Doly,

There is lots of land in the countryside which may give the impression that there is plenty for everyone. First of all, all this land is owned by someone; none of it has a sign on it that says to city folk, just take me, I'm yours. There may appear to be lots of unused land because it is in forest, but just about all the land that could be cleared for agricultural use has been cleared. Were the land now in forrest to be cleared, it would just destroy that land thru erosion. Little food production would result. The owners are smart enough to leave it in forrest where it can produce something of value, timber and habitat for wildlife.

The government does own a lot of land in National forrests, but the bulk of this land is not suitable for agriculture. I am sure that given a sufficient crisis, many interlopers will attempt to occupy this land. It will very quickly become overhunted and the interlopers will likely die the first winter, except maybe in the deep south.

The food situation and the disparity in values between urban and rural, I am sure will be the basis for the coming civil war. Maybe there will be a racial division also, which makes it all the more interesting. Talking about the USA only; don't know the likely breakdown in other parts of the world other than they will be violent also.

In the civil war of the 1860's the north was unified as a group and did have industrial advantage. Would the next civil war be the same?

First of all I see it as nationwide, urban vs rural. Within 30 years after the peak of oil, there will be no meaningful production of oil. Without oil the entire industrial system will disappear. If there is "new" industry, based on old technology, it will need to be created. What makes you assume that it will be created in the stronghold of the government, the decimated cities where the only resource is a starving work force?

Since the rural areas are spread out, and the cities are concentrated, and since it is likely that what is left of the military will have split loyalties, the cities will be much better targets than what is in the country. Of course there will be lots of carnage.

I have not a clue how it will play out, but I would place my bet where the resources are, and that will not be the collapsing cities, or any government. You would have won a bet in the last civil war by going with the group that had the resources. If I am correct about a 60 to 80% population reduction during the contraction of the economy, then social violence on the scale I am thinking is highly likely.

Not sure about that. USA does look like the sort of place where people would start killing each other if things went south, but I see better chances for Europe. Then, I guess it all depends on how bad things get.

Nobody here is thinking like the Govt thinks.

The choices are, the Govt can confiscate everything and start from scratch on building up and maintaining the land, the livestock and the crops -- or, allow life to continue on as normal, and then simply take what they want when ever they feel like it?

Which course of action would you take if you were in control?

The Govt doesn't need to come to you at all! Think about it. You either have things you need to get to market, or you need to buy/barter/arrange for yourself: livestock, seed, crops, food, companionship, gas, oil, bullets etc., ect. No amount of preparation and advance planning will allow you, anyone, to live indefinitely without these things. Ain't gonna happen -- you gotta come in outta the cold sometime. Even mountain men had to come down off the mountain every 2 or 3 years to re-stock their supplies.

So all the Govt's gotta do on their end is maintain strategic checkpoints -- just like they do, and always have done, in times of war or population control. Sooner or later YOU HAVE TO COME TO THEM. And they know it. They won't come swarming over every hill and dale of America looking for you or your farm. They have no need, when they can simply place a tank and 4 Hummers every few miles or so...

Pops is, as usual, right on the money. I'd rather have a chance of surviving - and something worth taking - than to sit by and wait in line for the next ration handout.

As it was said, if the government chooses to take my measly 13 acres - what are they going to do with it? They might choose to take larger operations that will produce larger quantities of food, but my small acreage will only produce an equally small amount. I can't foresee the government closing in on every chunck of small acreage across the country. If they tried this on a large scale, civil war would likely erupt. They're going to have their hands full enough trying to manage cities - and their own dwindling ability to govern.

And if they confiscate all the farms around, are they also going to do all the growing of food? If you take what I have, then you have to feed me - which creates one more problem and liability for you.

Someone on these forums said something (on a completely unrelated thread) that stuck with me. Sorry I can't remember who said it, but the quote stuck with me, and I copied it down.



It's somewhat related. Take what I have, distribute it to everyone else, and leave no local producer to fill in the gaps that your confiscation has created. It will snowball. Eventually the government will have to "take care of" everyone. Do you think that's wise planning?

Allowing people some degree of self-sufficiency - and communities some degree of local self-reliance, will mean that people will depend less on the government - leaving them to do whatever it is they do.

And Nik - good advice.


Kathy

I've considered this in assessing our situation living in a suburb 40 minutes north of Boston. Within 10 miles of our home there are at least 8 golf courses, a private polo club, private equestrian properties, old farms on agricultural land used only to grow lawns, school playing fields, town soccer fields, a seasonal flea market on acres of farm land, farm land used to grow pumpkins for Halloween and more agricultural land that is not farmed because a lot of small famers can't compete in the current market.

The list continues with countless homes on two acre minimum lots, historical estates with more acres of lawn, etc.

I suspect that these would be the first properties targeted for confiscation should the PTB deem it necessary. The land is being used pretty much for recreation, excluding the pumpkin growers (they could change the crop).

I expect that in a time of food shortages there will be an exodus from the city
and the reduced population might stand a chance of being fed from this type of land. Of course I have no numbers to back this up.

It makes little sense for the Gov to take over productive farms in remote areas when there is arable, underutilzed land within easy proximity to the city. Food could even be transported along commuter rail lines.

I don't think this would be the worst place to live during the downturn, but we plan to move to a more rural location. At best we have 4000 square feet for garden and I prefer the idea of being self sustainable with the hope of producing a surplus to share.

I admire Pops, Kathy and others who post in the Planning Forum for their efforts and enjoy reading about their successes and failures.

When there is no food on the shelves the hoards of hungry are more likely to direct their rancor at the Sunday polo matches or the gated golf community.

Charlotte

Shady:



This supports my point of there being a much greater proportion of people in "rural" areas than city areas.



This is untrue in the United States - there is more than enough land to support every man, woman, and child in the US. Even before artificial fertilization became widespread we had enough leftover grains to ship to other countries.



My grandfather grew an organic vegetable & fruit garden for 40 years in a 30x30 plot behind the house. Most years my grandmother was able to can enough stuff to still be eating it 6 months later. Of course they ate other things, which put less pressure on what they grew. However, they had 1 acre of property, the vast majority of which was green lawn. Triple their garden plot and they could have lived off of what they grew. They also had enough room for chickens and a couple of small mammals (goats, for example) - they had chickens when they first bought the place. The biggest problem for most suburbanites is that they don't have a clue how to grow anything except grass, much less food without using artificial fertilizers.



Land doesn't have to be anywhere near this remote - the sheer volume of land in the United States makes it impossible for any government to hold it all. Even if a scenario existed where a government was seizing land, it would only be able to keep that which it could hold.



Using a WWII era country like Germany as comparison isn't accurate because the geographics aren't comparable. Germany couldn't even hold all of Europe - it needed help from Italy, neutrality from Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, and accomplices in Hungary, Romania, etc. Further, Germany didn't "take" from the vast majority of Germans - rather, they took from the fringe and minority groups, and then invaded other countries to continue taking. No matter how crazy Hitler and company were, it took the acquiescence of the overwhelming population in order to maintain that control. After all, who was the army? the navy? the Gestapo? They were the people - it's not as if Germany had an army of robots or mercenaries that had no connection to the general population at large. Don't forget that the Nazis were elected. How could they have been elected without the support of the majority of the population? Conversely, who in the United States would hold all of these confiscated properties? The armies, that's who. And who are the armies made up from? Us!



This is an oversimplification of the Civil War. IF the southern states had not had so much infighting amongst themselves about how to pay for the war (lack of supplies for the troops), quit refusing to sell cotton to european powers in order to try and convince them to enter the war (didn't work, Britain and France just went to India & Turkey instead), and many other problems, you might have been looking at an entirely different war. The "country" folks had the generals, the will to fight, knowledge of the terrain, and the vast majority of support from the general populace. The people that would be under attack in your scenario would be the very groups that provide the majority of the military members in the US. Do you think that Johnny's going to agree to shoot down other Tennesseeans, Virginians, or Idahoans, or is he going to simply split and join up with them? Well, history tells us he is likely to split, as the generals did at the time of the Civil War.

On a side note, your continuous use of the word "govornment" suggests a non-American language construct. Mind if I ask what nation you hail from?

I would like to put in my 2 pence worth on one point:

Although several people have said that the US Army is essentially US citizens, and so would not attack its own people, the track record of armies is that, yes they do just that. It takes a lot to make them mutiny; they're designed to obey orders. In your own Civil War Americans killed Americans. So too in the English Civil War, and many others - the Army is the final grasp of power for the state.

Oops, now I'm going to make a second point:

Shady's right about the upsurge of nationalism. I can see it happening in Britain - economic depression, lots of disaffected citizenry, rise of fascism, who can we blame? how about Muslims, especially immigrant Muslims. Yeah, that'll work.

(BTW, I'm not suggesting I agree with the above views, just that it is something I fear that PO will set in motion)

The US civil war was played out in a much much smaller area then the US currently occupies. The same goes for almost all wars played out in the last 500 years before oil.

I haven't been in the states very much so I haven't seen the seperations between regions to see how distinctive they are but I find it hard to picture a group from california fighting a group from new york.

The fuel costs to get them together to fight would be high, and the thought that they would march that far in a civil war is also unlikely.

Really I can only think of the giant ancient societies and massive wars in history that fought on large chunks of the planet, Alexander, Rome vs Carthage, the crusades, the mongol invasions. It takes a lot to walk a few thousand miles to kick some ass.

I would expect countries the size of the US or canada to disolve into seperate regions that might have border conflicts but I doubt there will be any attempt to control the entire country.

In canada I can already picture BC, the prairies, onterio/manitoba, quebec and most of the atlantic provinces and newfoundland. those regions are larger then most european countries, they have distinctive cultures and physical boundries and they are likely to stick together internally.

I have about 500 acres of farmland. If I continue to grow as much wheat every year as I can , I fail to see why the government would want to take over the land. A govt/corporate farm will not be any more successful than I am. The govt will gain nothing.

I'm more worried about starving neighbors than government goons. It would be hard to shoot people you've known for years--even though I've tried to warn folks about the dangers of social dependency.

The area where I live is full of people who DESPISE the federal govt and know the local (extremely rugged ) terrain almost as well as a mujahidin. Who are "they" going to send to come get our goodies--some teenaged reservist--Oh wait, they're all in Iraq!

I've got a scoped SKS just waiting for the wrong person to come up my path (the ravens will alert me)--and every step is presighted. No one up here has forgotten Ruby Ridge.

Back to the original question; Land is not a commodity that can be manufactured. There is a finite amount available. Vast acreage is currently being use for recreational purposes or historical preservation in the immediate proximity of large cities.

Do we need a civil war to make the best use of this land? I think not, though it could come to Gov land takings to promote the sustenance of the populace.

One part of my heart tells me that there could be a cooperative effort to benefit all. Another part tells me this ain't likely to happen.

-Charlotte

Then...



Actually, Russian peasants historically practiced a communal form of farming and collectivizing them under Stalin wasn’t much of a change. The ones forced onto collectives were Ukrainians - under Russian occupation, that starved by the millions as their food was sent to Russia while Russia exported its harvest. Many killed their livestock and ruined their grain instead of having it taken. They were forced onto collectives to fit into the Marxist model. Unless China invades the US I don’t see much probability of that happening here.
http://209.82.14.226/history/famine/gregorovich/



What happened to the farmers in the depression was a result of the huge surpluses that were no longer able to be absorbed by consumers without money; in the cities I assume. The resulting surplus caused comodity prices to fall and farm incomes to drop. The government didn’t take their farms – just the opposite; it passed subsidies to pay farmers to take crops out of production, lowering the excess supply and thereby increasing prices. By 1935 their incomes had increased 50%.
Of course the Dust Bowl resulted in many losing their farms but that was the result of bad farming practices and not Government intervention. Actually the government provided aid on the farmers behalf here as well in the form of the Conservation Service.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depres ... erview.htm




I think here is where you make the mistake of confusing ‘farm’ with ‘compound’ or ‘bunker’. In fact the sign in front of my place says ‘Vegetables for Sale’ and the Detective for the Sheriffs Dept. buys squash from me – not nearly enough though, lol.



I suppose they will drop it from a black helicopter? I better put on my tin foil helmet!



Wow a true statement at last! And the part about rented land is becoming truer all the time as well. Actually that is a pretty good argument against then having any incentive to take my little place; as I stated earlier, it isn’t conducive to large scale production and what is a starving and inexperienced urbanite going to do with it?



I suppose that is true to an extent, but the tenant writing a check to the landowner doesn’t seem to entail an overbearing amount of paperwork and the gov. certainly doesn’t care about the tenants bottom line – remember we’re talking about a government that is going to drop mortars on farmhouses and replace the experienced farmer with an unemployed computer programmer; they certainly wouldn't care about efficiency.



Whoops, I missed that the first time through, I guess you already knew all those facts I just posted and simply misspoke earlier. My apologies.




I have never suggested there aren’t a huge number of ways to cope. In fact I’ve started several threads regarding how to survive the possibility of increased energy costs in the city, the suburbs and one of the most read threads on the site called Assessments and Plans located here:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic5325-45.html
I must have missed your post outlining your plan; so far all I’ve read is how other’s plans are flawed in your view.



I had a really nice time at a barbeque we were invited to by our neighbors for the 4th. We met several new families, told stories on each other and even made a couple of ‘horse trades’ - actually chicken trades; but hey! I’m sure it wouldn’t be viewed as ‘Society” in the city though, so you are probably right on that point as well.



See, this is what I don’t get; you say the government is going to fleece all us country sheep to get our mason jars of green beans and then turn around and say it’s better to hide one's fleece (whatever that might be) in the shearing pen.



Nice summation.

I can tell you come from the McCarthy era. I never said they would do any such thing (replacing farmers with programmers).

Since you apparently dont understand, let me spell it out for you.

The people owning 100 or 200 acres (or less) generally do not farm their own land - it is not cost effective and not efficient to purchase $300k in farming equipment to use on one small farm. The people doing the farming are renting the land from dozens of small 'famers', ie land owners. Those land owners add nothing to the process of farming, even if they fancy themselves "farmers" because they have a few chickens and a garden out back. The farming that feeds the people is done by someone else.


1 - I know about the land rentals because my family rents land.
2 - The owner of the land does not farm it in most cases.
3 - The person/corporation farming the land does not need the land owner.
4 - The govornment does not need the land owner to get it farmed efficiently.




Actually I never said anything about staying in the city, again you said that. You actually do seem like a closet fascist, since that's basically how they work.

My main point is that land is not inviolate, it can be taken, and talking about how you're going to go down fighting might sound nice and dramatic but if it came down to it - people with that mentality will die, just like the nutcases in Waco and the guy at Ruby Ruby Ridge. And despite all their guns and 'skill', I don't think a single Fed agent got hurt in either case.

I'm not saying I support any of this type of behaviour - I don't and I think it would be abhorrent. But, it's becoming more and more apparent that this is the way the country is going, and history bears this out. People demand the govornment take care of them no matter the cost.

This isn't a matter of urban vs rural, its a matter of who controls the means of production. If you own a farm (the means of production) and the state becomes fascist, then you have one of 3 choices - leave, die, or partner with the state. My guess is someone like you will partner with the state.

As someone said (to paraphrase something in this thread I think) if you plan for everything then your plans are worth nothing.

Having said that:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic4880.html

In which case I admit I’m lacking.

Put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket!
- A quote by somebody smarter than me