..."Collecting" some thoughts

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This post is about Collectivists.

To clear up the early objections - this relates to Y2K as follows: The emerging discussions on other threads about the "morality" of storing foods will affect many who are trying to get ready for Y2K. The inherent conflict of ideas between Collectivists and Individualists is starting to rear its head lately on this board. Hopefully, this small contribution to understanding the stage and the actors may help someone better adapt for the future.

To better understand the comments regarding the "morality" of storing food and other necessities, it may be useful to examine the kinds of Collectivism so that each of us may better make our own evaluations of the discussions.

Imagine a straight line. There is a Body-of-Ideas at each end of the line that represent the purity of that concept. At one end of this line we find Collectivism at the other Individualism. These are definitely opposites. Every person will find a spot somewhere on the line that is comfortable to them. Rather that examining the "theology", lets look at the congregation.

As the opening line said: this note is about Collectivists, and particularly about the types of Collectivists, there are three. Now to the subject.

The Three Types of Collectivists

{1} Machiavellian Collectivists

Those in this group know that collectivism wont work in a secular world. They in particular do NOT believe in Collectivism. They are Collectivists so that they may use the ideas of Collectivism for their own ends, that is, for power and self enhancement, either intellectually, socially, or monetarily. All the while expressing great concern for others.

They are predators. They prey with words and ideas. They charm and entice like the snake does to the chicken. This group is by far the most knowledgeable of the three groups in the essentials of Collectivism. Unlike the snake they do not entice with the end goal of consumption. They entice, rather, with the goal of Parasitism. They are Parasites. They are the intelligent parasites that position themselves so that the other Collectivists believe they are altruists and concerned with their welfare. They are the dangerous group, if for no other reason that their cunning. (Think TAXES)

They are the Users.

{2} Doctrinaire Collectivists

These are the true believers. They believe in the Doctrines of Collectivism. These are the people who most think of as being kind and caring. By and large their heart is in the right place. They may, on occasion, get so preoccupied with the emotion of caring that they struggle with the logic of helping. Many in this group have excellent educations and have been molded into the thought patterns by that very education.

Almost no one in this group have ever experienced a serious traumatic event in their lives caused by violence perpetrated on their person. There are rare exceptions, and these are most curious. Many former Doctrinaire Collectivists will testify to the speed with which they changed their view when (metaphorically) 911 didnt work.

This group contains the most vocal of the three. They are quicker to take offense at opposing views (being the true believeres), being ever vigilant when it comes to assigning "moral" or "immoral" label on opposing views. The more one understands the sincerity of the beliefs held by these kind souls, the harder it is to castigate them. They really do care about their fellow man.

They are the Carers.

{3} Infantile Collectivists

The term infantile is should not be taken as pejorative. It is, rather, descriptive. Like infants, those in this group need a lot of care since they cant, they believe, take care of themselves. Or in many cases have never done so and know no one else who does.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is the "to" group.

Many in this group are there not by choice but by necessity. They could not (or at least think they could not) live outside a Collectivist environment. Life has given them many hard knocks and they do not have the knowledge, fortitude, or means to change. One must tread carefully here or make the mistake of less than fair thoughts about this group.

They are not essentially responsible for their plight. They have been led, trained, and acculturated, sometimes through generations, into their sad plight by the Users.

These are the prime supporters (from necessity) of the Machiavellian Collectivists. (Think VOTES)

They are the Needy.

[End Definitions, Begin personal comments]

These definitions are not presented as end-all, be-all, do-all. They are only one way to think about one end of the line. I dont have any references, pointers, hotlinks or other authority, only 30 years of reading and studying the spectrum of human thought.

To the degree that any of this is usefull, it may help some of you understand where some of our "opposers" are coming from. I hope that this may lead to some minuscule amout or agreement, or at least at bit more understanding.

Much more could be said on this subject, however, Ill just leave you with a few short definitions.

There are sub species of Collectivists. There is the Socialist - a Collectivist with an agenda. The Communist - a Collectivist with a gun. And by far the MOST dangerous, A Politician - a Collectivist with a smile.

-- Greybear, an immoral storer of food, who may get around to definitions of the Individualists (there are 3 of those also)

- Got Convictions?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 06, 1999


"Many former Doctrinaire Collectivists will testify to the speed with which they changed their view when (metaphorically) 911 didnt work."

A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. (Author unknown.)

You're right, Greybear, we need to think about these things. Wasn't it a couple of weeks ago we were talking about how it wouldn't be long before we were blamed for causing shortages and castigated for "hoarding" or "over-stockpiling"?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 06, 1999.

Immoral to store food? Gedoudaheaa!

-- B.R. (brphil@worldnet.att.net), March 06, 1999.


What actually triggered me to set down and type all this out was the thread, I think yesterday, that for the first time associated "immoral" and storing.

The newbies need, as I've said many times, to make up their own minds. The moral question is one of the worst red herrings I've seen to date.

--Greybear, who is just fishing, trying to catch me a red herring

- Got Deep Fryers?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 06, 1999.

Very well thought out, Greybear. I see that the association of immorality with storing food bothered you as much as it did me.

And, boy, can't I see all 3 types represented in our society today.

-- De (dealton@concentric.net), March 06, 1999.


Perhaps a slightly different model is in order, or at least an add- on to your perspective.

Rather than just straight line polarized thinking, perhaps, re- thinking spherically, three-dimensionally and within concentric circles, would be a more inclusive image.

At centerpoint, is the individual. Next layer ... immediate family. Next ... immediate neighbors. Next ... local community. And so on. One flows, quite naturally, into the next level of extended influence.

Yes there are the Users, the Givers and the Takers (and numerous flavors in-between). But ALL groups, when faced with an overwhelming challenge that requires nothing less than cooperating for collective survival, may undergo an epiphany at their own level of get it.

It is then, in a way, we are all created equal.

If all personality types are standing on a sandy beach staring at an incoming 100 foot high tidal wave, each will have different reactions. Hiding , freezing, screaming, pushing, helping, crying, action- oriented, etc., etc. It would all be demonstrated by the individual humans and their personal orientation.

Well, near as I can tell, weve spotted the inbound tidal wave, now. And its being heard around the world. At least by some, not all. We have a little more time to get as many as possible to the high ground.

Bantering about what is moral or immoral is a waste of time. Some will continue to do it. Some will get whats important. Just say no and ignore it. If you must argue with the stockpile moralists, just let it be known, youre doing it for the concentric circles.

Then do it, and mark the pathways to the safer high spots.

Many prefer to stay stuck on Monica, but that too will change, as the wave rolls on. And rolls over.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 06, 1999.

Individuals with minds for self governance are producers. Pooled heads are famous for drowning.They are suicidal.Investing in self- reliance is pure sanity. Ignore the parasitic nuts and all of their aspersions.

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), March 06, 1999.


I don't genereally disagree with you in principal that the milti deminisional model will more closely map reality. However, my thrust here was to start with a simple straight line model to address only the emerging "moral" question as it relates to food.

Useing your apt metaphor: Someone is trying to convince others that when standing on the beach and seeing the incoming wall of water, that it is "immoral" to try to turn and run.

Only that. "Immoral" to turn and run.

NOT discussing wheither you should help someone else who may not be as mobile as you. That's an entirely different question.

Just that it's "immoral" to try to run.

Understanding where they might be coming from may help.

-- Greybear, whos restraint from invective in the origianl post would absolutely amaze his friends [if those few could be forced into admitting friendship]

-Got Restraint?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 06, 1999.

Is it immoral to foresake your first duty, namely that duty you have to your loved ones and the ones that depend on you for immediate support? Is it immoral to fail your neighbors that played ostrich too long? At what point does your responsibility cease and the responsibility of the state begin?

My first responsiblity lies to preserving my family, their innate quality of life (food, water, shelter) and protection of whatever I have managed to secure for them. My second responsiblity is to my friends and neighbors who may have prepared but need support of other types. I have some elderly folks not far up my road that will probably go under my wing as there is no family available. I will probably support close neighbors that have not prepared. This out of necessity because of the proximity of the families.

Would I go out of my way to support the folks in the inner cities or the DGIs that live out of my immediate area? No, I would not. It may be immoral to ignore my fellow man and his destruction but there is a physical limit to what I can store. Is it immoral to store food? Only if it means that you are depriving someone of a meal AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. It is far more immoral (in the true sense of the word) to deprive your family of sustenance needed to support life when it could be prevented with forethought. I for one hope that next year I will be able to debate what to do with all my storage and how to use it appropriately. I fear it will be a moot point at that time.

For those that would debate my attitude--be realistic. not idealistic. Immorality is what our leaders are exhibiting by not preparing the herd....ah, make that general public. It is immoral to set up people to take a severe fall just so that you can present yourself to them as the savior of the masses (whether they can or not remains to be seen).

I care not a whit for other's definition of immorality. I do care about me and mine.

-- Lobo (Hiding@woods.com), March 06, 1999.

Well said Lobo!!!

I just posted a brief comment over on Des thread to the effect that the question should not be one of "The morality of Storing" rather "The Immorality on Not Storing". See, wolves and bear can get along.

It'll be interesting to see if any debaters show up here.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 06, 1999.

Greybear --- superb post, thanks. BTW, Churchill is reputed to have said,

"Anyone who is 20 and isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart."

"Anyone who is 40 and isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 06, 1999.


You brought a smile to my face. It was when I was about 30 that I realized that I didn't have much of either. That's when the serious study began.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 06, 1999.

In my 51 years I have never been exposed to as much interesting and thought provoking dialogue as exists on this forum.

A fortunate newbie, blessed with the reasoning skills to be a GI.

Ditto with Lobo!

Thanks Professor Greybear

--Got oil and fries?

-- Carol (cajun@bayou.com), March 06, 1999.

With respect to helping others also in need, there is always the question of one's individual limits. I may be able to prepare sufficiently so that my immediate and extended family will be able to cope for a month of disruption. You may be able to extend the term to three months, or six.. Someone else, perhaps to a year or more.

No matter how much you have put by, there will always be more people in need of what you have than you can supply. Donald Trump and Ted Turner together could not feed and shelter the population of New York City. At some point everyone must draw a line. That line will be different for everyone.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 06, 1999.

Well, Greybear, no need for you to prepare at all. We shall all take turns taking you (and your family) into our humble cabins for the purpose of lively debates and philosophical discussions! Beats the tube by a mile and will make up for the loss of the internet.

Of course, there may be too much agreement so we will probably have to draw straws so that we have some opposing views to keep it lively.

Got extra bedrooms?

-- Sue (deco100@aol.com), March 06, 1999.

GB...Greenville, SC If it gets bad, I've got a place for you. 27 acres on the river. Big barn, animals etc.

-- Lobo (Hiding@woods.com), March 06, 1999.

Why not just do away with the concept of having any personal possessions at all? Then no one need store anything ever at all! Right Comrades? ;) (Rant selector to Full Afterburner-)

Where will the "It's immoral to store..." argument stop after food? Will it then move on to "It's immoral to store water?" Warm clothes? Toilet paper? Firewood? Money? Forget guns and ammo, it's plain immoral tho think of those things, much less own or stockpile them.

You name the commodity and there are people who see "unequal distribution of resources" (a nice socialist phrase) and call it "immoral". Regardless that in the case of Y2K, the have-nots have deliberately choose to ignore warnings to stock-up;


Like you and I are personally responsible for the actions, or inaction of 280 million other people in this country. Why not make us personally responsible for the actions of those 280 million for everything else they do?

"Storing for yourselves is immoral" is truely Modern American Liberal BS! Buy and store what you reasonably expect to use for yourselves, your family and add a ten percent margin for those in need.

You're storing food and supplies, not hoarding crops and factory production. That's what the commodities speculators are or will be doing soon.


-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), March 06, 1999.

Excellent insight from all. (Except maybe Diane, who only confused me. But that's my problem, not hers.)

Greybear, as I read the original post, I thought I was reading another take by De to refute it. Your styles are very similar. That is not an insult. :-)

I must say I was as disturbed over the "immoral to store" accusation as you and De and Lobo appear to be. The concept seems outlandish.

>>Only if it means that you are depriving someone of a meal AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE.<<

Lobo, I agree. You have revealed the heart of the matter. Should we also be condemned for the food we've consumed during the years of plenty, instead of fasting and starving?

Got reasoning?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), March 06, 1999.

At the moment I think American farmers wish more people would buy their products. Agriculture prices have dropped dramatically since 1996. The Asian economic crisis has cut the demand for American farm goods.

There's also the account of Joseph and Pharaoh in the Old Testament.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 06, 1999.


I do understand where they come from ... lack, limitation and scarcity.

At least, some of them do. If not physically then spiritually. Also a good portion of the D.C. immoral types have been zipped up, or not, over the past year on other less compelling, but pollitically incorrect issues.

Sorry, but debating the immorality or morality of food storage, seems silly to me. Even though the spin has placed it right up there with wacko survivalist, in the public image. As Lobo implies, its the D.C. silence that is immoral. Duh. Yes, the D.C. types and some others, are correct that if everyone started stocking up only in December, wed be in deep, deep trouble. So, do it now. For the children and those around you. Its simple and any dot gov type who tells you its not, is not firing on all cylinders.

So, ignore the happy facers (Koskinen et. al.) who would make you wrong, to make themselves appear right. Their illusion will catch up to them soon enough ... whether viewed as a line or a sphere.

Got Geometry?


(Sorry to so confuse you Elbow)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 06, 1999.

:-D :-D

As I said, Diane, it's my problem, not yours. I just couldn't see what you were getting at.

But if it's silly to debate the (im)morality of food storage, isn't it also silly to debate the morality of the D.C. types? Do we (as stockpilers) have an alternative here? Will the D.C.'ers put food on our tables?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), March 06, 1999.

First let me say that I completely agree with GB and everyone, the concept of stockpiling being immoral is absolutely outlandish and ridiculous.

I just have a comment about this comment from WW;

" Regardless that in the case of Y2K, the have-nots have deliberately choose to ignore warnings to stock-up;"

We must not forget that we here are priviledged, if only because we have access to the internet. The fact that we can debate on a written forum attest to our education. We have access to the truth, or closer to it, i.e., things like the Senate Report in print. The inner-city and rural poor don't for the most part. They hear the spin, have nothing to compare it with, and a lot don't have the education to be help them discern what is spin and what isn't. They didn't "deliberately chose to ignore Y2K", they don't know any better. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked a poor single mother who works long backbreaking hours as a nurse's aid (many work 12 hour shifts 6 days a week and must be forced to take time off) she would have no idea who Koskinen is, and probably only have the vaguest idea what "Y2K bug" means, if at all. She has no time to watch t.v. or read the papers. She is continuously working to bring home the bread and then care for her kids. Trapped in a vicious circle. This is just one example that I am familiar with since I'm a nurse, but there are other poor people in similar situations. They're not bad ignorant people, they work hard and do their best within their own circumstances.

There is nothing I or you can do about it, other than keeping these people in mind and perhaps account for them with extra stockpiling so that you can offer them a meal. They would work and help you for their meals, too.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 06, 1999.

Correction, I should have said "there's not much you and I can do". We can still try to make these people aware, through community outreach like Diane suggest, or on an individual basis, if you know such people, etc.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 06, 1999.

Who's the immoral legislator? Who sets up these morals and then turn around and say that I am immoral for storing more than 6 cans of peaches. Like how many do I store before I become immoral? I think the public is tired of hearing about Y2K, and we need to get on with our business of paying taxes, and taking care of our family. Just leave me alone and let me get back to my business of every day life. Of course this is tongue in cheek--we all think it was okay what Clinton did, we're tired of hearing it, let him get back to the work of the country. You people have a screw loose somewhere. Freedom to live, freedom to purchase, freedom to travel, freedom to do whatever I please as long as I am not taking other people's freedoms away is my motto. It is MY money, and I will buy as much of whatever I want. From what I have heard here you all are nothing but a bunch of bleeding heart liberals. You all just talked me into buying 500 lbs of rice and I will keep it all for ME!

-- FoodFreak (FoodFreak@fettish.com), March 06, 1999.

Chris: Your full of crap! Inner cities have computers in every classroom, thanks to Al Gore, and even financed computers for less advantaged children to have computers in their homes! Everyone has ears, they hear what they want to hear and poo poo the rest. Even highly intelligent people I know cannot comprehend the concept that the we are in deep sh*t due to a computer not recognizing dates. As a matter of fact, these intelligent people think we are all wackos. Ever been to Tijuana? Thousands of shanties, but every single one of them have a TV antennna. Ignorance is what I call it, not a lack of information.

-- KnowitLivingIt (KnowitLivingIt@notdumb.com), March 06, 1999.

Mr. Knowitall, you have not refuted what I said, you've only puked all over me.

I'm aware that some good inner city school districts have computer labs for the kids, and in free libraries. It's not everywhere though, Philadelphia's school district is a war zone with ancient books for starters. But that's beside the point. Lets assume every kid in this country had access to the internet through schools, how would that help this mother's education from my example above? Are you implying that the kids k to 12 have the responsibility to educate themselves about Y2k? Even if highschool kids could and would, what power would they have to prepare their families? How could they go about it?

I'm not talking about poor people who waste their money on booze and satelite dishes and tv sets instead of food and education for their kids and/or themselves. I'm talking about people who work hard, and would have educated themselves were they given the chance at some point in their lives.

When one is wallowing in ignorance, one doesn't know that one is, Mr. Knowitall.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 06, 1999.

What about the admonishion about setting aside reserves for famine during a time of feast? Seems to me that it was addressed to individuals like Greybear et al who are paying attention. How about a bit of praise for the creator of Greybear and other good preparers. Hopefully their actions will send market signals to producers to increase production to serve the critics and procrastinators. Those who condemn reserves may be the most dangerous in a time of deprivation. They need to be advised now that they shall not steal!

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), March 06, 1999.

Thank you all for you comments.


> .... no need for you to prepare at all...

[I appreciate the offer, this really touches my heart. But to not prepare is against sooo many instincts.]

>...we will probably have to draw straws so that we have some opposing views to keep it lively. . [I actually participated with a bunch of friends years ago when we did exactly that. Then after you played Advocatis Diabolis you got to switch sides back and try to defend all those good arguments you put forward. REALLY hones you argument skills and makes you think through the matter.]



>I've got a place for you.

[As with Sue, I appreciate you offer and it touches my heart.]

I hope everyone shows compassion on the less fortunate who have need in the future.



One of the things I think this board (aided greatly by you massive work) does is to help each of us improve our critical reasoning ability. This is the best anti-spin medicine available. Knowledge is power. This is a great place for us to help empower each other.



>a poor single mother who works long backbreaking hours as a nurse's aid continuously working to bring home the bread and then care for her kids. Trapped in a vicious circle. They're not bad ignorant people, they work hard and do their best within their own circumstances.

[Sound to me like youre getting awfully close to one of my definitions of an Individualist. If not, then certainly not near anything I can understand to be a Collectivist. These people are the spirit of America and I honor them]

>There is nothing I or you can do about it, other than keeping these people in mind and perhaps account for them with extra stockpiling so that you can offer them a meal. They would work and help you for their meals, too.

[May God bless them ever one.]



>Who's the immoral legislator?

[Many have set themselves up in just that position. Or at least they would try to make us think so. This subject is one of the main triggers that set me off to write the original post. My hope is that understanding the distinction I tried to make will allow us not to confuse the different types of Collectivists and reserve our bile (properly) for the Machiavellians who would manipulate the masses into just this type of treacherous thinking.]



> How about a bit of praise for the creator of Greybear and other good preparers.

[You make a better point that all of mine. This is the first order of business. Let us not forget this.]

-- Greybear, who thanks you all again for your responses.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 07, 1999.

As someone who is closer to a communitarian (prefer this term to collectivist, not so perjoritive sounding) than individualist, I read this thread with some interest. I have avoided the threads discussing the "morality" of stocking. I believe the morality question to be moot as long as there are no shortages and the items stockpiled are obtained legally and without fraudulent intent.

On to the community part...as an ideological communitarian, I think that I will be of no service to my community/neighbors in a crisis situation if I am overly concerned with feeding or caring for myself or my family. To that end, it is my responsibility to be certain that my family is safe and provided for before trying to help others in crisis. I will add nothing to the mix but another person in deep s**t if I don't look ahead and plan for reasonably forseeable events. I believe that it is my responsibility to provide access to timely information to those that I interact with on a daily basis (and to my extended family) to allow them the opportunity to decide for themselves how to best prepare for their own families. (If they decide not to prepare, that's their call.)

If things get bad, I know that I will probably have some surplus and that I will probably share on an as needed basis with the less fortunate, but bottom line, my family comes first. My husband and I have expertise in building, animal husbandry, gardening and other life sustainable crafts that may be useful in a TEOTWAWKI situation and I will be more than happy to share my knowlege and assist folks in helping themselves. The only way that I will be intellectually and emotionally available to a cause other than my own survival is by assuring that I won't need to worry about where my next meal is coming from and that my loved ones are cared for. This is my first priority but I won't be hiding in a hole after it's all said and done. I'll be working along side others to help straighten out the messes that we have made. It's my way.

I'd like to think that this is communitarianism in it's more capable form. I can understand where Greybear is coming from. I have met some of those other communitarians/collectivists as I spent some time in my youth in a religoius commune, but I would hesitate to paint all commintarians as the scheming, the helpless/lazy or the lovably confused and hapless do-gooders. Some of us are highly competent, skilled, and have our houses in order. Good discussion folks.

-- Ramp Rat (Aviation_R_us@noname.nocity), March 07, 1999.

Ramp Rat,

Trying to steal one of my future lines, huh? :)

You just came very close to defining what I would call a Egalatarian Individualist.

BTW, I did try to expunge the pejorative from my definitions. Some of it leaks through, I admit. Can't help it.

Mostly i'm just trying to set some terms into place here and help make the distinctions that keep some from painting with too broad of a brush.

I'd be more than happy to have you as a neighbor any day.

-- Greybear

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 07, 1999.

While an interesting discussion, the morality of stockpiling is not the question. Only in the last 30 years has it become "abnormal" to stockpile food and other necessities. I grew up in a remote area on a farm in the 50's and we always had a large pantry filled with canned goods. One bad winter, we got snowed in. In order to get to school, my parents hired a plane to land near our farm and pick up me and my brother and take us to school to live with our grandparents. My parents didn't get plowed out for 3 weeks!

Not that long ago you could have been dead by not stockpiling. The need is dictated by the risk. In those days it was a known risk, today it is the risk of the unknown. But, they are both valid risks and should dictate our response.

-- Kevin Lemke (klemke@corpcomm.net), March 07, 1999.

Chris, you and I so often think along the very same lines. There's a very hard-working, honest, good-humored woman who helps me keep the house in order on the one day a week she doesn't work as a nurse's aide. We don't have a fancy house with lots of pretty things to dust; Esther is needed for floors, bathrooms and windows because I can't do what I used to. Ours is not an employer-employee relationship, but rather one friend helping out another. She very often says I shouldn't pay her, she would like to let me have an afternoon for free because she likes me. Esther comes from the Dominican Republic and her English is a bit sparse. ("I live Miami and New York all these years and nobody English there.") Although I got a Spanish Y2K site from someone on the forum (thank you again) and sat Esther down here to read it, Esther simply cannot comprehend what she reads in her own language. There really is a segment of our society who can't understand why computers are so important--and only a fraction of them are foreign. These are the people you're talking about, Chris. I'll do what I can for Esther, of course, that goes without saying--but what about all those others? Seems to me, if as many of us as possible will store food now, that means there'll be that much more available for people like Esther when the crunch comes.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 07, 1999.


>While an interesting discussion, the morality of stockpiling is not the question. !

[Sadly that is not the case as can be witnessed by threads on this board. My perception is that these objections mostly come from one quadrant - The Doctrinaire Collectivists. And I believe it is important to understand where the are "coming from". They are not bad people, they do not have bad intintions. As I said above, their heart is in the right place. To that I add: It's just that their thinking is fuzzy.

I am not about to try and promote one of those "we should just all understand each other, hold hands and sing songs and that will fix everything scenes". But, I predict, this year we will see a growing confilgration of discussion and as the fear grows in the general populace it will be all too easy to castigate and dismiss those who honestly think it is immoral to store food.

As you point out, storing is so fundamental that many of us take it for granted.]

>Not that long ago you could have been dead by not stockpiling.

[And I fear that it may be the same all too near in the future]

--Greybear, who believes understanding your opponent is one or the factors in defeating him. Possibly the biggest factor in an intellectual discussion.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 08, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ