Apocalypse preparation really grinds my gears. It demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the relationship between politics and ecology. Many people currently live in an apocalyptic environment. Destitute people in the richest cities in the world live without access to basic sanitation, let alone photography or "digital storage". Governments are a form of organized violence which the capital class use to protect their access to ecological and infrastructural resources, thereby denying those resources to the poor.
In the event of some kind of massive ecological disaster, violence and power will not suddenly cease to exist. The capital class will shrink and the remaining rich will double down on their use of violence to control resources. For them (us?) their standard of living will remain high. Electronics factories and power plants will continue to run, they will just be more heavily protected by militaries.
It will get harder for the rich to tune out the plight of the poor. But we already have many tools that shield us from having to see the violent side effects of our lifestyle, and those tools will just have to be used more thoroughly so we can ignore what will be much more widespread poverty and keep running the machine of civilization.
But this is the thing: that world only differs from our current world only in proportions and numbers. Everything that will happen in the "apocalypse" is already happening now, all the time. If you care about what happens in the apocalypse you should also care about what's happening right now.
You can "prep" to try to ensure that you stay in the capital class when the apocalypse goes down, but I just think it would be a better use of your resources to fix what wrong with the system now, and move away from this kind of zero-sum political system so that everyone can be OK both in the current resource crunch and in the theoretical future crunches.
We have an opportunity to solve the resource distribution problems that have plagued civilization from the start. Let's take that opportunity, rather than spend our effort trying to make sure we "win" and someone else "loses" if things get worse.
"Governments are a form of organized violence which the capital class use to protect their access to ecological and infrastructural resources, thereby denying those resources to the poor."
Why do you think that?
You seem to have a worldview that is not accepted by the majority of, say, economists, who have spent the last 200 years studying these issues.
So I'd love to here what makes you think your view is correct?
No, economists have been arguing and studying for over 200 years, probably more. Simply saying they've been "studying it" for 200 years doesn't make your view or your choice of economists correct.
Let's have a look at the parent poster's points that you're curious about:
1. "Governments are a form of organized violence" This is correct in quite a few different interpretations, even according to some politicians like Obama. Not only that, but have you looked at the statistics regarding how many individuals have been killed by government action? Wars? Execution? Atomic Bombs? Some people, including me, will go so far as to define the government/state as an "organization with a monopoly on force/violence within a geographic area".
2. "[..]capital class use to protect their access to ecological and infrastructural resources" Not quite sure about this one, really. But the government/state does indeed limit usage/access to resources in the environment, for one reason or another. But it also chooses to give/deny access to certain infrastructure. Ever heard of a poor person going to a public school in a rich neighborhood? Bet you've heard about the perks/protection that civil servants, politicians and union members get from the government.
3. "[..]thereby denying those resources to the poor." Government does indeed give quite a few things to the poor. It also incentivizes them not to use the resources available to them in the natural environment. Perhaps that's what the parent poster was talking about. It's no longer feasible for a poor guy to strike it rich by going out into the wilderness and discovering oil. Not just because the easy wells have been found already, but because the government won't grant them permits/resource rights.
Also, here is some extra reading. First some logical fallacies you seem to be using. And another link regarding the ethics of anarcho-capitalism. Also, the numbering is not linked to the above list.
"No, economists have been arguing and studying for over 200 years, probably more. Simply saying they've been "studying it" for 200 years doesn't make your view or your choice of economists correct."
Well, I'd agree with you if there didn't seem to be a consensus. I'm not talking about choosing specific Economists, I'm talking about a general consensus among all economists. There are things that all mainstream economists agree on, at least from my reading on the subject (very limited, unfortunately, which is why I ask for clarification or sources).
As for your logical fallacies list, I can't say I agree. I doubt you'd be saying I'm making any of those fallacies if I said that the mainstream scientific consensus is that gravity exists, or that f=ma. Trying to understand the consensus of the experts in the subject, and starting from the assumption that at least there's a good chance they're correct, is a pretty reasonable and effective worldview.
It seems pretty self-evident to me... maybe there's a more specific question you could ask? If you are a member of the capital class, then you "own" various "resources", like fields and vehicles and water and ideas, and if a poor person tries to access those "resources" the government steps in and uses violence against the poor person until they stop. If you sit down to write any sort of definition of "property" that's more or less what you're going to arrive at.
Maybe you can point me at what part of this picture you're hesitant to acknowledge?
In the event of some kind of massive ecological disaster, violence and power will not suddenly cease to exist. The capital class will shrink and the remaining rich will double down on their use of violence to control resources. For them (us?) their standard of living will remain high. Electronics factories and power plants will continue to run, they will just be more heavily protected by militaries.
It will get harder for the rich to tune out the plight of the poor. But we already have many tools that shield us from having to see the violent side effects of our lifestyle, and those tools will just have to be used more thoroughly so we can ignore what will be much more widespread poverty and keep running the machine of civilization.
But this is the thing: that world only differs from our current world only in proportions and numbers. Everything that will happen in the "apocalypse" is already happening now, all the time. If you care about what happens in the apocalypse you should also care about what's happening right now.
You can "prep" to try to ensure that you stay in the capital class when the apocalypse goes down, but I just think it would be a better use of your resources to fix what wrong with the system now, and move away from this kind of zero-sum political system so that everyone can be OK both in the current resource crunch and in the theoretical future crunches.
We have an opportunity to solve the resource distribution problems that have plagued civilization from the start. Let's take that opportunity, rather than spend our effort trying to make sure we "win" and someone else "loses" if things get worse.