3 ms·
Security is defined by some assumptions. The stability of society and the ability of the government to enforce that through the military and police. Very fragil
by naiveattack 9y ago
Security is defined by some assumptions. The stability of society and the ability of the government to enforce that through the military and police. Very fragile the things we take for granted.
When there systems fall, only those with either high enough walls around them with ability to sustain independently within those walls, or at least the ability to escape to another currently stable situation will be secure.
When a Gotham'esque hell breaks loose, where is your security then?
- adrianN 9y agoWell yeah, if society collapses you'd better be a prepper. Most reasonable people however think that you're very secure financially once you have saved enough for ~30 years of average spending. Barring major market disaster you could then continue living from your capital gains indefinitely.
- naiveattack 9y agoSure, but this is the precariat. Most excellently pointed out be korrachs. This autonomy is the line. It doesn't have to be total anarchy or civil war either. Imagine food shortages or media propaganda or government policy changes. Again, all very fragile. The distinction is what controls you, and what autonomy you retain. Categories: every day is a living fuck all, I depends on the systems around me, I have autonomy myself, I have autonomy over others as well.
- i_cant_speel 9y agoHow does that have anything to do with the current discussion?
- naiveattack 9y agoBecause this is one way of seeing security. If I have a private jet and runway, I can fly away when war breaks loose. Can you see the line?
- i_cant_speel 9y agoWe're talking about financial security. Not security when there's an apocalypse.
- naiveattack 9y agoi_cant_speel> Not security when there's an apocalypse. One man’s apocalypse is another man’s civil war. I will let the more knowledgable reference history here. On what we’re speaking about: korrachs> I was wondering how long it would take for the attack on the solidarity of the precariat: korrachs> The rich cannot be ruined. I can. taneq> within a year or two you would have far more security than the $30k household will ever have. Although you could argue that I’m cherry picking to make my point, I will so bold as to allude that perhaps we are missing the larger argument here. The solidarity of the precariat under fire is an excellent way to consolidate power amongst the influential. A little something called divide and rule.