3 ms·
Only in the most simplistic case. In less simplistic cases, people will gather and organize and decisions will get made over how resources will be allocated an
by moduspol 6y ago
Only in the most simplistic case.
In less simplistic cases, people will gather and organize and decisions will get made over how resources will be allocated and distributed. The people who stockpile other resources are unlikely to be in a better bargaining position than those with the guns. And it might not require any shooting.
Not that any of this is likely--I just don't think it's limited to Rambo / Scarface types.
- renewiltord 6y agoHaha, you're right. Any notion of private property will be subsumed by the needs of the collective. We already saw that in the early days of this pandemic where it was unacceptable to keep your masks if you had them. Stockpiling goose down will mean that the tribe will decide that the old man gets the goose down. And the doctor.
- moduspol 6y agoMaybe, or maybe not. If they have guns and you don't, it'll be up to them to decide.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoAnd if one tribe has guns, and the other doesn't, guess who gets more of the goose down and who is tasked with locating more goose down?
- renewiltord 6y agoHere, try this comment a little up in the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25060550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25060550 Might help you answer that.
- 1-more 6y agoYou make a good point that I grafted the "lone holdout" connotation onto your plain statement about being armed. All other things being equal then yes the armed contingent can have the stuff belonging to the unarmed contingent