It's not in their interest to do that individually, but only as a matter of domestic policy.
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
Just like 9-11, Dec 7, 1941, the anschluss, mongol invasions...the Hitties and Philistines versus the Israelites, yeah, military ops are always telegraphed.
"War between Japan and the United States had been a possibility each nation had been aware of (and developed contingency plans for) since the 1920s" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Backgrou...
"Austria was merged into Nazi Germany on 12 March 1938. There had been several years of pressure from Germany and there were many supporters within Austria for the "Heim ins Reich"-movement, both Nazis and non-Nazis." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss
Your less specific in the details of your other facts so it's hard to get specific counter-facts on them.
It is entirely clear that Libertarianism does support those things and one of the two roles of a Libertarian government is the physical security of the nation and its citizens.
Now, a worthy chap sees a report about Xia on CNN and gets suspicious. How's he going to get enough money to mount a publicity campaign warning Libland citizens of the danger?
I completely agree that Libertarianism can't be retro-fitted onto any existing human society.
Regarding your second paragraph, and completely independently, how do you propose we reach a libertarian society from the position we are now?
The problem with retrofitting it is unless you already have the no-coercion culture and infrastructure in place, too many people acting in their personal short-term self-interest find coercion easier. Which doesn't mean mugging people in the street; it's as mild as "my vote for your handouts of their money".
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.
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
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
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
Personally I don't keep reserves because there's no risk of war (at least I think so). If there was war and I had reserves, then libertarian ethics would allow me to defend my reserves (with force).
The nation that does not prepare for war, is at risk for war. If you personally do not have any food stored, and you and I live in the same nation, it puts me personally at risk of war.
Massive French government fortification program designed to protect their borders with Germany and Italy.
France knew perfectly well that the Germans were a clear and present danger. They just could not do anything about it - despite having that great protector: government military.
Indeed everyone else will wait for someone else. Prisoner's Dilemma. Oops.
If you're going to cop out with intellectual laziness rather than provide your own opinions and observations, I think I am justified in referring to someone else's work on this topic who has addressed everything you are anemically trying to assert: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/why_govt_doesnt_work....
Regarding the title of the reference, I'm happy to accept that government doesn't work, but I can't understand why libertarians think that libertarianism does. I shall save further comment until I've had a look at the reference.
"In Game Theory, simple mathematical ``games´´ such as the prisoner's dilemma or the ``chicken´´ race, model situations where there is a potential benefit for players in finding a way to coordinate their action. All the ``theorems´´ about such games merely restate in formal terms the informal hypotheses that were put in the model. It certainly does not follow that government is the right way to achieve this coordination — though such is precisely the non sequitur claim of statists. Actually, it is possible to apply game theory to compare coordination through government coercion with coordination through market competition; and this exercise in game theory will easily show how dreadful the effects of government intervention are."
Libertarian thinking is predicated on the concept of minimal government, such as the author of that document (who was the Libertarian Party candidate for President). I'm confused as to why you would accept that government doesn't work, yet think that is somehow in conflict with libertarianism.
Libertarianism risks outsourcing manufacture of vital goods to foreign states of dubious intent, leaving domestic industry to die with no means of resurrecting it in an emergency.
The closest the above reference comes to dealing with this issue is:
* with free international trade, nobody will want to attack Libland because they can get at all its resources cheaply anyway, and
* Xia won't actually be able to invade Libland because they'll be too busy dealing with their own citizens, who, impressed by Libland's affluence, are too busy trying to convince Xia's rulers to convert to Libertarianism.