I have thought about this scenario. They would have to either kill or deport the small farmers and land owners all at once to cities that were under lockdown. Otherwise, I think there would be problems. The United States is a huge country to try to secure every little scrap of rural farmland if the people there are resisting. I suppose anything is possible.

I'm unsure of the distribution in Europe, but this is nowhere near the distribution in the United States. Most cities have experienced massive depopulation over the past 50 years as those who could fled to the suburbs. If you consider a suburb a city, I would hazard a guess that the distribution in the US is somewhere around 70-30 (70 in city/suburb, 30 in rural areas). For example, here in Tennessee, the major cities all put together (Memphis, Jackson, Clarksville, Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Johnson City) have about 2 million population, including the metro areas. Tennessee has almost 6 million people. There are a few other cities I didn't mention (Kingsport, Bristol, Oak Ridge, etc), but that's a whole lot of people living in rural areas.

Obviously some states are heavier skewed towards cities than Tennessee, but some states are skewed even less - i.e. Montana, Idaho,, etc.

At any rate, I think your statement is a blanket generalization. People attempting to bunker down outside Chicago or New York City, for example, would be in much worse shape than say, I would on the side of my mountain, in the middle of nowhere. And as someone else has said, you've got to have a good understanding of rural people and rural areas in general. If things ever got to the point you're suggesting, I would hazard a guess that the military/Nat'l guard (which would be necessary to try and acquisition your land) would simply refuse the assignment, because most military people ARE from rural areas, which have less job opportunities and more of a "conservative" history. Aside from that, most rural people own guns and know how to use them, and would be willing (in my opinion) to form little posse groups to protect themselves from wholesale appropriation of their property. In actuality, I feel sorry for the people in the cities, many of whom don't know who their neighbors are, don't know how to do much of anything that would be useful in the society you're describing, and would be far removed from viable food sources.

Myself, I don't think that kind of massive situation is going to be happening anytime soon...though I have been wrong before

Another thing to consider is that government control is based on power. Power = energy, energy = hyrdrocarbons!

Once we've started the slippery oil slick slide down the back of hubbert's peak, there will be less energy available for government to exercise power.

In fact it is not out of the question to consider the fact that the federal government could completely disintegrate. The massively bloated bureaucratic beast we call the federal government was born and bred on the back of cheap and abundant supplies of energy. Pull the umbilical cord, and the beast will whither away.

Look at the Dept. of Homeland Security. If I'm not mistaken, that is the largest bureaucracy ever created in the history of the world. An ephemeral monument to waste and inefficiency at the crest of the oil age.

Then take a look around at the "leadership" of government. Have you noticed something? There's no one home. There is no leadership. There's just a few people in high places trying to get what they can while they have a chance. It's as if subconciously they know that the game is up, so they just bicker and point fingers and waste what little money is left.

The British couldn't control the new territories because they were just too far away, and it required too much energy. The same will occur in the future. Washington D.C. will lose its power as well.

It was done to force the acceptance of fiat money. At the time we were on the gold standard and fiat currency. The gold standard prevented us from printing (inflating) the currency.

Good points Uber. When the Soviet cities were short on food in the 1920's and 1930's Stalin collectivized the small farms run by peasants-Kulaks.

All private farmland was taken by the state and several million Kulaks were killed in the process. The Kulaks died and the cities had their grain.
After the new Supreme Court ruling I can forsee a time when the government says-hey we need your grain, land, guns, gold etc. We will pay you in dollars-don't worry. Don't you know the world is short on oil and we need your belongings for the greater good?

I never said I was doing nothing, you said that. I'm looking for fresh ideas; obviously you have none.

Equally obvious is that I hit a sore spot with you. I'm going to guess that the thought that all your preperation could (and historically, probably will) go to waste as some fed agent pries your gun from your cold dead fingers bothers you.

The situation is that you feel comfortable with what you have, and want to keep it, aye? But the historical realities are quite different - as one poster noted, look at what happened to Russian farmers. Hell, look at what happened to US farmers in the depression. If a doomsday scenario develops, sitting in your farm with your rifle and a bunch of bullets is a one-way ticket to Styx for you and anyone nutty enough to stick around you. It's like sticking a target on your roof that says 'shoot me, im a threat to the state'.

An in all probability, you won't kill or even scratch a single one of the people coming for you. It's rare for a police officer to be shot or even injured when raiding houses that people have barricaded themselves in. If all they want is your land, they probably wont even bother to raid, theyll just drop a mortar round on you.

The bottom line is you are just deluding yourself, both about survivability and your own value. Agriculture today is primarily run by large collectives / corporations that farm land that is rented out by what used to be small and medium sized farmers. What value does your body add to that? All those people really do is add paperwork and inefficiency to the system simply by virtue of being a land owner. Eliminate the land owner, eliminate the inefficiency. And yet you claim to be a producer? It seems to me you aren't educated enough to be a producer of anything more valuable than a drainage ditch.

There are a lot of other ways to survive. Ones that don't entail such overt disdain for and seperation from society that so easily brings attention to oneself.

The people that survive will be the ones who can blend in with the crowd while taking care of their own. Something you apparently haven't the slightest concept of. It is a bit more complex that digging a foxhole on a mountain.

This thread had me worried for a moment. Closing as I am on some decent property (close to the water, good southern exposure and a steal beacuase it doesn't have a view), maybe there was a mistake in my thinking.

But no, I'm not really worried about imminent domain, even though I do agree that the recent supreme court case was worrisome, especially since it gives the government the right to steal land for someone else's private gain -- oh, and so they can reap higher tax revenues.

This sort of scenerio likely wouldn't play out where I am.

I do foreso troubles postpeak. I do think there will be massive amounts starving and a few foresighted people hoarding and I could see a government of some sorts forcing people to share. Likewise could I see some government of some sort forcing survivalist farmers to open their yield for the common good. But if this happened to me, I'd be happy to share. I am anti-hoarding and pro-communalism.

Peace and love,
M.

Maybe if you have such a broad definition. The actual 'technical' definition numbers were 75/25 (roughly) in 1990 according to the census. However, I also looked at employment numbers for 2003 and it shows less than 12% of the population is involved in agriculture / fishery related occupations. Naturally, a lot (probably, most) of those are not really doing anything with the land - they are involved in transport, accounting, investment, manufacturing and other areas 'related' to agriculture.

I grew up in Memphis, TN so I know the areas you are talking about very well. My father inherited 80 acres in Tipton county from my grandfather. It's likely I'll one day inherit it. They also own a cabin on the hatche river - one I helped build.

The reality of statistics though is that they are deceptive. First of all, take an area like Lakeland or Cordova. Urban or rural? It's rural. McMansions look good but you can't eat them, and those are full of rural McMansions.

Look around your small town. Take stock of how many people own land of any size. Then take stock of how many people own less than 1 acre. Add to those the ones in houses converted to apartments. Add in the ones in the trailer parks.

The mathematics simply preclude many people from owning much land, certainly from owning enough to feed themselves. There are too many people, and not so much land. Most of the people in those small towns, don't own squat. Most of the others in those rural numbers are in small suburbias outside of the big city. The point is, they will not be able to survive in their suburb homes much better than a city dweller in an apartment.

Their only advantage is they are a little bit closer to your farm...

This is very important. In order for government to retain control (feds i mean) energy and funds will have to be expended. Right now our own military cannot keep order in Iraq. What in the world makes people believe they will maintain order in a collapsing economy when (1) their own equipment requires fueling (2) their employees require payment and or food (3) their own family members will be experiencing the same hardships and (4) many households are armed? I just don't buy it.

The federal government has struggled to maintain control over the country, with civil war, periods of insurrection and disobedience having occured in our past.

Similar actions in other countries are not helpful to observe because energy/funds/ability to conduct these were never in question. Unless we have a slow drawn out decline in the economy, I do not see how the feds will be a threat too many years into the future.

Why bother, the government will only come and take it off you. If I were you I'd go and burn the cabin then shoot myself in the head, it's clearly the only sensible option

I never meant to suggest that owning property is a bad thing. In fact, those that own farms and acreage will probably be the best off for the first 5 years or so after the peak occurs.

But, if the doomsday scenario of world population dropping by 80% begins to occur, farms wont protect you. They may - in fact probably will - be a liability unless they are very very remote or worthless to the masses and the govornment they control.

A good example might be, remote land in west Texas - arid, dry, unlivable for long periods except through extreme preperation. Distant from population centers even by auto - almost impossible to traverse on foot. No one is going to come and try to farm that. And yet, power is abundant in the form of wind and sunlight. Water can be collected by wells powered by the wind - tanks like that are at rest stops in the area.

Another example might be remote areas in Alaska, the Yukon, or the Northwest Territories. There are no roads up there to speak of. I rode a motorcycle up there not long ago, and it's as depopulated as i could imagine. I imagine its also very hard to survive in. But, maybe not so hard to survive in as a farm in Nebraska in 2015.

Given the likelyhood of life threatening food shorages resulting from decline in oil production, would you prefer to live in a concrete jungle city, a suburb, or have some acerage in a rural area.

In a concrete jungle you would be totally dependent on others for food, water, heat and cooling, and probably (maybe not) protection against violence. In a suburb, with a big enough lot you may be able to have a small garder, but what about the rest. On a sufficient number of acres in the country you could have a very large garden, maybe some livestock, water independent from a centralized system, wood for heat, hunting, distance from population concentrations, close proximity to others harvesting food, and the serenity of nature.

Maybe the thugs in government or otherwise, would make an attempt to take what you have, but at least you would have something to take, unlike your friends in cities and suburbs. At least people in the country universally have guns and know how to use them. At least you know and are known by the community around you, unlike the city where many do not even know their next door neighbor.

Given a choice I would take my chances in the country. When things go south, I doubt that individuals hiding behing the mask of government will be treated much differently than any other thug trying to take what isn't his. Will there be violence? You bet there will. Will people cave in and niavely turn over what they need for survival like the gold raid of the 1930's? I doubt it, simply because the government tricked people in the 1930's by claiming they were offering something of equal value. No way people short on food are going to take government paper or not band together to fight the taking of their much needed food.

I have no doubt that starving masses in cities and suburbs will rally behing any attempt by government to take food for them from others who have it. But then this is what civil war is made of, and I am sure those alive in 20 or 30 years will see just that.

I don't think trying to repossess land would be a smart move for any goverment. But what about trying to relocate people? What if they manage to move masses of suburbanites in the country?

Doly,

Where are they going to put these people? Most people living in the country do not have large houses. If country people are forced to give up some of their land to people sent in by government, I would bet that the death rate among those interlopers would be extremely high.

Living in the country myself, I would simply tell the people to get off my land, and if they did not comply, they would sooner or later disappear. I have never been, and am not violent today, but I would not hesitate to defend myself against the theft of my land, no matter how it was characterized by the government. I am certain my neighbors would react similarly. Did you never hear of the Baldknobbers in the Ozarks? They were sort of vigilantees, who eliminated unwanteds. Of course they do not exist today, but it would not take long for something like this to start, were the government to try something like you suggest.

You cannot go around taking from people what is essential to their survival without extreme reaction.

They may or may not rally behind the current govornment. Regardless of how logical and appealling your argument is to conventional survivalist types, history does not bear it out very well.

I would point out several major flaws.

First, the last time this country had a civil war, the country folks lost to the military / industrial complex of the north - badly. A civil war requires the *vast* majority to band against the govornment for success. It's unlikely that the survivalist types will have the vast majority behind them. It's far more likely that the current govornment would fall while defending your rights, to be replaced by something entirely different.

Second, back to the lessons of WW II that no one on this board learned, impending collapse of society is likely to bring out a militaristic nationalistic govornment, backed by the majority of the populace. That is exactly the type of govornment that will take what's 'yours'.

Third, as to comments about the govornment being unable to fuel its tanks and planes etc - hogwash and ignorant. The USA still produces about 40% of its own oil. Nationalism by definition is joint ownership (corporate and govornment) of the means and resources of production. The govornment will own that 40% of our oil production. Are you people really so naive as to think they will not make damn sure the military has plenty of that oil and fuel first? The govornment will have plenty of gas and oil for a very, very long time. You will not. The best you can hope for is to become a subservient farmer for the state, in which case you'll probably do ok so long as you don't let yourself become obsolete in its service.

And again, I am not saying that *I* am or anyone should sit around in the city if things go really bad. But I would point out that, of all the places to hide oneself or a 'stash', a large city is probably the easiest place to hide.