothing but silence when asked for a better way to survive these extreme times... besides barter of course.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Right, out of the group.
> So, just like John, a likely death sentence for them.
> And, in all likelihood, another security threat that has intimate knowledge of your operations.
> That doesn't sound like a great solution either.


Yes, you are correct. So why would anyone wish that on themselves? Keep in mind, like John, I live among country folk who are used to hard work... not a bunch of woosie city dwellers. I really think I'll have bigger issues than folks NOT wanting to join a survival group. I think it will be much more realistic that too many others may wish to join.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> Where have I stated about compelling anyone? What I will give to my neighbors is a gift with strings attached. You receive the gift if you agree to work for the good of the community. No one will be compelled to join & no one will be compelled to give. If you can make it on your own, good for you. Just don't come running to us when a gang of folks heads your way.
> 
> Where have I mentioned being black listed or punished for not joining the group? You really think that is a big concern? You really think all these folks are prepared to defend themselves & their property when society collapses?
> 
> I hear a lot of opposition to my plans but hear nothing but silence when asked for a better way to survive these extreme times... besides barter of course.


Perhaps, since you agreed with charito, that I lumped you in too hastily with the "pool all resources" crowd.
If you are only suggesting that you will help others if they help you, then that's trading and you and John are actually agreeing.

However, if you *are* in with the "pool all resources" crowd, then you absolutely *must* compel others, or the whole thing collapses before it starts.
You'll have people taking without giving, and you will necessarily have to blacklist them.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

******* said:


> Yes, you are correct. So why would anyone wish that on themselves? Keep in mind, like John, I live among country folk who are used to hard work... not a bunch of woosie city dwellers. I really think I'll have bigger issues than folks NOT wanting to join a survival group. I think it will be much more realistic that too many others may wish to join.


I agree with this, too many others that (while sincere) also join with limited to no supplies of their own. That's the real problem if you live in a food-negative environment (i.e. some place that does not produce an excess of food).

If you live where I do, where a population of 4,000 grows enough food to feed 100,000, it's not nearly as much of an issue. If we were grid-down and left on our own, our community would have excess food for years (we export a LOT of cattle that we could barter from local farmers, plus a LOT of grain in storage ... it would deteriorate before it was all used up).

No, here our biggest concerns would be getting together for things like enforcing good sanitation habits to keep disease down, water purification (there's plenty, but we would need to work together to get it treated), grinding grain, etc.

I don't have to worry about my neighbors starving, really... (I use that as an example but in reality nobody around here would starve) but I do have to worry about them using bad sanitation and getting everybody sick, neighborhood security, security against outsiders trying to come in and take what we have, etc.

There's a reason we live where we do.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Perhaps, since you agreed with charito, that I lumped you in too hastily with the "pool all resources" crowd.
> If you are only suggesting that you will help others if they help you, then that's trading and you and John are actually agreeing.
> 
> However, if you *are* in with the "pool all resources" crowd, then you absolutely *must* compel others, or the whole thing collapses before it starts.
> You'll have people taking without giving, and you will necessarily have to blacklist them.


Membership in the group will not be based upon what you can initially bring to the table but upon your agreement to share and to work together. How much weight do you put on a neighbor who has little stored food but is a nurse? A farmer with hundreds of cows would be giving up lots but without group security, what good would those cows be & how long would he be able to keep them? Yes, any group member will be compelled to work for the good of the group.

My whole point is I'd prefer all on our lane to work together & not have the chaos of everybody for themselves, where you have neighbor against neighbor. There will be an understanding that some voices will have greater weight. If they don't like that arrangement no hurt feelings. Survive on your own. I am absolutely sure the folks on the end of the lane, the two farmers, me & my hunter neighbor will agree to join up. We have the vast majority of the goods & know how to grow our own food and know each other very well.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> You're asking him what he will do, but failing to actually conclude your own point.
> You will make them understand "no free rides", but those are only words.
> If they don't live up to whatever arbitrary expectations you've set for them, what happens next?
> 
> ...


That's a good point.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> Big, interesting topic and one I don't have very many answers for, because I can't feed the whole town but I sure can't imagine letting the little old lady across the street starve to death either.


I hear you. We got three. At least one of them has children who regularly looks after her.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> Right, out of the group.
> So, just like John, a likely death sentence for them.
> And, in all likelihood, another security threat that has intimate knowledge of your operations.
> That doesn't sound like a great solution either.


Another good point!


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

******* said:


> Next? Out of the group. If they cause more trouble, then maybe a Slippy pike.
> 
> It seems that many here are confusing this concept of prepping for a SHTF event to the general ails of society today... especially when words like communism or socialism comes up. Yes many folk today are worthless pieces of crap and I might find a few on my lane but I doubt it. I'd compare my style of prepping to what happens after a disaster, where all good folk step up to assist. Where there is no thought of payback or trade... just compassion. This is not long term socialism... just a short term plan to hold a group together.
> 
> I just don't think many folks, even preppers, give proper thought of how to survive a severe crisis, where society breaks down. I don't think they realize how dangerous it will be, no matter how much food you have or how many guns you have. Compassion is not high on my list of reasons for doing what I do. Safety in numbers is.


Kauboy's got good point there, *******.

At least it's good that we're discussing this. If ever we end up in that situation - we are aware of the possibilities that could happen.

I tend to see only the positive and neglect to see the negatives.....it's good that some sensible folks are pointing the negatives to us.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

My reason for getting a neighborhood "tribe" is for security reason. There's the most likelihood of safety in numbers.

How do we get the neighborhood to band together without pooling our resources, or without anyone begging food from neighbors? Without neighbors becoming a threat?
Is that possible?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

charito said:


> My reason for getting a neighborhood "tribe" is for security reason. There's the most likelihood of safety in numbers.
> 
> How do we get the neighborhood to band together without pooling our resources, or without anyone begging food from neighbors? Without neighbors becoming a threat?
> Is that possible?


Ah, the $4,000 question...

We know it's possible. We're here, aren't we?
The difficulty will be in the transition.
Going from a world of plenty to a world of scarcity will be a big shock to everybody, us included.

From my perspective, it takes a shock to really get people motivated to work toward the common good.
You MUST suffer great loss to really find yourself, and start looking for a better solution.

Day 1, nobody will be doing that.
Day 31, maybe.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> From my perspective, it takes a shock to really get people motivated to work toward the common good.
> You MUST suffer great loss to really find yourself, and start looking for a better solution.


I hope you are wrong. I hope the realization that we now would be living in a new world, would be enough to change folks... without first experiencing the suffering. I know at the very first moment, I'd be meeting with the farmers & my next door neighbor. Others could come along later.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

******* said:


> I hope you are wrong. I hope the realization that we now would be living in a new world, would be enough to change folks... without first experiencing the suffering. I know at the very first moment, I'd be meeting with the farmers & my next door neighbor. Others could come along later.


You would, but you've spent many years rationalizing a world without.
It will not be accepted by the majority of the population.
From their first day, things have been available, or easily found. When that's no longer true, it will still take a LOOONG time for people to accept their new reality.
Remember, we live in a world of immediate gratification and instant relief. A person's psyche won't readily accept that this is no longer the case.
They will continue to think help is coming, or that their situation is temporary... right up until they have their own moment of complete panic and breakdown.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

Uh-oh. I ordered life straw and aquatabs. They were delivered at the wrong house - two doors down - on the 12th of Sep. The neighbor brought the package today with apologies (she didn't notice that it wasn't hers). It's been opened and re-taped. So she knows I got those water thingy.


----------



## White Shadow (Jun 26, 2017)

charito said:


> Uh-oh. I ordered life straw and aquatabs. They were delivered at the wrong house - two doors down - on the 12th of Sep. The neighbor brought the package today with apologies (she didn't notice that it wasn't hers). It's been opened and re-taped. So she knows I got those water thingy.


Set up a secondary shipping address with your name and the neighbor's address. Then have a 55 gallon drum and this book delivered. Should get the idea across.

Be Your Own Undertaker: How To Dispose Of A Dead Body

If you think this neighbor might be a tad slow, you can include a clue:









Should they still not get the message, at least you have the drum handy.

:tango_face_wink:


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

I was thinking this afternoon. Is not what is being discussed here basically what happened in One Second After? Where groups were formed & if you joined the group, your possessions were shared. If you opted out, you were not forced to join or to give up your possessions?


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

White Shadow said:


> Set up a secondary shipping address with your name and the neighbor's address. Then have a 55 gallon drum and this book delivered. Should get the idea across.
> 
> Be Your Own Undertaker: How To Dispose Of A Dead Body
> 
> ...


:vs_laugh:


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

******* said:


> I was thinking this afternoon. Is not what is being discussed here basically what happened in One Second After? Where groups were formed & if you joined the group, your possessions were shared. If you opted out, you were not forced to join or to give up your possessions?


Is that a movie? Never heard of that.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

charito said:


> Is that a movie? Never heard of that.


Book about what happens to a town after an EMP attack.
https://www.amazon.com/Second-After-John-Matherson-Novel/dp/0765327252


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

I live in a suburb of Boston which contains apx. 60K people. If SHTF happens suddenly, I plan to do 2 things: 1) I'll organize my block, and have them help organize the blocks around us, then have the neighboring blocks help organize the blocks that surround them, and so on. This expansion has 2 advantages: self-supportive communities can be formed, and it provides defense in-depth. I've already written a booklet that can be distributed to provide a framework and suggestions. 2) I'll go to the city mayor and offer to teach continual survival classes at a public auditorium to whomever wants to come, covering 7 subjects per week, (food preservation and water purification, gardening, waste disposal and disease prevention, keeping warm, foraging edibles, community and home defense, and forming communities). The city government will be happy to be seen providing whatever assistance its population might need. This may also put my family in a good position to benefit from scarce city resources, (not that I'd do this for selfish reasons).


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

Camel923 said:


> Such organisations of people faced with basic survival fail unless everyone puts in a 100 percent. Jamestown and the Pilgrims both had to go from a communal type approach to if you do not work, you do not eat.


That's easy to say, but much harder to accomplish, maybe even impossible for some. The way I see it, you have to motivate people through their own self-interest. I would create a system in which all services must be paid for by chits, and people have to earn those chits by working for the community, say 1 chit per 2 hours of work. If they want wood or water or trash disposal, they need to pay for it with the chits they've earned, or they don't get it. Suddenly, the lazy ones are motivated!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

TGus said:


> I live in a suburb of Boston which contains apx. 60K people. If SHTF happens suddenly, I plan to do 2 things: 1) I'll organize my block, and have them help organize the blocks around us, then have the neighboring blocks help organize the blocks that surround them, and so on. This expansion has 2 advantages: self-supportive communities can be formed, and it provides defense in-depth. I've already written a booklet that can be distributed to provide a framework and suggestions. 2) I'll go to the city mayor and offer to teach continual survival classes at a public auditorium to whomever wants to come, covering 7 subjects per week, (food preservation and water purification, gardening, waste disposal and disease prevention, keeping warm, foraging edibles, community and home defense, and forming communities). The city government will be happy to be seen providing whatever assistance its population might need. This may also put my family in a good position to benefit from scarce city resources, (not that I'd do this for selfish reasons).


You, a supposedly prepared individual, will host a scheduled meeting at a public location each night, abandoning your home and all within, at regular intervals known publicly to anyone who cares to see.
Hmmm... will you be saving people the step of following you home, and just go ahead and post your home address too?
I don't mean to be a downer, but a realist.
When this kind of event happens, it's not a great idea to stick your neck out too far. Easier to get lopped off.
People who are regular predators in society will be in overdrive, and looking for every opportunity while the city is in chaos and police response, if it exists at all, will be spotty at best.
I don't recommend traveling too far from the supplies you intend to maintain ownership of.


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> You, a supposedly prepared individual, will host a scheduled meeting at a public location each night, abandoning your home and all within, at regular intervals known publicly to anyone who cares to see.
> Hmmm... will you be saving people the step of following you home, and just go ahead and post your home address too?
> I don't mean to be a downer, but a realist.
> When this kind of event happens, it's not a great idea to stick your neck out too far. Easier to get lopped off.
> ...


There are 3 other adults capable of competently using firearms living in my house. We will take shifts doing house guard duty; my shift would be night time. My neighbors will also take shifts guarding their own houses, (and their neighbors'). During the day, our community will be taking care of business, as I will, including teaching. Any time a member of the community observes a threat to the community, they will sound a certain alarm, and apx. 150 pre-trained neighbors will drop what they're doing to answer it in an appropriate strategic manner, (This is mandatory.).


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

John Galt said:


> I believe trade is the best way to build relations with the neighbors assuming they have something to trade for. But,,, If they have little worth trading for then even considering a "communal tribe" is foolishness.
> 
> Also by using trade as the bonding factor you won't reveal much of what you have unless the other person as a lot of good stuff too so you guys do a lot of trading. "I'll trade you these potatoes for some of that canned spinach".
> 
> ...


I've got 6 books detailing wild nutritious plants in my region. A local botanist estimates that there are more than 250 edible plants that grow within a half mile radius of my home. Whenever I go hiking, I learn where more of them are. I recently found a huge field of Mallow growing under the snow during February! Learn what you can gather during each season, find them, and try cooking them for yourself. The more you know about this, the better you can help your neighbors to survive when there's no "food".


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

ntxmerman said:


> If I were in a situation like @*******, I would do the same. My circumstance in a large suburb makes it unfeasible, which is why I consider bugging-out to be my most viable option.
> 
> Maybe because I went to a small college, lived in a small, close knit condo community, and have some family members who live on "compounds" I like the idea of a community situation, but not a collective sharing situation. Jamestown taught us it absolutely would not work even among those most devout of Christians who took significant risk and expense to come to the new world.
> 
> ...


Come SHTF, I think you'll be surprised at how easily people can come together when they feel their survival is at stake.


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> Only those with extra can benefit from this system.
> You're literally inviting class warfare into your community.
> "Why do the wealthy get all the benefits???"
> 
> ...


Donations with no strings won't give the community as much as it needs. People have to be motivated to part with their stuff in an SHTF situation. Who says that the wealthiest give more? I've found the opposite to be true. People who donate more to the community deserve to have higher priority for services. There's *nothing *unfair about it. They gave from what they might need, -and others didn't.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

TGus said:


> There are 3 other adults capable of competently using firearms living in my house. We will take shifts doing house guard duty; my shift would be night time. My neighbors will also take shifts guarding their own houses, (and their neighbors'). During the day, our community will be taking care of business, as I will, including teaching. Any time a member of the community observes a threat to the community, they will sound a certain alarm, and apx. 150 pre-trained neighbors will drop what they're doing to answer it in an appropriate strategic manner, (This is mandatory.).


You've trained 150 people, professionally, in armed conflict, and know they are willing to fight?
In Boston...

Your plans seem so well thought out. Shifts already planned for people who have no idea that they will be given shifts.
You'll coordinate these fire teams like a master tactician.
Marvelous.

I've never seen a pipe dream so wonderfully expressed in written form.
:vs_laugh:


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

TGus said:


> People have to be motivated to part with their stuff in an SHTF situation.


Nicolás Maduro, is that you?
El Presidente, I had no idea you would be gracing us with your presence.


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

Annie said:


> How to form a larger community is a really big question that I can't answer now. I'm in a new community and I don't trust any of my neighbors yet, maybe never. So I can only answer the little questions, like where can I scrape together some time and money to get my preps together this day, this week, this month.? All I know for sure is that I'll take care of my loved ones. That's all. Beyond that, I have to trust God to lead me with the big picture.


After SHTF, your neighbors will be even more untrustworthy than normal because of all the stress they're under. After SHTF, do your best to gather a group together whom you judge to be capable and reliable. Work out a set of rules you all agree to that will express their integrity toward the group. Also agree that, if anyone breaks one of these rules, by vote of the majority of the members, they can be excluded from the group. In this way, you can remove anyone acting against the group's best interests quickly and easily.


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> Right, out of the group.
> So, just like John, a likely death sentence for them.
> And, in all likelihood, another security threat that has intimate knowledge of your operations.
> That doesn't sound like a great solution either.


So which alternative do you suggest: kill him, imprison him, or let him remain a drag on everyone else's survivability? If you let him go, he *will *talk to someone who can help him, but your community should not have such glaring weaknesses anyway. Create your defenses such that, even if the predators had an intimate knowledge of your operation, they still would not succeed in overcoming you.


----------



## TGus (Sep 18, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> You've trained 150 people, professionally, in armed conflict, and know they are willing to fight?
> In Boston...
> 
> Your plans seem so well thought out. Shifts already planned for people who have no idea that they will be given shifts.
> ...


Put it this way, -They must be trained, both the ones with firearms and those without, to deal with armed and unarmed gangs and home intruders, so they will be. I'm good with strategy, and I've developed ways to intimidate intruders and keep the fighters as safe as possible. I'm sure others in my community can suggest improvements to those plans. Even if we find no expertise, we must improve from errors we make.

Here, I'm talking about every able person between the ages of 16 and 70 in my immediate neighborhood, a neighborhood militia. Even if these people are reluctant to train immediately, they will quickly find the motivation once a gang attacks, kills all the men in a house or more, rapes all the women, eats all the food they had, then burns down the house(s).


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> You've trained 150 people, professionally, in armed conflict, and know they are willing to fight?
> In Boston...
> 
> Your plans seem so well thought out. Shifts already planned for people who have no idea that they will be given shifts.
> ...


Can't it be fine-tuned as he thinks more about it?


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

TGus said:


> After SHTF, your neighbors will be even more untrustworthy than normal because of all the stress they're under. After SHTF, do your best to gather a group together whom you judge to be capable and reliable. Work out a set of rules you all agree to that will express their integrity toward the group. Also agree that, if anyone breaks one of these rules, by vote of the majority of the members, they can be excluded from the group. In this way, you can remove anyone acting against the group's best interests quickly and easily.


I think when SHTF.......gathering the neighbors to talk them into uniting to protect the block will have to be the first step. _You don't talk about forming any community yet. _ That will come later.

The neighbors know the immediate danger everyone is facing - no one wants their family threatened and their house ransacked/vandalised, even if there's nothing of value in it - so I'll be surprised if no one is interested to do so.

I won't spread myself too thin by going to other blocks. Organize your own block first, and make sure it's efficient enough depending on the men/arms you got. Only then do you go to the next block - which hopefully had already seen what your block has been up to and are already copying what your neighbors have been doing. When you've got examples, it's easier to get them to see the necessity for it.

And......

You can assess likely candidates for the "tribe" you'll be forming later on, by observing and taking note of their attitude/skills towards this simple call for unity.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

TGus said:


> So which alternative do you suggest: kill him, imprison him, or let him remain a drag on everyone else's survivability? If you let him go, he *will *talk to someone who can help him, but your community should not have such glaring weaknesses anyway. Create your defenses such that, even if the predators had an intimate knowledge of your operation, they still would not succeed in overcoming you.


Don't ask me to give an alternative to his point that I disagreed with from the beginning. I was pointing out the inevitable flaw that has no good alternative.

My proposed method of dealing with neighbors in general was not to pool resources, or demand equal work from all.
My premise was simple. You keep what you earn. *THAT* will motivate people to action. Knowing there is some storeroom somewhere with a bountiful cornucopia of goods to be had will cause some to remain lazy and dependent on others. I don't want that in any community I'm a part of.
Keep what you work for, trade for things you need that others produce. It's how basic societies function.



TGus said:


> Put it this way, -They must be trained, both the ones with firearms and those without, to deal with armed and unarmed gangs and home intruders, so they will be. I'm good with strategy, and I've developed ways to intimidate intruders and keep the fighters as safe as possible. I'm sure others in my community can suggest improvements to those plans. Even if we find no expertise, we must improve from errors we make.
> 
> Here, I'm talking about every able person between the ages of 16 and 70 in my immediate neighborhood, a neighborhood militia. Even if these people are reluctant to train immediately, they will quickly find the motivation once a gang attacks, kills all the men in a house or more, rapes all the women, eats all the food they had, then burns down the house(s).


Then, by all means, state that next time. We see far too many people come here blathering on about their ideas, how they have all these resources at their disposal, all these able bodies ready and willing to fight and die for whatever cause, all to find out it's a fiction they've concocted in their heads.
We bring people back down to reality here. Fantasy imaginings don't help when your belly is empty and the wolf is scratching outside for his next meal.
It's good to have an idea of what you *hope* you will be able to accomplish, and a plan of action to get there.
It is a fool's errand to assume a forgone conclusion with no real knowledge of how to achieve a goal.

"The best laid plans of mice and men do often go awry." :tango_face_wink:


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

A good conversation that I tried to follow. Interesting topics, conclusions, suggestions and idea. What goes through my head is the saying that all plans fall apart at contact with the enemy... In other words, all the plans will fall apart after SHTF or a disaster not because anyone in particular is the "enemy" but everyone will have different ideas (as noted in this thread), needs, desires, etc. So all plans at their base will fall apart. Flexibility is the key. 

I'm semi-rural to rural. Everyone has land and there is a 1k acre farm in back of me. I have a plan. It will work well the first few days of an emergency and will go to crap afterwards. I have seen it with Harvey. Up close and personal. I have also identified those around me that are self sufficient and those that aren't. thankfully only one fits the latter category and he's selling his property (he actually asked me for something to put on the grill and yes I helped him out). 

I believe that every plan will depend on the location - urban, semi-rural and rural as well as if you know your neighbors, etc. After Harvey I know my neighbors much better and my plan changes/d with that knowledge.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

charito said:


> This was inspired by *******'s post.
> 
> http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/...ned-new-term-old-idea-inclusive-prepping.html
> 
> ...


After almost ten pages, I might just be rehashing what has already been written, but here goes. 
If you have a tribe, as you call it, there needs to be a chief, maybe a couple, but mostly indians. Whose going to be in charge? and are you willing to take orders from them? Pool your food and other resources? What if you feel you are not getting your fair share, or otherwise being treated unfairly, what is your recourse? 
There is a lot to be considered, I don't think I'd wanna be part of any group unless some serious thought was given to how it was set up.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Moonshinedave said:


> After almost ten pages, I might just be rehashing what has already been written, but here goes.
> If you have a tribe, as you call it, there needs to be a chief, maybe a couple, but mostly indians. Whose going to be in charge? and are you willing to take orders from them? Pool your food and other resources? What if you feel you are not getting your fair share, or otherwise being treated unfairly, what is your recourse?
> There is a lot to be considered, I don't think I'd wanna be part of any group unless some serious thought was given to how it was set up.


I guess I'd respond by asking would you feel comfortable with neighbors as the enemy... needing your resources? You prepared to watch them die of hunger while you do just fine? You really think you & yours would be safe in such an environment, even if you are well armed? When in human history have folks tried to survive a crisis by themselves? During battle, do soldiers spread out & work as individuals or do they band together as a unit?

Recourse to their feeling hurt? I think folks aren't really thinking this thru. We are not talking about life such as we've all know. We are talking about doing this when society has collapsed. Doing this when the options aren't McDonalds or Burger King but staying alive or dying. When the decision is do I live or do I die, not do I watch Fox News or CNN.

I get it that many preppers have a bunker mentality. That they will hunker down, survive off their stores, defend their bunker like Rambo & beat off all intruders (including their neighbors) without casualty. But is that realistic? Is that the way you would want to live? At some point, are you not gonna have to come out of hiding and get back to living? Even if you survived on your own for a year hunkered down, what next?

I happen to see such a time as exceeding hard & hazardous. I feel it will take teamwork (community) to survive the short term dangers of hungry folks roaming around and will likewise take a community to become self sufficient where that you worry about the long term. I don't see where an individual or small family group could ever be safe by themselves. So the question is, during a crisis, how do you get folks to band together for the common good? I have my plan. Any better plans out there?


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

******* said:


> I guess I'd respond by asking would you feel comfortable with neighbors as the enemy... needing your resources? You prepared to watch them die of hunger while you do just fine? You really think you & yours would be safe in such an environment, even if you are well armed? When in human history have folks tried to survive a crisis by themselves? During battle, do soldiers spread out & work as individuals or do they band together as a unit?
> 
> Recourse to their feeling hurt? I think folks aren't really thinking this thru. We are not talking about life such as we've all know. We are talking about doing this when society has collapsed. Doing this when the options aren't McDonalds or Burger King but staying alive or dying. When the decision is do I live or do I die, not do I watch Fox News or CNN.
> 
> ...


Here's how I see it if there is a major breakdown of life as we know it, better known as SHTF. I see the first 3 months to a year as a period that all you have is yourself,family, and perhaps some close friend(s). Now where you and I do agree is that people are pack animals for lack of a better term, so after a while, after the "dying period"as I call it, people will begin to form communities, there will have to be people in charge, laws and law people to enforce the laws 
If you ever seen the tv show Revolution, take away the main characters and look at the people in the background and that is how I think life within become with a year or two.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Moonshinedave said:


> Here's how I see it if there is a major breakdown of life as we know it, better known as SHTF. I see the first 3 months to a year as a period that all you have is yourself,family, and perhaps some close friend(s).


That being said, how many people, even here on this prepper site, are prepped to last by themselves for a year? And if they did, what percent would be ready or able to become self sufficient after that year?

That first year is the time I fear the most & want as many folks with me as possible.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

This thread is a constant back and forth of "I ask a question of your plan, you ask a question in response."

Each time a flaw is pointed out, it is disregarded due to a lack of understanding the other person's perspective.
Instead, a new question is posed that seeks to oppose the other's view, and point out *their* flaw in planning.

We don't seem to be accomplishing much.

There seem to be two camps of people, and their own subgroups within.

1. Self-sufficient living
a. Some contact with neighbors
b. No contact with neighbors

2. Collective living
a. Pool all available resources
b. Individuals decide what to do with their resources

All of these have their own benefits, and their own flaws.
People are going to have to decide for themselves, based on their own view and their own scenario, which one they will agree/adhere to.
Neighborhoods/rural areas are far too different for one solution to fit all situations. Arguing over them from all of our different perspectives won't resolve much.

I think the main takeaway from this is that we should all personally factor in the variables of our own likely situations, decide a course of action that fits our idea, and then try to resolve the flaws in the system we choose.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

I don't know, some of my neighbors have jobs, some don't. I could not for the life of me name 3 neighbors first and last names. I am leave me alone and I'll leave you alone person, always have been when it comes to neighbors. Perhaps it will be my downfall?
I know the people on this site 100 times better than my neighbors, and I have no complaints.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> We don't seem to be accomplishing much.


I don't think the point of the thread is to accomplish anything. Seems to me the point of any discussion is to bring a subject to light & make someone think about it. Might mean that person reconsiders their prior decisions. Might mean it doesn't apply to them at all or they aren't going to change their mind, so they move on & ignore the thread. By having right at 100 posts & 1000 views, I think the OP should be proud. It obviously interests folks.



Kauboy said:


> All of these have their own benefits, and their own flaws.
> People are going to have to decide for themselves, based on their own view and their own scenario, which one they will agree/adhere to.
> Neighborhoods/rural areas are far too different for one solution to fit all situations. Arguing over them from all of our different perspectives won't resolve much.
> 
> I think the main takeaway from this is that we should all personally factor in the variables of our own likely situations, decide a course of action that fits our idea, and then try to resolve the flaws in the system we choose.


Of course, without a doubt. No one solution could ever work. What I do wouldn't work in most any place other than similar to how I currently live. I already live in a small community, if you think about it. All the houses on one dead end lane, surrounded by fields & pastures.

However, IMO, no matter where one lives, they have to realize during an extreme crisis, you will have to deal with your neighbors and then other, larger security concerns at one point or another. IMO, it foolish & dangerous to think your neighbors & others will leave you alone. That means conflict & conflict with folks in close to you. To me we have to prep for avoiding conflict as much as we prep to put food & water in our bodies. I think maybe that aspect is swept under the carpet as there obviously is no simple, easy solution.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

******* said:


> I don't think the point of the thread is to accomplish anything. Seems to me the point of any discussion is to bring a subject to light & make someone think about it. Might mean that person reconsiders their prior decisions. Might mean it doesn't apply to them at all or they aren't going to change their mind, so they move on & ignore the thread. By having right at 100 posts & 1000 views, I think the OP should be proud. It obviously interests folks.
> 
> *Of course, without a doubt. No one solution could ever work. What I do wouldn't work in most any place other than similar to how I currently live. I already live in a small community, if you think about it. All the houses on one dead end lane, surrounded by fields & pastures.*
> 
> *However, IMO, no matter where one lives, they have to realize during an extreme crisis, you will have to deal with your neighbors and then other, larger security concerns at one point or another. IMO, it foolish & dangerous to think your neighbors & others will leave you alone. That means conflict & conflict with folks in close to you.* To me we have to prep for avoiding conflict as much as we prep to put food & water in our bodies. I think maybe that aspect is swept under the carpet as there obviously is no simple, easy solution.


I'm glad you said it first because if you didn't, I would.

*******, you have something unique. Most have no where close to what you have. Well you and @Smitty901. He has his own tribe.

The first several months will be pure chaos. Some neighbors will band together purely out of necessity. Some of the neighbors and surrounding community will be grabbers. They will just try to come and take what they want.

Once those idiots are gone then a community/tribe will probably come together. Purely for survival. That's what brought many towns together in the old west. Survival and mutual assistance.

The second year, depending on what causes the TEOTWAWKI, will be harder. Food, water and ammo will be a lot more scarce. That's when communities will hopefully have things mostly worked out and mutual survival will become the norm. Hopefully anyhow.

Personally I only have an idea of what will happen and what I'll do. I do know that I'll need help regardless.
Plan as you wish but chances are great those plans will fall apart quickly.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

inceptor said:


> Plan as you wish but chances are great those plans will fall apart quickly.


That I understand. But the way I see it, at least I have a plan on how to realistically increase my odds of survival by quickly forming a community. I'm afraid too many preppers only plan on being well armed.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

******* said:


> That I understand. But the way I see it, at least I have a plan on how to realistically increase my odds of survival by quickly forming a community. I'm afraid too many preppers only plan on being well armed.


I agree. In surburbia most neighbors stay to themselves unless their kids play together. I barely know my neighbors. A bad experience I had when we first moved here has me pretty much keeping to myself.

So I have only a partial idea of how this will play out. But I'm willing to cooperate.

And you are correct. Being well armed will only get you so far. AND it depends on how it happens. A pandemic, an invasion, an EMP, how are they planning to make it? It could come in many forms. A pandemic and you won't be leaving the house.


----------



## charito (Oct 12, 2013)

I found this blog that's interesting. It's a long article, and something to consider. Here's an excerpt:



> *Becoming the Grey Neighbor*
> 
> The Grey Man concept simply means blending in and not sticking out. You want to dress, move and act in a way that is completely forgettable.
> 
> ...


Becoming the Grey Neighbor - The Prepper Journal


----------



## HochwaldJager (Aug 31, 2017)

Loose lips shink ships..... Be very careful planning for others. They will dime you out or take your stuff first sign of conflict!


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

charito said:


> This is what led me to consider the Grey Man concept as it could be applied to your home and resources if the SHTF. It is one thing to control your appearance and actions in a crowd to avoid detection, but what about your supplies in your home?


I built a large storage room in my upper barn, that stays dark, dry & cool year round. All my long term food is inside as well as many items, including solar panels, Faraday enclosures, cookers, etc. Bulk items that are not temperature impacted are up on the roof of that room. It also has a lock on the door for the few folk that might come into or look into that barn. No one knows what I have or that I'm even a prepper... much less prepping for neighbors too.


----------



## ntxmerman (Aug 5, 2017)

charito said:


> Define devout "Christian." Jonestown was developed for a different motive, I think. I don't think a devout Christian would've done what Jonestown founder did. Also, it was founded at a certain time - not during chaos. And the leader was unstable, to say the least.
> 
> We can't really point to Jonestown as an example. It was a sect.


I was pressed for time and trying to make the point that collectivism under the best of intentions doesn't work. I didn't mean anything about religion other than they were unified in their beliefs and shared morals. I can't think of a situation where collectivism/socialism/communism has worked. Jonestown was an example of a situation that turned itself around and then the society managed to start to succeed.


----------



## ntxmerman (Aug 5, 2017)

I like @******* philosophy. I'm doing the same thing with my family. They aren't preppers. They don't give this stuff a second thought. I do. Therefore, I've started preparing for them, too. If they can get to me, I intend to have some resources for them. It won't be enough, but it will get them a starting point from which they can rebuild. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Example: I would like for them to be able to fish and hunt. I want to be able to give them a .22 to shoot a rabbit. I would like to have a fishing kit I can give them. I would like to have some tools and seeds for them to start a garden. I'd like to have enough so that when my family and/or close friends show up at my "house" they will be comfortable having at least a few basic essentials so that they have some hope and a more pleasant attitude for the future.

I'm not going to turn my family away, and at the same time I need them to be able to be productive. Part of that means that I have some of the tools I want them to have to be productive because they don't think about this kind of stuff.

At some point I will write up my particular scenario because it will demonstrate to people that sometimes what appears to be altruism is actually selfishness.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

I'm not saying don't support and assist family, but you do need to draw the line somewhere. You can't save the world. @ntxmerman


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

John Galt said:


> I'm not saying don't support and assist family, but you do need to draw the line somewhere. You can't save the world. @ntxmerman


IMO, you save as many folks that live in close to you as you can. Not because you are such a nice person but because you'd rather those neighbors be part of your team.... not a threat. Of course you can't save the world & you have to draw a line. My line kept moving as I gradually added stores. For me, that meant for every 150 lbs of stores, one more person could be added to my "tribe". As a general rule I added right at 150 lbs of stores each month, when I was in the mode of building stores. One starts small & gradually grows big.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

******* said:


> IMO, you save as many folks that live in close to you as you can. Not because you are such a nice person but because you'd rather those neighbors be part of your team.... not a threat. .


IMO it would be nice to feed the entire town but I've got to be realistic about how much money I can spend on long term food, water purification, energy supplies, and medical supplies that hopefully will never be used.

For the amount of cash it would take to buy supplies for the 4 people in my group that I'm paying for for 1 year I could instead buy the supplies for 48 people for 1 month.

And as I mentioned in an earlier post what happens when we are getting towards the end of that month when Uncle Sugar Daddy cuts off the food?


----------

