A question of interpreting the rules.

Foraging. A side comment.
I’m not so much ‘narked’ more surprised at what I have hopefully interpreted as someone playing devils advocate to what’s going to happen when everything collapses into a bucket of rat poo.

There has been plenty of evidence over the years that when a disaster occurs the worst actions of people rise to the fore. It’s also been pretty obvious that the bigger the scale of the disaster the less the ‘authorities’ are able to cope with things.

So what you get is looting, rioting, and worse because that’s all some people know.
I could isolate a social if not ethnic group but even the more ‘stable’ among society aren’t exempt from exploiting the situation.

For once I can get specific and offer a brief history lesson.
2013 Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) in the Philippines.
On making landfall in the Philippine’s it killed at least 6,300 people and over a million were made homeless aka dispossessed.
The authorities were totally swamped, and after a LONG wait for help, people had to look to their own initiative to forage for what they needed to survive.

Only the rule of law was also a mess. The Philippine president Benigno Aquino deployed 300 soldiers and police onto the streets to restore order, and was considering introducing martial law or a state of emergency in Tacloban in an attempt to control the situation.

Yet to the survivors, not the looters, them just desperate for shelter, warmth, clean water, food, and medical assistance,  how would have martial law increased their access to the other essentials of survival?
I submit not at all.
Tacloban city administrator Tecson John Lim got it right when he stated
“The looting is not criminality. It is self-preservation.”

With that tacit statement he summed up why when the rule of law and administration collapses, it’s not only a case of the people having to help themselves to survive but having to survive the meddling of government intent on ‘restoring order’.

BUT I can extend that further only this time quoting an example is harder due to some B.S. notion of political correctness within the media.

Strangely enough I’m going to quote Obama.
“When a storm hits, there are no strangers—only neighbors helping neighbors, communities rallying to rebuild,”

Too often survival is not what you know, have, or the assistance TPTB eventually provide. It’s from the people you know and those who know you.
Which can cause a problem when there are TWO or more sets of people who for some reason aren’t going to co-operate but are working for themselves NOT the common good.

Only it doesn’t stop there.
Just in case you think I’m talking only about natural disasters, I’m not!
Currently there are civil disturbances going on everywhere round the world (especially in Europe) and if civil war breaks out, your life long neighbour could turn overnight into a foe. Something people in Bosnia found out.

Disaster takes many forms doesn’t it?
Only what has this got to do with survival and foraging?
Outwardly survival is pretty straight forward in this scenario.
That’s not getting shot, machete’d, or otherwise killed BUT have you considered that your enemy may seize all that is valuable and essential to your survival?

An army of occupation or oppression may not wear uniforms just deny you access to what you need and put you under curfew.
Their support could be military, para or not, law enforcement ‘loyal to the cause’, or just them judged “loyal” and allowed to keep their weapons.

Suddenly foraging and scavenging could be all about YOU AGAINST EVERYONE.
Here’s a sideways thought for you.
If this was the case, your tactics would have to be unconventional, guerilla,  and definitely covert. What you do would be necessary to achieve your goals of surviving under a hostile foe, possibly weapons intensive environment, under subversion and intimidation.

Your actions if caught would be interpreted as that of a looter or thief.
Summary justice the probable end result, probably exacted with relish!

Complex isn’t it.
All the prepper talk is about living off the land, dealing with aggressors, but few talk about the scenario where you are a disarmed sheeple, penned in, and surrounded by wolves.

Look, to me it’s simple.
You should do what is necessary to survive.
After all you and your own are what matters.
If there is something you need YOU TAKE if you cannot barter, buy, or otherwise beg from the person who has what you need.

Thus I’m going to say Fk’ your quaint laws and values if my survival or that of my own is in danger. As for worrying about the long-term and the inevitable judgement of my actions?
First I’ve got to reach long-term. As do you.

This entry was posted in prepping, survival and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A question of interpreting the rules.

  1. equippedcat says:

    For clarification, let us say you have no food, it seems unlikely that any new food will appear in the next 3 months, and someone has 7 days worth of food and won’t trade, sell or give you any. How much of that food should “YOU TAKE”? Is violence against that person acceptable?

    Change to the person has 30 days supply and there is a good likelihood new food will be available in about 30 days. Same questions?

    • Same answer for both.
      You do what it takes to survive.

      Only why wouldn’t they ‘trade’?
      Because they too are thinking of them self and their own. At that point what choice have you if they are the only ‘store’ in town? Take or starve.

      Survival ain’t ever about being noble. It’s about living.

      • equippedcat says:

        Take and not starve, but leave the legitimate owner to starve?

        No, nobility has no place in survival. But survival hating yourself and/or being hated by others may not be the optimal path.

Comments are closed.