29 ms·

I agree with what another commenter said; these are the elite, the powerful, the untouchable. Instead of leading us, they're fleeing with the fortunes they made

I agree with what another commenter said; these are the elite, the powerful, the untouchable. Instead of leading us, they're fleeing with the fortunes they made off of the land and society that we have to live in. Compared to the elite statesmen of old, who are these pretenders?

jvanderbot 5y ago
I'm pretty sure "Castles" are exactly what these elite are looking for.
- swayvil 5y ago
  And a robot army. Because you just can't trust people. https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/22726111/robot-dogs-with-guns-sword-international-ghost-robotics https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/22726111/robot-dogs-with...
- crispyambulance 5y ago
  The ones who build bunkers, castles, or remote homesteads believe that "the apocalypse" (or whatever they call what they're preparing for), will last a certain amount of time and then blow-over. They think they'll be able to go back to normal after some kind of social system-reset. The problem, for them, is that no one actually knows how "doomsday" will actually unfold. What kind of doomsday, exactly, are we talking about anyway? How many different scenarios can one actually prepare for? I think there's a lot of different ways doomsday can happen, a lot of different ways, in wildly different timescales: a global warming catastrophe occurring over a span of a century and lasting forever is very different from, say, an asteroid impact or global war or the second coming or the serfs revolting and coming after you with pitch-forks. There was a talking head on the internet about 10 years ago that spoke about social collapse and theorized upon it based on what he observed when the Soviet Union collapsed (Dimitri Orlov). A lot of what he said was just predicting a future collapse in terms of stages but that was mostly forgettable because predicting the future is, IMHO, a fool's errand at best. The thing that stuck with me, however, was Orlov's assertion that how well you fare during collapse is all about how adaptable you are to new situations and the resiliency of your social network (your physical social network). Ultimately the "bug-out bag" people are going to run out of bullets, beef-jerky and clean socks. They'll need to adapt themselves to a new social group or just die alone in the woods. The same goes for rich people in bunkers. The fresh water, freeze-dried peaches and toilet paper will only last so long.
  - citizenpaul 5y ago
    The bunker people have a shock coming if anything happens. The security, maintenance, and builders of said facility have a disaster plan too. 1.go to rich guy shelter 2. Jim who works there opens door/secret backdoor code installed at build time 3.Remove rich nerds with force if necessary 4.Move in family and friends to wait out disaster Actually in all likelihood the "poor's" that maintain and build it are probably much better equipped to get to the shelter in a disaster and will already be there and have it locked up by the time the people that still think ownership is a thing show up.
HenryKissinger 5y ago
These people are frankly stupid. Money has no value outside of society. When society breaks down, the only source of power is violence, which group has the greatest capacity to exert violence, which in turn determines who controls access to vital physical resources. Your millions are worthless in a truly post apocalyptic world. Think stockpiling gold bars will help? What's stopping a person, or a group of persons, from taking your gold from you at gunpoint? These people have been so sheltered from nature and society their whole lives that some have started to seriously embrace the idea that man can be an island and prosper, ignoring the fact that none of their wealth could have been built in a more primitive place like the one they want to prepare for.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  > When society breaks down, the only source of power is violence Sounds rather over-simplistic to me, but I get your point.
  - pc86 5y ago
    In a truly apocalyptic scenario like the one being discussed, what other sources of power are there?
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      Chasrisma, skills, cooperation?
      - pc86 5y ago
        They all have to be backed up by force, though. You can use all the charisma you want to get food but at some point someone will put a gun to your head.
        JKCalhoun 5y ago
        Charisma means the guy with the gun needs to get past the 80 other people around you first. But seriously, we're Hollywood territory now.
plutonorm 5y ago
I'm not sure that the statesmen of old were any different. Human social structures are inherently exploitable by selfish individuals. We should much aggressively attack those who do not honour the implicit social contract.
- madengr 5y ago
  These people are not leaders. It used to be the king was in the literal front line of a battle. That has not been the case for a long time.
- quacked 5y ago
  The statesmen that created the United States were rich merchants and slave-owners; they were also inventers, multi-linguists, calligraphers, and philosophers. Much better than the SV billionaires, adjusted for differences in dominant morality.
leto_ii 5y ago
> Instead of leading us Why should they be leading us? The only people who should be allowed to "lead" are democratically elected officials. And even then we should be very reluctant and very critical of any of their abuses. > Compared to the elite statesmen of old, who are these pretenders? Probably about the same. If anything it's a bit better now because we can at least see how petty, arrogant, callous etc. these people actually are.
- quacked 5y ago
  Democracy only works when the people governed are capable of forming a society; Americans today are mostly dependent and incapable of maintaining any sort of survival or supply chain without direction. Do you think that the owners of the banking cartels, major tech companies, and military suppliers are one-to-one comparable with the founders of the United States? I hold no cult-like reverence for them, but the founders were well-learned, multi-lingual, and believed deeply in the structure of government and felt a responsibility to control the direction of the fledgling U.S. from the spotlight rather than from the shadows.
dageshi 5y ago
I'm not sure why you're conflating being rich with being a statesman? Getting rich doesn't necessarily mean you have the skills to be a good politician. Which it seems is what you expect these people to be?
- quacked 5y ago
  If you control the state, you're a statesman. The billionaire leadership caste of today holds a great deal of sway in society, but very little social obligation or connection to culture.
- dccoolgai 5y ago
  Except in the modern system, you mostly get that wealthy by capturing legislative/regulatory processes. So statesmen seems pretty accurate.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Regulatory capture does not a statesman make.
    - quacked 5y ago
      No, but controlling a state does a statesman make. I suppose you could quibble over the formal definition of "statesman", but the fact of the matter is there are individuals in the United States who exert great power over the directions and policy of the country who lack integrity and are dishonest, and I think it's a shame they are the ones with the influence. If you're going to control a country, do it at the helm, not from the shadows.
  - dageshi 5y ago
    If all you want to do is moan about rich people for any reason, legitimate or not, I'm sure it does.
JasonFruit 5y ago
I don't want to be led by SV CEOs. I don't want to be led by anyone. I want to be left alone to thrive with my neighbors by our own efforts and ingenuity.
- pc86 5y ago
  This is a nice pseudo-ancap/libertarian talking point but it doesn't bear any resemblance to reality. You're only able to thrive (with or without your neighbors) because of the absolutely massive support structures in place currently. Your efforts and ingenuity have very little impact compared to those, and a bit of luck thrown in for good measure. To see what you get without those support systems you have to look to places like East Africa.
LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
Uhm. Is there much difference to a castle with water filled moat and draw-bridge? Or city with walls and gates?

jvanderbot 5y ago

I'm pretty sure "Castles" are exactly what these elite are looking for.

swayvil 5y ago
And a robot army. Because you just can't trust people. https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/22726111/robot-dogs-with-guns-sword-international-ghost-robotics https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/14/22726111/robot-dogs-with...
crispyambulance 5y ago
The ones who build bunkers, castles, or remote homesteads believe that "the apocalypse" (or whatever they call what they're preparing for), will last a certain amount of time and then blow-over. They think they'll be able to go back to normal after some kind of social system-reset. The problem, for them, is that no one actually knows how "doomsday" will actually unfold. What kind of doomsday, exactly, are we talking about anyway? How many different scenarios can one actually prepare for? I think there's a lot of different ways doomsday can happen, a lot of different ways, in wildly different timescales: a global warming catastrophe occurring over a span of a century and lasting forever is very different from, say, an asteroid impact or global war or the second coming or the serfs revolting and coming after you with pitch-forks. There was a talking head on the internet about 10 years ago that spoke about social collapse and theorized upon it based on what he observed when the Soviet Union collapsed (Dimitri Orlov). A lot of what he said was just predicting a future collapse in terms of stages but that was mostly forgettable because predicting the future is, IMHO, a fool's errand at best. The thing that stuck with me, however, was Orlov's assertion that how well you fare during collapse is all about how adaptable you are to new situations and the resiliency of your social network (your physical social network). Ultimately the "bug-out bag" people are going to run out of bullets, beef-jerky and clean socks. They'll need to adapt themselves to a new social group or just die alone in the woods. The same goes for rich people in bunkers. The fresh water, freeze-dried peaches and toilet paper will only last so long.
- citizenpaul 5y ago
  The bunker people have a shock coming if anything happens. The security, maintenance, and builders of said facility have a disaster plan too. 1.go to rich guy shelter 2. Jim who works there opens door/secret backdoor code installed at build time 3.Remove rich nerds with force if necessary 4.Move in family and friends to wait out disaster Actually in all likelihood the "poor's" that maintain and build it are probably much better equipped to get to the shelter in a disaster and will already be there and have it locked up by the time the people that still think ownership is a thing show up.

HenryKissinger 5y ago

These people are frankly stupid. Money has no value outside of society. When society breaks down, the only source of power is violence, which group has the greatest capacity to exert violence, which in turn determines who controls access to vital physical resources. Your millions are worthless in a truly post apocalyptic world. Think stockpiling gold bars will help? What's stopping a person, or a group of persons, from taking your gold from you at gunpoint? These people have been so sheltered from nature and society their whole lives that some have started to seriously embrace the idea that man can be an island and prosper, ignoring the fact that none of their wealth could have been built in a more primitive place like the one they want to prepare for.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
> When society breaks down, the only source of power is violence Sounds rather over-simplistic to me, but I get your point.
- pc86 5y ago
  In a truly apocalyptic scenario like the one being discussed, what other sources of power are there?
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    Chasrisma, skills, cooperation?
    - pc86 5y ago
      They all have to be backed up by force, though. You can use all the charisma you want to get food but at some point someone will put a gun to your head.
      - JKCalhoun 5y ago
        Charisma means the guy with the gun needs to get past the 80 other people around you first. But seriously, we're Hollywood territory now.

plutonorm 5y ago

I'm not sure that the statesmen of old were any different. Human social structures are inherently exploitable by selfish individuals. We should much aggressively attack those who do not honour the implicit social contract.

madengr 5y ago
These people are not leaders. It used to be the king was in the literal front line of a battle. That has not been the case for a long time.
quacked 5y ago
The statesmen that created the United States were rich merchants and slave-owners; they were also inventers, multi-linguists, calligraphers, and philosophers. Much better than the SV billionaires, adjusted for differences in dominant morality.

leto_ii 5y ago

> Instead of leading us Why should they be leading us? The only people who should be allowed to "lead" are democratically elected officials. And even then we should be very reluctant and very critical of any of their abuses. > Compared to the elite statesmen of old, who are these pretenders? Probably about the same. If anything it's a bit better now because we can at least see how petty, arrogant, callous etc. these people actually are.

quacked 5y ago
Democracy only works when the people governed are capable of forming a society; Americans today are mostly dependent and incapable of maintaining any sort of survival or supply chain without direction. Do you think that the owners of the banking cartels, major tech companies, and military suppliers are one-to-one comparable with the founders of the United States? I hold no cult-like reverence for them, but the founders were well-learned, multi-lingual, and believed deeply in the structure of government and felt a responsibility to control the direction of the fledgling U.S. from the spotlight rather than from the shadows.

dageshi 5y ago

I'm not sure why you're conflating being rich with being a statesman? Getting rich doesn't necessarily mean you have the skills to be a good politician. Which it seems is what you expect these people to be?

quacked 5y ago
If you control the state, you're a statesman. The billionaire leadership caste of today holds a great deal of sway in society, but very little social obligation or connection to culture.
dccoolgai 5y ago
Except in the modern system, you mostly get that wealthy by capturing legislative/regulatory processes. So statesmen seems pretty accurate.
- pc86 5y ago
  Regulatory capture does not a statesman make.
  - quacked 5y ago
    No, but controlling a state does a statesman make. I suppose you could quibble over the formal definition of "statesman", but the fact of the matter is there are individuals in the United States who exert great power over the directions and policy of the country who lack integrity and are dishonest, and I think it's a shame they are the ones with the influence. If you're going to control a country, do it at the helm, not from the shadows.
- dageshi 5y ago
  If all you want to do is moan about rich people for any reason, legitimate or not, I'm sure it does.

JasonFruit 5y ago

I don't want to be led by SV CEOs. I don't want to be led by anyone. I want to be left alone to thrive with my neighbors by our own efforts and ingenuity.

pc86 5y ago
This is a nice pseudo-ancap/libertarian talking point but it doesn't bear any resemblance to reality. You're only able to thrive (with or without your neighbors) because of the absolutely massive support structures in place currently. Your efforts and ingenuity have very little impact compared to those, and a bit of luck thrown in for good measure. To see what you get without those support systems you have to look to places like East Africa.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago

Uhm. Is there much difference to a castle with water filled moat and draw-bridge? Or city with walls and gates?