4 ms·

If the residents of Libland sense that they might be attacked, they would obviously keep food reserves or start buying only home-grown food in order to support

by cx01 18y ago

If the residents of Libland sense that they might be attacked, they would obviously keep food reserves or start buying only home-grown food in order to support their own industry.

tome 18y ago
It's not in their interest to do that individually, but only as a matter of domestic policy.
- cx01 18y ago
  Of course it is. If there's a huge uncontrollable risk, people will insure themselves against it. If people know that they might be attacked and don't have enough food, they will hoard some.
  - tome 18y ago
    My point is that unless the nation collectively hoards food for the military then it's not worth doing. If they hoard individually it buys them a few more months of survival in dire circumstances. What's the point? They might as well spend their money to best enjoy their remaining time before invasion.
    - gaius 18y ago
      If everyone stockpiles individually for themselves and their families then you have a massive distributed cache that is more resilient that a centralized warehouse that can be bombed. You seem to think the responsibilities of "the state", "the military" and "individuals" are distinct. They're not. Some individuals like to pretend they are, and rely on the government to do X (and some governments play the same game and rely on individuals to do Y) but reality will always eventually assert itself, whatever system of government you prefer.
      - tome 18y ago
        But they won't stockpile individually, because it's in no one's individual interest to stockpile. (This is an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma). I agree with you that "reality will always assert itself" but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone things that Libertarianism can be that reality.
        cx01 18y ago
        If I tell you there would be no food in a month, then you wouldn't stockpile some? I don't believe this.
        tome 18y ago
        Well it depends on other factors, but that's not the point. In this situation: * Firstly, who's to tell Liblanders that they risk invasion? It's not clear that Libertarianism supports the notion of foreign policy, diplomacy, espionage etc. * Secondly, all the food in the country is coming from Xia. Once demand grows Xia realises that Libland has recognised the threat and invades immediately.
        cx01 18y ago
        There might be food insurance companies. They would have advertisements telling people of a probable military intervention by Xia and recommend people to buy food insurance in order to be safe. Regarding your second point: The realization that Xia might attack will probably not come suddenly but slowly. So people will gradually begin investing in food insurance. It's unlikely that Xia turns from friend to enemy in a matter of days.
        homme 18y ago
        The realization that Xia might attack will probably not come suddenly but slowly Just like 9-11, Dec 7, 1941, the anschluss, mongol invasions...the Hitties and Philistines versus the Israelites, yeah, military ops are always telegraphed.
    - cx01 18y ago
      You didn't talk of a military in your first post. Assuming that there exists a military paid for by taxes, than it would probably have its own food reserves. If there is no government military, then private corporations would start offering protection services, which would probably also have food reserves.
      - tome 18y ago
        I'm not trying to make a point about military. I'm trying to make a point about self-sufficiency at the state level. The military may well have reserves, but if they are supplied by Xia, all bets are off once those reserves are depleted. If Libland does not have the capacity to generate Food during a protracted war then it is vulnerable to external aggression. However, I don't see a way that a Libertarian state can ensure that sufficient Food production capacity is maintained in the presence of cheap Food available on the international market. And the point is not food either. "Food" is an arbitrary good that people rely on to survive.
        cx01 18y ago
        People will keep reserves big enough, so that they last long enough to rebuild their national food industry. Or as I said earlier they might continue buying domestic products in order to keep that industry alive. Even if most people neglect the risk, there will probably be individuals who keep operating food industries (even at a loss) in hope that in the resulting war they might make huge profits.
        gravitycop 18y ago
        People will keep reserves big enough How big are your food reserves that you have on hand right now? One year? Two years? Ten years? http://a.abcnews.com/images/abc_doomsday_080812_mn.jpg http://a.abcnews.com/images/abc_doomsday_080812_mn.jpg You don't tell your neighbors about it, do you? They might say, "Oh, I don't need to store any food. I'll just go over to cx01's house and eat his food." What would your neighbors think if you told them in advance that they couldn't have any of your food, that you personally sacrificed for in the form of opportunity cost? Would they think that you're not very neighborly? When the National Guard comes around to collect all of your stored food so that it can be distributed equally among your neighbors, are you planning on handing it over peacefully? http://proliberty.com/observer/20070917.htm http://proliberty.com/observer/20070917.htm Paul James, 85, standing beside some 200 cases of Mountain House freeze dried food. Purchased and trucked all the way cross country from Oregon in 1975, this "mountain" of food was recently pulled down from where it was stored for 37 years. [...] The year was 1975. At that time many Americans were concerned that the Cold War with Russia could turn hot. People all over the country were building bomb shelters in their backyards and storing large quantities of food. I was one of them. I didn’t build a shelter, but I did order $10,000 worth of Mountain House freeze dried food
- gaius 18y ago
  And it's not in the government's interests to do it either, if it would cost votes.
  - tome 18y ago
    Indeed, and I'd put similar points to anyone who proposed "true" direct democracy.

by cx01 18y ago

If the residents of Libland sense that they might be attacked, they would obviously keep food reserves or start buying only home-grown food in order to support their own industry.

tome 18y ago

It's not in their interest to do that individually, but only as a matter of domestic policy.

cx01 18y ago
Of course it is. If there's a huge uncontrollable risk, people will insure themselves against it. If people know that they might be attacked and don't have enough food, they will hoard some.
- tome 18y ago
  My point is that unless the nation collectively hoards food for the military then it's not worth doing. If they hoard individually it buys them a few more months of survival in dire circumstances. What's the point? They might as well spend their money to best enjoy their remaining time before invasion.
  - gaius 18y ago
    If everyone stockpiles individually for themselves and their families then you have a massive distributed cache that is more resilient that a centralized warehouse that can be bombed. You seem to think the responsibilities of "the state", "the military" and "individuals" are distinct. They're not. Some individuals like to pretend they are, and rely on the government to do X (and some governments play the same game and rely on individuals to do Y) but reality will always eventually assert itself, whatever system of government you prefer.
    - tome 18y ago
      But they won't stockpile individually, because it's in no one's individual interest to stockpile. (This is an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma). I agree with you that "reality will always assert itself" but I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone things that Libertarianism can be that reality.
      - cx01 18y ago
        If I tell you there would be no food in a month, then you wouldn't stockpile some? I don't believe this.
        tome 18y ago
        Well it depends on other factors, but that's not the point. In this situation: * Firstly, who's to tell Liblanders that they risk invasion? It's not clear that Libertarianism supports the notion of foreign policy, diplomacy, espionage etc. * Secondly, all the food in the country is coming from Xia. Once demand grows Xia realises that Libland has recognised the threat and invades immediately.
        cx01 18y ago
        There might be food insurance companies. They would have advertisements telling people of a probable military intervention by Xia and recommend people to buy food insurance in order to be safe. Regarding your second point: The realization that Xia might attack will probably not come suddenly but slowly. So people will gradually begin investing in food insurance. It's unlikely that Xia turns from friend to enemy in a matter of days.
        homme 18y ago
        The realization that Xia might attack will probably not come suddenly but slowly Just like 9-11, Dec 7, 1941, the anschluss, mongol invasions...the Hitties and Philistines versus the Israelites, yeah, military ops are always telegraphed.
  - cx01 18y ago
    You didn't talk of a military in your first post. Assuming that there exists a military paid for by taxes, than it would probably have its own food reserves. If there is no government military, then private corporations would start offering protection services, which would probably also have food reserves.
    - tome 18y ago
      I'm not trying to make a point about military. I'm trying to make a point about self-sufficiency at the state level. The military may well have reserves, but if they are supplied by Xia, all bets are off once those reserves are depleted. If Libland does not have the capacity to generate Food during a protracted war then it is vulnerable to external aggression. However, I don't see a way that a Libertarian state can ensure that sufficient Food production capacity is maintained in the presence of cheap Food available on the international market. And the point is not food either. "Food" is an arbitrary good that people rely on to survive.
      - cx01 18y ago
        People will keep reserves big enough, so that they last long enough to rebuild their national food industry. Or as I said earlier they might continue buying domestic products in order to keep that industry alive. Even if most people neglect the risk, there will probably be individuals who keep operating food industries (even at a loss) in hope that in the resulting war they might make huge profits.
        gravitycop 18y ago
        People will keep reserves big enough How big are your food reserves that you have on hand right now? One year? Two years? Ten years? http://a.abcnews.com/images/abc_doomsday_080812_mn.jpg http://a.abcnews.com/images/abc_doomsday_080812_mn.jpg You don't tell your neighbors about it, do you? They might say, "Oh, I don't need to store any food. I'll just go over to cx01's house and eat his food." What would your neighbors think if you told them in advance that they couldn't have any of your food, that you personally sacrificed for in the form of opportunity cost? Would they think that you're not very neighborly? When the National Guard comes around to collect all of your stored food so that it can be distributed equally among your neighbors, are you planning on handing it over peacefully? http://proliberty.com/observer/20070917.htm http://proliberty.com/observer/20070917.htm Paul James, 85, standing beside some 200 cases of Mountain House freeze dried food. Purchased and trucked all the way cross country from Oregon in 1975, this "mountain" of food was recently pulled down from where it was stored for 37 years. [...] The year was 1975. At that time many Americans were concerned that the Cold War with Russia could turn hot. People all over the country were building bomb shelters in their backyards and storing large quantities of food. I was one of them. I didn’t build a shelter, but I did order $10,000 worth of Mountain House freeze dried food
gaius 18y ago
And it's not in the government's interests to do it either, if it would cost votes.
- tome 18y ago
  Indeed, and I'd put similar points to anyone who proposed "true" direct democracy.