I tend to agree with Bypah.
There has to be a balance between the state and the individual. Good minds have been discussing this point since the dawn of civilisation.
The individual + the state = Civilisation. The point is the balance between the two inputs.
I thing hoarding is counterproductive and destructive to the human spirit of co-operation, not competition, which it encourages.
In a mass survival or disaster situation, CO-OPERATION is king, or we are back in the jungle. Mass violence is guaranteed, and the whole nightmarish "survivalist" outlook ( I mean in the negative, violent sense) becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Some controls over hoarding is therefore right and proper, indeed it is the duty of the state to give some level of protection to its citizens, no matter what their current economic position is.
Strictly enforced price controls to prevent profiteering is also required.
In the UK in the last 2 wars, hoarding was heavily punished, and strict price controls introduced, and I dont think Churchill or Lloyd George were too communist, when I last read about them.
In the UK currently, it is still the theoretical civil defence rule that people should if possible have 2 weeks food, plus supplimentary items including batteries, etc. to hand. This was from the last edition of "Protect And Survive" the CD booklet from the early 80s.
There was a rationiong system planned to provide people with the 14 days food supply, but it was muddled.
http://subbrit.org.uk/rsg/features/sfs/file_14.htm
My solution to this is that everybody on the electoral role be issued with 14 days supply of tinned and preserved food every 2 years in a sealed unit. Each household would pay a flat fee. If unused, it is returned to be re- distributed. Then the issue of stockpiling would be removed.
I am pretty sure that hoarding would be strictly controlled here if a war time or extreme terrorism/natural disaster scenario should occur.
Just a IMHO
