4 ms·

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 grea

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.
        JohnBooty 5y ago
        I'm shocked by your assertion that this is "Hollywood territory." There are large swaths of Earth ruled by, essentially, gangs/warlords. Or where the people are currently at the mercy of various warring forces. There are no shortage of examples of what happens when society breaks down: might and violence rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars#Ongoing_civil_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars#Ongoing_civ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
        quacked 5y ago
        Concur; for most of human history, societies have been governed by warlords. There are multiple sub-societies in the United States itself governed by gangs and warlords. Democracy and rule of law is the exception, not the rule.
throwdecro 5y ago
> These people are frankly stupid. Agreed. I'll give Huffman a bit of credit (in some areas) for getting down to basics like being able to see without glasses, or ride a motorcycle. But I don't picture him still having that motorcycle in his possession for more than 5 minutes after he really needs it. I especially don't picture Huffman running anything ("...I’m a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge...") in a collapse situation, for the same reason we don't see bosses in the failed states that exist right now running tech companies. They're different skills. Finally I can't imagine a situation where you'd need armed guards that didn't also involve the guards simply throwing the "owners" out and keeping the stuff. The super-rich would be better off practicing fighting, starving, suffering, and learning how to survive with nothing. I can't imagine any of them being able to keep what they've prepared in a chaotic situation. EDITED TO ADD: Actually Huffman's stupidity completely overwhelms any partial credit I just gave him. He thinks he'll have an advantage in a traffic jam because he'll have a motorcycle and he can breeze past it. "I need to own a motorcycle because everybody else is screwed". He actually believes "ownership" would still be a thing, and no one would just take it from him. EDITED TO ADD 2: I'm surprised the parent post is being downvoted, it is absolutely correct.
- citizenpaul 5y ago
  Im a pretty good leader lol hahaha. The instant anything hits the fan the only leader will be the security team they think they hired to protect them. Whom will immideatly eliminate him and his family to move intheir own friends and family.
  - mnahkies 5y ago
    Sounds a bit like the plot of parasite. I tend to agree with the other comments though - take away society and the threat of legal consequences and those hired guns have no real reason to be loyal (in most cases)
rgrieselhuber 5y ago
This would explain why the notion of Divine Right of Kings was originally instituted, it provided a psychological barrier (somewhat) against the warriors just taking all of the stuff from the aristocracy. A purely rational / secularized society provides no such protection.
- quacked 5y ago
  I fully agree with you. I don't think the Divine Right of Kings is necessarily a good idea, but it blocks the formation of a warlord-driven society and restricts the right to rule to a single warlord. Have you noticed that despite the popular sentiment among left-leaners in America today being anti-police and anti-military, the overwhelming majority of the police and military are right-leaning? Trust of the public safety has been put into the hands of people who are not necessarily loyal to the people that are giving them the trust.
kkoncevicius 5y ago
These are not stupid people, they must know basic stuff like money being worthless when society collapses. Before posting this article I read a whole bunch on the same topic, here is an interesting quote from another one [0]: > "This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time." [0]: https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1 https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0...
- throwdecro 5y ago
  These people are stupid, and solutions like "a combination that only they know" or "disciplinary collars" are also stupid. You wouldn't want to rely on entirely novel, oppressive, and essentially untested ways of maintaining your power, when the price of failure is that you're the hated target of everyone around you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

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.
      - JohnBooty 5y ago
        I'm shocked by your assertion that this is "Hollywood territory." There are large swaths of Earth ruled by, essentially, gangs/warlords. Or where the people are currently at the mercy of various warring forces. There are no shortage of examples of what happens when society breaks down: might and violence rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars#Ongoing_civil_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars#Ongoing_civ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
        quacked 5y ago
        Concur; for most of human history, societies have been governed by warlords. There are multiple sub-societies in the United States itself governed by gangs and warlords. Democracy and rule of law is the exception, not the rule.

throwdecro 5y ago

> These people are frankly stupid. Agreed. I'll give Huffman a bit of credit (in some areas) for getting down to basics like being able to see without glasses, or ride a motorcycle. But I don't picture him still having that motorcycle in his possession for more than 5 minutes after he really needs it. I especially don't picture Huffman running anything ("...I’m a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge...") in a collapse situation, for the same reason we don't see bosses in the failed states that exist right now running tech companies. They're different skills. Finally I can't imagine a situation where you'd need armed guards that didn't also involve the guards simply throwing the "owners" out and keeping the stuff. The super-rich would be better off practicing fighting, starving, suffering, and learning how to survive with nothing. I can't imagine any of them being able to keep what they've prepared in a chaotic situation. EDITED TO ADD: Actually Huffman's stupidity completely overwhelms any partial credit I just gave him. He thinks he'll have an advantage in a traffic jam because he'll have a motorcycle and he can breeze past it. "I need to own a motorcycle because everybody else is screwed". He actually believes "ownership" would still be a thing, and no one would just take it from him. EDITED TO ADD 2: I'm surprised the parent post is being downvoted, it is absolutely correct.

citizenpaul 5y ago
Im a pretty good leader lol hahaha. The instant anything hits the fan the only leader will be the security team they think they hired to protect them. Whom will immideatly eliminate him and his family to move intheir own friends and family.
- mnahkies 5y ago
  Sounds a bit like the plot of parasite. I tend to agree with the other comments though - take away society and the threat of legal consequences and those hired guns have no real reason to be loyal (in most cases)

rgrieselhuber 5y ago

This would explain why the notion of Divine Right of Kings was originally instituted, it provided a psychological barrier (somewhat) against the warriors just taking all of the stuff from the aristocracy. A purely rational / secularized society provides no such protection.

quacked 5y ago
I fully agree with you. I don't think the Divine Right of Kings is necessarily a good idea, but it blocks the formation of a warlord-driven society and restricts the right to rule to a single warlord. Have you noticed that despite the popular sentiment among left-leaners in America today being anti-police and anti-military, the overwhelming majority of the police and military are right-leaning? Trust of the public safety has been put into the hands of people who are not necessarily loyal to the people that are giving them the trust.

kkoncevicius 5y ago

These are not stupid people, they must know basic stuff like money being worthless when society collapses. Before posting this article I read a whole bunch on the same topic, here is an interesting quote from another one [0]: > "This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time." [0]: https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1 https://onezero.medium.com/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0...

throwdecro 5y ago
These people are stupid, and solutions like "a combination that only they know" or "disciplinary collars" are also stupid. You wouldn't want to rely on entirely novel, oppressive, and essentially untested ways of maintaining your power, when the price of failure is that you're the hated target of everyone around you.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]