Survivalism and the Market

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, former Reason editor in chief Virginia Postrel explains how survivalism can undermine support for markets and "encourage misleading conclusions about reality." As she writes:

The survivalist instinct mostly plays to a perverse fantasy. It's both comforting and thrillingly seductive to imagine that you're completely independent, that you don't need anyone or anything beyond your home, that you can master any challenge. In the survivalist imagination, a future disaster becomes a high-stakes opportunity to demonstrate competence and superiority….

In focusing on extreme situations, [survivalism] forgets about the capacities built up during less-stressful times. Self-sufficiency limits knowledge and productive skills to whatever a single individual or locality can comprehend. Specialization and trade allow the system to expand those capabilities almost without limit. What looks like ignorance permits the growth of knowledge.

Carried to their logical conclusions, survivalist arguments would sever the very connections that make modern societies like Japan prosperous and resilient.

Comments

[Episiarch]

I propose that the ideal zombie apocalypse gun would be a .22 LR. Plentiful, light, and more then enough for a head shot. Just ask Bobby Kennedy.

[Warty]

Even better if you have a suppressor on that rifle. Back it up with a sharp sword and you'll be the king of the wasteland.

[Episiarch]

What do I need a sword for? Actually, The Walking Dead showed that a crossbow makes a lot of sense.

[Warty]

If a zombie is in biting range, you're going to want to decapitate it, won't you, you retard?

Arrows and bolts are too heavy and too hard to replace. Your .22 idea is better.

[Spencer]

Try the bodysnatchers ploy and just play along. eating a few brains won't hurt you.

[Matrix]

They tried it in Shaun of the Dead, and it worked pretty well from what I remember.

[sage]

Those were slow moving zombies though. Plenty of time for trial and error.

[Episiarch]

If you're in biting distance, you have bigger problems, you retard. As George Romero has shown us, the biggest danger is ourselves, not the zombies.

[Warty]

If the zombies are in biting distance, you'll wish you had a fucking sword. Jesus Fuck, you'd better not be in my crew of survivors. I swear I will sell you out to the first motorcycle gang that comes along.

[Spencer]

Hey hey hey, who started this "only one weapon allowed" falacy?

[Name Nomad]

Epistarch is right. A sturdy spear would be much better as it would keep zombies out of range. Decapitation isn't necessarily the main objective here -- not getting bitten is. Plus, on top of being more effective, a spear requires far less skill to be of use.

[JW]

Spears are good for one-shots; it's a throwing weapon, tho' I Imagine you could use it close in. A pike would be better.

What you want of a shotgun with a chainsaw attached to it.

[Spencer]

instead of a hand?

[Ash]

Groovy.

[JD]

What you want of a shotgun with a chainsaw attached to it.

Like this?

I agree that if you need a contact weapon for zombies you've done something wrong. I believe in being prepared though, so after the zombie apocalypse I'll have a Ka-Bar Kukri along, just in case.

[JW]

I'll have a Ka-Bar Kukri along, just in case.

Only 2 left! The Apocalypse is nigh!

[Spencer]

the best way to ensure you're not bitten is to remove the ability of the zombie to bite. Decapitation is the only way to assure this permanently.

[waffles]

decapitated zombies can bite too. Just destroy the fucking brain. For the record, I agree about the .22lr round. Can carry thousands in a normal ammo box. Reliability is a concern, but with the availability of ammo you have no excuse for not practicing.

[cynical]

The mouth is still connected to the brain...

[Artifex]

"The mouth is still connected to the brain..."

Not necessarily ! Examine several of the commenters here for evidence of this.

[Free2Booze]

Two handed Kukri Machete by Cold Steel

[Pablo]

I'd go with a chainsaw, preferably with an electric start. No need for ammo or reloading (except if it runs out of gas). Can handle multiple attackers at once, if you can tolerate the screams.

[Pablo]

Sword (long and heavy enough to decapitate, but light enough to handle with one hand) as backup. See Book of Eli for a pretty good chainsaw-vs-sword fight.

[Spencer]

yeah, but you've gotta be blind and an instrument of god to fight like that... oh, and black and named Denzel.

[AU H20]

Epi, your comment on a crossbow instantly had me thinking, "Ha! The longbow is a much superior weapon for the trained- great rate of fire, plus the way the longbow is used, with a parabolic arc of fire, would frag a ton of zombies."

Which got me thinking that medieval England would have done pretty well in a zombie apocalypse due to the long bow. Why the fuck has no one made that into a movie? Army of Darkness being the obvious exception.

[SugarFree]

I don't know. Even if you are well-trained with a long-bow, ability to reliably hit center mass and making head-shots can me a huge variance. Especially since long-bows in a war setting where usually an indiscriminate area denial device, not a primitive sniper rifle.

But the silent nature of the bow would have its uses as well.

[Pro Libertate]

Lots of long-bows, along with armored foot-soldiers and cavalry. Perfect for fighting zombies.

[JD]

Hell, up until relatively modern times rifles were supposed used as an area denial device. That's why the sights on military surplus rifles are often graduated out to ridiculously long distances.

The sight gradations on many early 20th century rifles go out to 1500 or 2000 meters. They weren't expecting anyone to actually hit a man-size target at that range--they were intended to be used for volley fire (despite the fact that such tactics had been rendered obsolete by technical advanced around the time of the American Civil War).

[R C Dean]

Hell, up until relatively modern times rifles were supposed used as an area denial device.

I believe the term used for the area in question was the "beaten zone."

[AU H20]

Nutrasweet, I guess my point is that the sheer amount of arrows, and the parabolic arc that they travel in, will mean that inevitably they will hit a head.

Furthermore, if you were a large group of people trying to face down zombies, wouldn't you want to deny them the area within biting distance via volley fire?

[Pro Libertate]

Crossbows take too long to reload.

[Agammamon]

As a pistol for close in work maybe, but its iffy on skull penetration at range, especially suppressed. And from my experience the suppressor and low velocity rounds don't cycle reliably in semi-auto 22's.

[Episiarch]

This would be pretty awesome. Other than the fact that it blows up on people (that's what I've heard).

[Agammamon]

I haven't heard anything bad about it, though its 22 magnum which is much better for blowing zombie's heads off - but much louder, so you attract more to your position, dilemas, dilemas.

I've got a P-32 made by them and its good quality construction and I've had no problems or FTF's after the break-in period.

Though the top cartridge rim does catch behind the next round if I'm not careful loading, but that's an ammunition problem.

[ChicagoSucks]

Well, you go ahead and waste your ammo on zombies, I'm saving mine for other people who try to take my shit!

[zoltan]

The zombies don't want your shit; they want your brains!

[ChicagoSucks]

True, but zombies are also unintelligent and predictable making them an easier threat to deal with. People, especially desperate and scared people, are not predictable and are a much more capable threat. Bullets make noise, and attract both zombies and people, that's why I say save your gun (a risky weapon anyway) to deal with the most severe threats; which in the zombie apocalypse is other people not zombies.

[Spencer]

But, what if there were zombies that ate shit. How cool would that be.

[melman]

sweet, delicious brains

[Corporal Hicks]

Re: Episiarch,

I carry a 12-gauge, for close encounters...

[Frost]

I heard that.

[Pro Libertate]

Taking this seriously for a moment, why not some sort of modern muzzle-loader? Which could take, I assume, any variety of objects as shot?

[NoVAHockey]

like very small rocks?

[Pro Libertate]

Sure. Or ducks.

[NoVAHockey]

that reminds me of an old Far Side cartoon about a gun that shoots doberman pinschers.

[sailshonan]

or witches...

[SugarFree]

Speed of reload, even modern-designed. You end with a double brace of heavy guns just to be able to fire off 6 shots.

In a depopulation scenario, even a modestly stocked gun store or Walmart would give you more conventional ammo than you could practically carry.

[Pro Libertate]

Well, there's always the flamethrower option.

[SugarFree]

Set a zombie on fire and all you get is a flaming zombie. Which isn't a bad drink, but is a terrible idea self-defensewise.

[Pro Libertate]

You've been watching too many movies. Zombies combust.

[Mensan]

Sure they do, but for the minutes until the brain is destroyed, all you have is a flaming zombie.

[Pro Libertate]

The Navy has high-energy lasers. Make those hand held with battery packs, and life is good.

[Mensan]

Until you run out of batteries.

[Pablo]

Lets not forget that due to the ammo panic and hoarding of the last few years, there is a HUGE supply of ammo just sitting in basements, garages, etc and the ammo makers are still cranking it out around the clock to meet demand. If there truly was some sort of crisis then there is more than enough ammo to last through everyone's lifetimes.

[Post Life Person]

Way to try to dehumanize us by calling us zombies. It's not like we can control our need to eat brains. It's a disease, not a moral deficiency. I find all of your comments to be very insensitive.

[Mensan]

As far as I know (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), the only version of zombies with a taste specifically for brains is in the Return of the Living Dead series. Every other version just eats whatever flesh they can get.

[Jack]

You're forgetting that Simpson's Halloween episode

[Myron]

I'm not making any more fucking stimpacks.

[Vault Dweller]

Come on, man... those damn super mutants take a lot out of me!

[alan]

Yet, you prefer mixing around with the cowfart concoction. Says a lot about you, Myron.

[cynical]

+incline

[AU H20]

But Virginia, that's just what the zombies want us to think.

[Spencer]

Hey Virginia-

isn't this the very argument that Matt Ridley makes in the Rational Optimist? His recent great read?

[JW]

Self-sufficiency limits knowledge and productive skills to whatever a single individual or locality can comprehend.

You don't have to know how to do everything, but a few key skills would be nice: animal husbandry, butchering, blacksmithing, hide tanning, guns and ammo skills (whatever you would cal that), etc.

Yeah, division of labor is the best way to go for overall prosperity, but no point in making yourself any less valuable when the apocalypse comes.

[Old Mexican]

Re: JW,

but no point in making yourself any less valuable when the apocalypse comes.

Well, you could become more valuable when the apocalypse comes, by becoming more tasty...

[JW]

Remind me not to get on any flights over the Andes with you and a soccer team on it.

[fish]

My cologne smells like barbeque sauce.

[Rob]

Santiago is just beyond the next mountain!

[Old Mexican]

In focusing on extreme situations, [survivalism] forgets about the capacities built up during less-stressful times. Self-sufficiency limits knowledge and productive skills to whatever a single individual or locality can comprehend.

Meaning: Nothing beats Division Of Labor.

"Survivalism" makes for great adventure literature, but living alone by the bootstraps just sucks. Anybody that happened to watch "Out Of The Wild" will see that living off the land takes skills that are honed by years of experience and severe hunger, or by having the comfort to fall back to your 4x4 and a house in the city.

[Pablo]

Yes the SHTF scenarios are fun to fantisize about but let's get real. Almost no one has the skills to just pack up and leave an urban or suburban area and head for the hills to live off the land. Im prepared for a short term social disruption (e.g. riots, a natural disaster) that might interrupt normal life for say a few days to a few weeks. That means staying put where I am. If it is truly a TEOTWAWKI scenario I'd just rather not be around, to be honest.

[cynical]

""Survivalism" makes for great adventure literature, but living alone by the bootstraps just sucks."

That it sucks is fairly irrelevant if survivalism becomes necessary.

Talking about how wonderful trade is sort of misses the point -- most of the less preposterous survivalist scenarios involve a breakdown in the communication and transportation technologies that sustain society, which means trade becomes either impossible or much more expensive.

[Slap the Enlightened!]

"Survivalism" makes for great adventure literature, but living alone by the bootstraps just sucks. Anybody that happened to watch "Out Of The Wild" will see that living off the land takes skills that are honed by years of experience and severe hunger, or by having the comfort to fall back to your 4x4 and a house in the city.

I seem to remember when those skills were honed by a few years in the Boy Scouts. But then, I expect that in the circles Postrel runs in, the Boy Scouts are definitely d?class?, daaaaahhhhlings!

[Esteban]

OT but I have a question: What is the proper role of government in education? Obviously the federal government should have nothing to do with education, but what about states an local governments?
I ask this because a liberal friend questioned me why I should believe tax dollars could go to education but not healthcare. I didn't have a good answer for him.

[Spencer]

That's because there IS NO GOOD ANSWER FOR THAT!

Basically, it boils down to people thinking that children shouldn't suffer for the shortcomings of their parents. Meaning- why should a kid be doomed to suffer as a pauper because his parents were and couldn't afford to educate him.

In reality, this is bullshit. Smart, like cream, rises.

[Matrix]

let parents pay for their childrens education. I'm sure plenty of companies and NPOs will give money as well to schools.

[AU H20]

My two cents on that is that an educated populace is a healthier populace, and that much of the justification for my libertarian beliefs stems from the idea of an informed public.

Take cigarettes. We shouldn't pay for life long smokers health care because they are, presumably, informed adults and made their choice.

Honestly, while I understand the libertarian idea of all private schools, I would at least like a voucher program so that when you say, "You made xx economic decision" the person knows shit about economics.

Of course, I would also like an educational system that encourages critical thinking, which our current system does not, and even among people who are supposedly trained to do this (college grads) rarely happens.

[Brett L]

Technically, the vast majority of life-long smokers are net payers.

[AU H20]

Fair enough, but I think the general idea, i.e. that a populace educated about the risks of something has not right to demand that others pay for them when those risks bite them in the ass, stands.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Esteban,

OT but I have a question: What is the proper role of government in education?

That of being not in the way.

I ask this because a liberal friend questioned me why I should believe tax dollars could go to education but not healthcare. I didn't have a good answer for him.

Tell him that paying government to teach things that ain't so is much less dangerous to human health than paying government for deciding on what treatment you can have.

[Esteban]

Let's say we have a system where most parents pay for the child's education but some poor parents receive a voucher. Is that a hand out? Is that substantively worse than a voucher for healthcare paid by the government to purchase health insurance? This whole topic just made me pause for a second.

[Wei Tin]

mind:education::body:healthcare

[Old Mexican]

Re: Esteban,

Let's say we have a system where most parents pay for the child's education but some poor parents receive a voucher. Is that a hand out?

Of course it is.

Is that substantively worse than a voucher for healthcare paid by the government to purchase health insurance?

Both make you worse off: Broken Windows Fallacy.

[Government]

Why, WHY, WHY won't anyone believe I add value?!

[Matrix]

When you do, we'll believe it.

[Government]

(rising intonation)

What about Tang?

[Clich? BaNDIT]

MYTH!

Tang was made by general foods Corp not NASA.

[Old Mexican]

But what about ROADS????

[yonemoto]

don't forget SOMALIA!

[Tony]

OM given your "the civil war wasn't about slavery" bullshit you've forced me to endure today, you are hardly an expert on what constitutes an adequate education.

Speaking of rightwing revisionist bullshit, what gave you the idea that government subsidized healthcare was about telling you what treatments you're allowed to have? Quite possibly it will tell you what treatments you're allowed to have government pay for, but you're perfectly able to buy extra treatment. Do you understand this, or do you think in right-wing talking points?

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

OM given your "the civil war wasn't about slavery" bullshit

You're such an ignorant fool, Tony. Grant did not release HIS slaves until made to do it, almost at the time the war was almost over. Instead, Lee released his own slaves just BEFORE the war started. Now, tell me: Was the war about slavery?

You even ignore your OWN history. What a pathetic excuse of a person you are.

[The Ghost of Ronald Reagan]

Mr. Obama, release your slaves!

[Tony]

QED...? So what it was just a huge coincidence that on one side were slave states and the other were free states?

Ugh, here is a timely article on the subject. It's part of the vast conspiracy of journalists, academics, scientists, other people with brains and credentials, etc., to oppress you, I know, but maybe something will sink in.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

QED...? So what it was just a huge coincidence that on one side were slave states and the other were free states?

What the FUCK are you talking about? There were slaver states on the UNION side! Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. What, didn't your tax-fed leech of a junior high teacher tell you that?

Ugh, here is a timely article on the subject. It's part of the vast conspiracy of journalists, academics, scientists, other people with brains and credentials, etc.

You're such moron, Tony. There is VAST history literature that tell these things. You just happen to believe your unionized "teacher."

The war was not about slavery - the SECESSION may have been, but the war was all about bringing back the seceded states to the Union, in order to levy a tariff that Congress had just passed and Lincoln had campaigned on.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

[AU H20]

Tony, I say this as someone who studied it extensively: The Civil War wasn't about slavery. And it was about slavery.

When you read the writings of actual Southerners, they often talk of how they believe that the North meant to destroy Southern institutions and the Southern way of life. This went beyond slavery to an entirely different economic and cultural outlook, but the economic and cultural system the South had was based, ultimately, on slavery. However, this means that slavery was, in Southern minds, inseparable from everything else, like the way they treated their women or the relations between elites and non-elites.

The North, meanwhile, would have taken the South back with slavery, but saw it as a more fundamental question of what the meaning and legacy of the American Revolution was (something that a number of the more educated Southerners also believed, but they came to a more John Calhoun belief about state's rights as the legacy) and what the powers of the federal government relative to the states were. While a number of Northerners were abolitionists, not were all there because they hated slavery- rather, they believed that slaves were taking jobs, such as black smithing, that were then denied to poor whites.

In many ways, the civil war was a war to resolve a debate that had been plaguing the Republic since it's inception, which was where the ultimate power lay in the relationship between federal and state governments. This had been an issue when the Democratic Republicans passed laws against the Alien and Sedition Acts in the late 1790s, during the Nullification Crises of the 1830s, and even came in to play with the Annexation of Texas in 1845.

The cause of the civil war, truly, though was that, as an industrial, urban society, the North quickly had more people than the South and controlled the House, and the South worried that the North would use this to fuck them over (not just with slavery, but through tariffs and so on) and this lead to the South wanting to preserve the balance in the Senate, leading to the famous serious of ridiculous compromises.

The more proximate cause was unresolved issues from the Mexican American War, which itself was triggered by the unusual nature of the Missouri Compromise that incentivised wars against Latin American powers for expansion.

TL;DR VERSION: The North had more people, the South didn't like that; Mexican American War; fundamental conflict between States and Federal government.

[Old Mexican]

Re: AU H2O,
Notice how Tony insinuates that anybody who does not agree with the accepted orthodoxy as established by that ultimate holder of the Known Truth, the WaPo, is some sort of conspiracy theory nut, despite the vast bibliography on the War of Southern Secession and the economic reasons for which it was fought.

One of the reasons for secession was to protect the institution of slavery, but the war itself was started by Lincoln to bring the states back to the Union in order to enforce a tariff. People seem to erroneusly conflate secession with the war, as if they happened simultaneoulsy. Lincoln had NO intention of freeing the slaves, not as casus belli at least, nor was this his objective during the first 2 years of the war. Even themuch lauded Emancipation Proclamation did not include the 4 Union states that allowed slavery.

[AU H20]

The Emancipation Proclamation was more of a threat than anything else- as long Southern states came back before the Emancipation Proc kicked in, they were allowed to keep their slaves.

[AU H20]

Also, OM- you just a US history buff, or could we be getting into some shit about Pancho Villa and so on in Mexican history (sadly, I'm pretty unfamiliar with Mexican history myself, though some of my friends are quite big on history south of the border)?

[Old Mexican]

Re: AU H2O,
Mexican history is very colorful, as it has its good share of thiefs, cutthroats, robbers, burglars, rapists and other government types.

[Rob McMillin]

My Arkansan wife has an interesting razor on the matter of the forces driving the Civil War, namely: even today, how many whites can you imagine wanting to go to war for the rights of black people?

Not that I don't think that slavery wasn't a big motivation, but making it out to be 100% of the reason is gross oversimplification.

[MJ]

All that tells you is what Grant's and Lee's personal motivations for joining their respective militaries. Perhaps a better indicaation of the political goals of the CSA was it's Articles of Confederacy, which explicitly protected slavery as a legal institution (the US Constitution only euphemistically refers to slavery).

[Old Mexican]

Re: MJ,

Perhaps a better indicaation of the political goals of the CSA was it's Articles of Confederacy

You equivocate. The protection of slavery would have been a reason for SECESSION, not for the WAR. The WAR was fought to bring the states back to the Union and maintain the hegemony of the Federal Gov, not to "free the slaves."

[MJ]

If memory serves, the Confederates fired the war's first shot. I do not dispute that the Union's original war aim was to repress the successionists, but to say that the succession happened to protect slavery but the war was not about slavery is playing cute with logic.

[MJ]

"seccession" "secessionists", stupid not proofreading.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MJ,

If memory serves, the Confederates fired the war's first shot.

Well, sort of. Actually, it was the South Carolina militia who fired the "first shot" after trying to get a recalcitrant US Army Major moved his troops (supposedly "without orders") from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, which was then considered SC territory. It was the 1860 equivalent of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident," which only means that finding whatever excuse works for war is a time-honored skill.

[Lysander Spooner]

I see nothing about slavery in the constitution.

[ML]

And "Lee's slaves" weren't even his slaves. He was the executor of his father-in-law's will. If you look at the document where Lee released them (next time you're at the Confederate White House in Richmond) you will notice it's the Custis Manumission Document.

[JoshINHB]

OM given your "the civil war wasn't about slavery" bullshit

You're such an ignorant fool, Tony.

Jesus Christ.

OM I knew you were an ideological fool but now you're going full on retard.

WTF?

[Agammamon]

Speaking of rightwing revisionist bullshit, what gave you the idea that government subsidized healthcare was about telling you what treatments you're allowed to have?

how about the example of the NHS. While they don't forbid anyone from paying for treatments the NHS denies paymoent for, the NHS will require you to pay back the cost of any treatment they covered if you top off.

And didn't Canada at least for a while make private health care illegal?

[Tony]

There is no fundamental difference. Some of us believe that certain services--like education and healthcare--should not be privileges of those who can afford them, but rights for everyone in an advanced wealthy society. There are economic arguments that go beyond this moral stance: without mandatory public education, the fact is most people would either not be able to afford the expense or would choose not to pay it. It's a recipe for a small ruling class and a huge underclass if there ever was one.

[Pablo]

So you think part of being an advanced society is the practice of enslaving some people for others' benefit? After all if you say someone has a "right" to a good or service, that means that others have to labor in order to provide that, even if they don't get paid. If they refuse then you have to force them to work for others for free.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

There is no fundamental difference. Some of us believe that certain services--like education and healthcare--should not be privileges of those who can afford them[...]

They're not privileges. Healthcare is a service provided by people of specialized skills, and education is a personal choice. Education can be obtained at almost ZERO cost just by going to the library. Only Statist fucks believe education requires a pharaonic building where the priesthood can reside...

[cynical]

"It's a recipe for a small ruling class and a huge underclass if there ever was one."

Since that accurately describes the status quo, it appears public education is a failure.

[tkwelge]

"without mandatory public education, the fact is most people would either not be able to afford the expense or would choose not to pay it. It's a recipe for a small ruling class and a huge underclass if there ever was one."

You will realize that this argument is bullshit once you realize that public education doesn't necessarily increase class mobility. Before universal public education, this country had an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class. After a hundred years of progressive education, we have an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class in just about the same proportions. It usually takes factors outside of education to change this situation, such as an upward economic trend or some massive increase in the demand for labor. And no, pushing children through an intense educational experience will not create an upward economic trend in and of itself.

I graduated from high school six years ago, and I can personally tell you that i have half a dozen friends whose lives would be no different without ANY public education. Unless you are going after a job that requires a college degree, nobody will even ask to see your high school diploma!

I'd argue that a third of children in public schools are simply being wearhoused, and the vast majority of these children were born poor or lower middle class. Certainly some are helped by a progressive educational system. However, it doesn't make the blind see and the lame walk.

[tkwelge]

TL;DR

Basically, although some poor people are aided by a progressive educational system, the vast majority of the poor will be no better off than they were in a world without such a system.

Once again, as a recent public school graduate, I can honestly say that everything RELEVANT that I learned in public school could have been compressed into 12 hours a week of personal tutoring and some homework.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

proper role = zero.

boom! problem solved.

why the f are you for socialized education anyways?

[Three Dog]

Ghouls are people too... So keep your gun in your holster and your prejudice at the door.

One important caveat, kiddies... Those feral ghouls that prefer the dark, dank underground... they pretty much ARE mindless zombies. So kill as many of 'em you damn well please.

[Mr. New Vegas]

There was never a maaaaaaaaaaan like my Johnny!!!

[Matrix]

I actually like the songs on that station a lot more than some of the stuff on GNR. Sorry, Three Dog... but I gotta bring the truth.

I like that Johnny Guitar song and the Texas Red song. There are a couple of others.

[AU H20]

I liked them... until the 200th goddamn time I heard them. Then my purpose became killing Mr. New Vegas, which I believe can not be done, according to wikia.

[R C Dean]

I guess you can't make the "everything in moderation" point too often.

Being ready for a temporary supply chain and civil order disruption - sure, why not? Sounds like common sense.

Building your life around being completely independent of all outside resources and defending against ravening hordes? Yeah, that's kinda nuts.

[Matrix]

The zombie apocalypse is coming! Mark my words!!!

[Mogan David]

Apparently we'll have of ZA.

[Mogan David, take 2]

Apparently we'll have five months of ZA.

[PACW]

Dang the small print - - - hovering over the link I read "edible fellowship" and not "ebible fellowship" Needless to say I was disappointed.

[alan]

Maybe I should just RTFA, but from the little I have been exposed to, isn't it just a tad bit on the straw man side?

I would argue that a greater aggregate of knowledge pertaining to basic survival in the general population enhances the market by making things cheaper and more highly available like my Guam red peppers that no store within twelve miles carries (not coincidentally, that is the distance to the closest Whole Foods and they only carry them dried). The fact we make our own hooch means that there is more available for the general public at the stores.

I don't know any hard core survivalist, but almost everyone in these boonies has hobbies that would be considered of the survivalist bent. Hell, the origins are more hippie than nativist. Anyone remember the Firefox (not the browser!) books from the seventies?

[R C Dean]

And let me just say, that the outbreak of Fallout commentary on multiple threads can't happen too often.

[Pro Libertate]

Just beat Fallout: New Vegas. Now playing it evil. Just had to fend off an NCR assassin attack.

[JW]

I beat and and released the hordes of Mr. House's robots on the landscape. Not what I wanted at all.

Played it again killing Mr. House this time, installing Yes Man, and got bored when I had to go tromping through the various casinos and hotels. I may go back to it yet.

[Pro Libertate]

No truly good-guy ending, so I opted for the Yes Man option, figuring that maybe I could retain control of him.

As a bad guy, no doubt that Caesar is going to benefit.

[waffles]

I just follow the kill/maim/steal from any NPC that gives me any backtalk whatsoever policy. Works for me.

[Pro Libertate]

Not playing it that evil. I want to preserve some quests. However, I am following the rule-of-thumb that says if the dialogue allows me to kill or to provoke an attack, I take that option.

[waffles]

Look, I didn't buy the game just so I could get sassed by a bunch of zeroes and ones.

[Pro Libertate]

I like playing as a good guy much more than playing as a bad guy. So I prefer the games that allow me to choose how moral or immoral I want to play.

[waffles]

I'll grant that. It makes sense to not piss the characters off until they are no longer useful. The game does punish bad behavior. When you are level 10 and the legion and NCR both are trying to kill you with their high level dudes, well meh. I started over.

[Pro Libertate]

I recently survived an NCR attack of that sort. If that gets much worse, I may have to make a little nicer with the NCR.

[SugarFree]

I finished the Wild Card ending, and the Mr. House path (which was my hardcore mode game.) About half-way through NCR path, but I got sidetracked with Bulletstorm.

Really disappointed with the Dead Money DLC. Found it kind of boring.

[Mensan]

I haven't played New Vegas, but I'm playing through Fallout 3: GOTY Edition for the third time. Did it once good, and once evil. Now I'm trying the Two-Face approach. Every decision I flip a coin: heads = most moral choice; tails = most evil choice.

[R C Dean]

I'm holding off until the GOTY edition comes out. Hopefully it will be debugged by then, and they may even do it right and give me the DLCs without me having to download the fuckers onto my pitifully inadequate hard drive.

Thanks for the spoilers, though.

I like playing as a good guy much more than playing as a bad guy.

Me, too. Its weird, but I'm almost incapable of consistent bad guy.

[Sam]

If you play bad guy and fight with all the factions it's very tough to explore since you are constantly having to fight. It also greatly reduces the number of potential quests since no one wants to interact with you. I tend to pick one faction to side with and then fight the others.

[Sam]

If you play bad guy and fight with all the factions it's very tough to explore since you are constantly having to fight. It also greatly reduces the number of potential quests since no one wants to interact with you. I tend to pick one faction to side with and then fight the others.

[Hazel Meade]

A) I don't survivalists are really focused on doing it all themselves PRIOR to the apocalypse.

B) DIY is a hobbyist kind of thing people do for pleasure, not economic advantage.

I don't think you are using the right word, if there is a word for people who erroneously feel that sewing their own clothes or farming their own food is economical. I know a lot of hipsters who do those things, but most admit that it's not cheaper than going to the grocery store.

Anyway, a lot of them do it and then trade with other hipsters, thus effectively creating a low-level black market. This stuff should be encouraged.

[Name Nomad]

Well, when the zombies/survivalist fantasy scenario happens I'll be set. I mean who wouldn't want an experienced database administrator in a survival scenario? Who else is going to look over your grant tables or optimize your queries?

[Gregory Smith]

There's nothing wrong with survivalism. In fact, the survivalist is the ultimate optimist because he believes he CAN survive a major disaster.

USAID Pays Africans to Study in America.
http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....icans.html

[jasno]

Just learn to play music, brew beer and grow pot. The guys who know how to skin animals will keep you around out of necessity.

[Heroic Mulatto]

It's a shame that Postrel spends that time building up her straw man, when it's going to end up in flames quicker than a turn-of-the-century New York garment district sweatshop.

[AlmightyJB]

It's kinda cute how she thinks survivalist would give crap about what she says.

[Fist of Etiquette, Nark]

People in polite society laugh at me and my automated denogginator, but when the zombie apocolypse comes - or even the normal one, for that matter - who will be laughing then? No one, because the denogginator doesn't discrimnate between zombie heads and regular ones.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Oh yeah, and you zombies better not be using drugs, either.

[Warty]

I got my fist, I got my pen, I got survivalism

[alan]

Warty, you win the awesomest possum award for that one.

[NL]

All this weapons consideration is loser talk. If you aren't quickly inside a massive brick and mortar prison (think Shawshank) or on an oil rig with a greenhouse then you're SOL when the Zombocalypse comes. I suppose there's room for some debate over whether it's best to go with a harpoon gun or 30 cal to defend the walls.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Gated communities. Fucking elitism.

[prolefeed]

Survivalism is a enormously risky gamble that the unlikely probability of catastrophic shit going down justifies the certain foregoing of benefits from participating in society and reaping those benefits.

[waffles]

No, survivalism is an enourmously fun hobby. It makes activities like camping, hunting, and going to the target range even more fun because you have a goal that you can take a seriously as you choose to.

[ML]

Gee, no long beard? No hiding from the revenuers in a hole in the back yard? Interesting that no one seems to consider that there are degrees of survivalism. Even the fed, state & local governments advocate family emergency planning and CERT.

We keep a hurricane/emergency supply kit and each family member is also responsible for a "BOB," a 72 hour kit in a backpack, which is kept under the bed. We review our BOBs, the hurricane kit and emergency plans once a year while we live for a weekend or so off the grid. Unless we actually need to use them -- as we did for 2 nasty "Nor'easter" winter storms and 3 rough hurricanes in the last 24 years -- we participate in the general free market for the other 362+/- days each year. We make up for those few days by replenishing the supplies when we're done.

We only had to Bug Out once, but, nice thing about hurricanes, you can see them coming a long way off. We had plenty of time to cover the windows and pack the baby. My lovely and thoughtful wife even had all the laundry washed ahead of time.

[Britt]

So wrong.

Look, the joking creed is this: Ready for the zombie uprising, ready for anything.

Which means that when the power goes down for two weeks after a hurricane I'm the one who's eating tasty MREs with generator cooled beer and not whatever canned goods are at the back of the pantry washed down with warm Fresca someone forgot was under the basement stairs.

The end of the world scenario is popular in fiction because it's dramatic and it showcases all the possible survivalist skills. I can't tan leather, for example, but I have stockpiles of food, medicine, water, ammo, sundries. Sounds difficult to pull off, but it really isn't. For stuff that keeps indefinetly, store it in waterproof storage tubs and forget it. Rotate your food stocks, but keep it topped off to a two week supply. Know how to access the water in your water heater, and look into low water use techniques, along with stocking up on it. Buy ammo in bulk, because in any medium/long term scenario, ammo is going to be very valuable, particularly in .22 and 12 gauge shotshells.

Being prepared is like going armed. The odds of needing it are low (depending on definition of need, what would keep you alive in TEOTWAWKI will make a week without power much more pleasant)but the stakes could not be higher.

[ML]

Drive a well to water the garden and keep a pitcher pump to use when the power's out. That gives us an indefinite water supply... and keeps us from paying sewer fees for watering the garden!

[DJF]

A free market is just people making decisions on how they want to live so a survivalist is just as much part of a free market as anyone else. As long as they are not forcing others to join them then they are the free market at work. A no decision on buying something is just as much a part of the market as a yes.

I swear some so-called free marketers are just as narrow minded as the statests are. Its my way or no way they shout. You must buy from Wall Mart or you are not free. If you are not buying your car from Korea and your carrots from Mexico you are anti-free market. Sorry dudes, you keep forgetting the free part of free market and the market just means the place where various free people meet and exchange good or don't exchange goods as they so wish.

[Obamacare Supporter]

A no decision on buying something is just as much a part of the market as a yes.

Ah, HA!!

[shrike]

The marketing genius is when one creates demand for Survivalism via their own mass media dipshit paranoid conspiracy theories. "Its the goddamn Apocalypse and 12th Imam at the same time, boys!"

I'm talking Beck of course.

Tell the truth - how many of you closet Beckerheads have bought your survival seeds and Goldline gold-plated doubloons?

[waffles]

well, I bought a gun. and ammo. But my survivalist expenses go under the 'entertainment' tab of my spreadsheet.

[shrike]

Guns and ammo have actual utility.

Beck can't scam his gullible conservative paranoid idiot fan base with such.

Get creative - don't you need Soros insurance? Just in case the billionaire wants the gold in your teeth?

[Paul]

I really liked Beck's first album. Odelay wasn't bad, though.

[alan]

Have ti disagree. I spun Odelay once and did not like it at all. Spun it a second time just in case I just wasn't getting it. Nope. Never bothered play it again.

[alan]

Squirrels are eating my 'to's. Bastards.

[Paul]

*shrug*

As I get older, my musical tastes are getting younger. It's the weirdest thing. According to actual studies, that's not supposed to happen.

I find myself completely bored with the shit I listened to as a kid, and now find the stuff I listened to as a young adult to be tired and so-done-before.

I'm finding I get bored with artists much faster than I used to. It's almost like I'm getting the musical attention span of a teenage girl.

[alan]

People whose taste I trust like Odelay too. It lacks the freshman umph of the first one imo, but I know I'm picky and inconsistent in my taste in music.

[cynical]

"Guns and ammo have actual utility."

Seeds don't? Gold too, both as art material, a non-perishable, and if you are lucky enough to be able to utilize it, as a component of many modern electrical doohickeys. The people that loathe gold are more ridiculous than the ones that idolize it. But, then, maybe they understand the way that fiat currency serves the interests of the powerful and support this.

"Get creative - don't you need Soros insurance? Just in case the billionaire wants the gold in your teeth?"

But what if he steals your Soros insurance policy too?

[Old Mexican]

Re: shrike,

The marketing genius is when one creates demand for Survivalism Central Banking via their own mass media dipshit paranoid conspiracy theories recession-based fearmongering.

You can't know how much I agree with you.

[alan]

I do love the fact so few took this seriously though. Read a bit more, and it is Postrel's old 'there they go, embarrassing me again' schtick in a new set of clothes.

[Vendortron]

Back again? How much .308 ammo does one man need?!?

[Inkfarmer]

Can we please stop talking about zombies for a little while?

[Mark Plus]

Ayn Rand wrote a well known zombie apocalypse, only she called the zombies in her novel looters, moochers, mystics, etc. The heroes just have to hold out in their Rocky Mountain doomstead for 28 weeks or so, until the zombies all die for good.

[johnl]

Am I the only one who is sad to see Virginia Postrel in the Wall Street Journal writing about something so unimportant?

[daiti]

Hi,dear friend
welcome to visit our company website:

http://www.2kuu.com

I am glad to introduce ourselves as a good wholesaler .
We can offer series of
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3)
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g)
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste)
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi)
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)
New era cap

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo)

The price depends on its quantity and it will save more than 20% than
other suppliers. All of the products displayed on our website are
available and have stocks.

Welcome to Our Website: http://www.2kuu.com

We hope you find our satisfaction guarantee to be the foundation of a long standing relationship with us. We look forward to hearing from you and are always available by telephone or email if you have any questions about our products!!

[Almanian]

I'd have liked this article better if Virginia had written it for Reason instead of WSJ.

*guzzle*