Government Confiscation of Supplies

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
O

OnTheFence

Friend
Neighbor
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
20
Location
Canada
If things descend into anarchy, then food supplies will be very helpful as will land to grow food. A more challenging scenario is where the economy collapses and the government and army manages to hold itself together, but only does so by rapaciously taxing citizens and confiscating supplies.

Guns may be a defense against small criminal gangs, but it's hard to believe that even the most prepared family will be able to protect their food supplies or land against state seizure.

I think this is the biggest reason to store gold: Its a compact store of value that can be easily hidden.

If the government is still in tact then there will be some kind of trade still happening and it should still be possible to buy stuff for gold.

IMHO land is the best preparation for anarchy. Gold is the best preparation for totalitarianism. As explained at the bottom of this post.

https://johnmccone.com/2019/02/26/gold-the-most-government-proof-asset/
 
don't store food supplies all in the same place, split it up and store it in several places, such a thing will only happen after the collapse.
cant really see it happening in Britain, the state dosent have enough service personnel, they'll be lucky if they can keep control of London-8.5 million people, never mind anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
As is seen and proven again and again the state / government does not have enough resources to handle any seizable issues. So if it does hit the fan, I don't see armed military or police roaming the land to confiscate supplies. I have to agree with BigPaul, the military and police will have enough to do to keep the cities under control.
 
I wonder about this issue. I do feel like the government is going to be stretched thin just trying to control urban centers. But in previous cases (e.g. New Orleans after Katrina) they pretty much gave up on the major cities. So they might go after what they know has value if they deem cities a lost cause (which tbh some of them just may be, unfortunately). In that case, taking from those who have it might make sense, but I feel like they'd first have to know who has what.
 
OnTheFence said:
If the disasters are natural, you all may be right.

But what if the disaster is the government?
Click to expand...

Still breaks down to logistic. Too much to do and too little to do it with. The government fails to function properly when the people want their service, they will fail even worse when the people are actively working against it.
 
Urbanprep said:
Still breaks down to logistic. Too much to do and too little to do it with. The government fails to function properly when the people want their service, they will fail even worse when the people are actively working against it.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent I agree. But then I remember stories of other times and places, where governments didn't care about keeping a semblance of society intact, or about providing welfare services, but just about controlling the people. The individuals running these governments tend to use them for personal gain at the expense of those they control. It can be done and I wouldn't put it past them to try.
 
KateMTx said:
To a certain extent I agree. But then I remember stories of other times and places, where governments didn't care about keeping a semblance of society intact, or about providing welfare services, but just about controlling the people. The individuals running these governments tend to use them for personal gain at the expense of those they control. It can be done and I wouldn't put it past them to try.
Click to expand...

Very true, it has happen in other countries but then they are not like Americans. To control the population, you need to disarm the population. There is only one political party pushing to disarm the population, so now you know which political party that want to control your life and life choices.
 
In the early 30s FDR outlawed private ownership of gold, legal ownership of gold was reinstated in the early 70s, nothing say's it can't happen again, the government can take your food, your guns and your gold, not always legally as was the case in New Orleans never the less it still happen. Don't advertise, go gray-man and don't keep all your eggs in one basket.
 
During war times the soldiers have always raided the civilians when their supplies were low. Even in the US I have no doubt it could happen. When you give soldiers weapons and training they are going to be the leaders and decide what the new rules are. People are capable of very bad behavior.
 
I don't foresee this happening on a large scale in the US because the people own as many firearms as the military and has them greatly out numbered. I know quite a few National Guard and reservist. In almost every case, they will protect their families and would not follow orders that would hurt their family and neighbors. In most cases they would join the local militia. Now, standard "foot soldiers" in the military, I am not sure how the will react. But they would face a well armed militia that would be fighting for their homes and family. Except in the big cities that have been "brain washed" that their rights don't matter.
 
If Russia could not knock out Afganistan in several years with its best, if America can still not knock out Afganistan with its best...What is America or part of American gov't EVER gonna do with a nation of armed and ready patriots??
Once said in the 1700's, THE FANGS OF RE-WON FREEDOM; ARE KEENER THAN THOSE OF FREEDOM NEVER LOST!!
Those powers that be would need to kill off 90 % of all Americans to be able to take over...every house, farm, ranch, swamp, valley or hillside cave would house millions of freedom seeking fighting individuals. On top of that, they would have to contain, house, feed, clothe and guard the rest, who would only live to sabotage and rebel against them AND keep this up for so many generations till the children of our childrens' children have forgotton what America and freedom once was...Who and what rich person is willing to destroy THAT NATION which has gotten him his money and power??? Who and what politician wants to hide the rest of his life and risk instant death at the hands of his own bodyguards one day, his cooks, his driver or maybe his own children who read of the history of a great nation and wish to REBUILD IT AGAIN????? Don't tread on me. Live free or die. Don't mess with Texas. You really think those are just words on paper and not the power in the blood of every patriot??? GARY
 
Urbanprep said:
As is seen and proven again and again the state / government does not have enough resources to handle any seizable issues. So if it does hit the fan, I don't see armed military or police roaming the land to confiscate supplies. I have to agree with BigPaul, the military and police will have enough to do to keep the cities under control.
Click to expand...

However, the US has already been subdivided by the UN in order for their blue beret ‘Peacekeeping’ forces to occupy those areas that need to be ‘pacified’. They’ll have plenty of troops and firepower.
 
America is too large of an area for any nation to try to occupy, the military is made up of our own citizens, they would also NEVER allow any french, german, korean or indian Blue Helmet soldiers into the US or let them patrol the streets. They would all know that the average US citizen is armed and never willing to give their guns up or let a person from another nation tell them what to do. They will not even let a politician who they elected tell them what to do, much less some poor bastard from another nation sent here to F**k with OUR freedom; OUR lifestyle, OUR way of going around with the problem and OUR dealings with those trying to take OUR birthrights to be, live, eat, sleep, ****, shower, shave, love, hunt and die FREE....America has always been ready to fight and die for OTHER nations freedom from nazi-ism, commun-ism, faschist-ism, mao-ism, social-ism...Just think what the freedom loving Americans will do to someone trying to land their troops on Daytona Beach, in Malibu, Nantucket Island or in the mouth of the Mississippi??? GATOR-BAIT ring a bell? I would even catch a plane home to help...GP
 
Jayson said:
However, the US has already been subdivided by the UN in order for their blue beret ‘Peacekeeping’ forces to occupy those areas that need to be ‘pacified’. They’ll have plenty of troops and firepower.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing your reference documentation for these plans to subdivide the U.S. by yh U.N..
 
Jayson said:
However, the US has already been subdivided by the UN in order for their blue beret ‘Peacekeeping’ forces to occupy those areas that need to be ‘pacified’. They’ll have plenty of troops and firepower.
Click to expand...

UN won't send their so-called peacekeeping forces here as an operational force and diffidently won't pacify, you give the UN way to much credit.
 
Based on historical precedents, it is estimated that you need a 10/1,000 ratio of invading troops/population in order to successfully invade and occupy a hostile country. That would mean it would take 3.3 MILLION troops to invade and occupy the United States. That is just combat troops and doesn't include support personnel. And it also does not take into account how heavily armed the population is.

Which is why it hasn't been tried in modern times.
 
Last edited:
DrHenley said:
Based on historical precedents, it is estimated that you need a 10/1,000 ratio of invading troops/population in order to successfully invade and occupy a hostile country. That would mean it would take 3.3 MILLION troops to invade and occupy the United States. That is just combat troops and doesn't include support personnel. And it also does not take into account how heavily armed the population is.

Which is why it hasn't been tried in modern times.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that the last time someone "invaded" the America's they used viruses and other diseases to soften or otherwise cut the population of the natives. Those invading forces had built up a tolerance to those diseases. I'm not suggesting that is what's going on today, but I thought the parallels were interesting.
 
Why invade a huge wealthy efficient nation like the US, the logistics and costs would far outweight any benefits a sucessful invader could achieve? and why invade when for example America BUYS countless Billions of dollars of goods from all of the nations who apparently threaten America. AND why invade America when most other nations have bought huge amounts of AMERICAN industry, mineral wealth, city properties and businesses. Invading the US would be suicide economically and militarily for any agressor. AND the UN for all its ineptitude and corruption has no military forces of its own so it cannot invade anyone. AND the UN NEVER tries to help western nations in crisis, it was nowhere to be seen when NEW ZEALAND was devastated by that huge quake, it did not help Canada after the huge ice storms of 20 years ago.
 
Frozen Tundra said:
It's interesting that the last time someone "invaded" the America's they used viruses and other diseases to soften or otherwise cut the population of the natives. Those invading forces had built up a tolerance to those diseases. I'm not suggesting that is what's going on today, but I thought the parallels were interesting.
Click to expand...

We Brits did no such thing when we invaded in 1812, We fought and won honourably and bravely as did the defending US Continental army
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top