3 ms·

The bunker itself, the focus of tfa, is an example of a "hard asset" which is not only still an asset when dollars no longer are, it's actually a liability unti

The bunker itself, the focus of tfa, is an example of a "hard asset" which is not only still an asset when dollars no longer are, it's actually a liability until then. You don't really get to accuse anyone else of comic book logic while missing basics like that. Their whole point with the bunkers and stockpiles is that those assets don't need the state to be valuable and confer power and security. The asset itself provides the power and security that the state no longer does. And they don't need the state to define and assert who is the owner and protect the asset. They use one asset to protect another asset. They get other people to work for them the same way people have always done. Or it's better exposed by phrasing from the other direction: People participate in organizations for the same reason they always have. They get something they want from it. At the top and at the bottom it's both just variations of the same thing which is the structure gives them safety that they can't get on their own. And they overwhelmingly value that more than freedom. At the top they defend the leader because the leader is what grants the legitimacy of their own high position within the organization. I don't mean that they think the leader comes from god and actually has some higher authority and right to grant other authority, I mean as a #3 or #12 etc, you have a much easier time justifying your own position and authority and privilege when it came from some larger structure. It removes the focus and blame from yourself. So you love the structure and you defend it and enforce for it and rat out any subversive talk you overhear about it etc. At the lower end, a lot of people, maybe even most people, value the safety of being within any structure way more than the freedom of being outside it. They don't have to like the guy at the top at all. Why do you abide by civilized norms right now? Everyone in an apartment building could totally overpower the landlord at any time. 50 to 1 no contest. The biggest problem really is just getting the others to go along, but let's say the landlord is such a dick that you manage it. So the next problem is what, the police will come and you'll all go to jail? But what makes the police do that? Why do they agree to follow orders from just one pudgy little chief? It's no different "after the fall" just at a smaller scale. The big structure broke down, but most people still want what it provided and will latch on to whatever smaller structure is available to replace it, and it's all the same interlocking dynamics of everyone holding each other in place, not any one magic person holding everyone else in place by mind force or something. Even if the actual guy at the top is detestable, they will be surrounded by people who benefit from having that guy at the top. Do you really think all the politicians who supported Trump actually considered him superior to themselves? They universally think they themselves are superior to everyone else. Yet there they all were defending him like crazy, for years.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I find the different stories that people make up around this topic pretty interesting. These stories seem to be a litmus test for the authors, reflect more on their desires, but are treated as statements of fact.
- flir 3y ago
  Fun fact: In the centuries before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Emperors averaged 2-3 years apiece. I can't see Zuck, or any of the others, lasting too long after they set up their own Praetorian Guards.
kypro 3y ago
This is a great comment. Thank you for defending my comment better than I ever could. But yeah, the power comes from the bunker and other hard assets sheltered in it. The apocalypse bunker would in effect become a modern castle on the hill. It's funny the commenter accused me of "comic book logic", but seemed to think that I thought the bunker owner would be paying their personal in dollars (or crypto) over the internet in a post-apocalyptic world... If civilisation collapsed and now everyone outside the bunker is starving and killing each other for food then your best bet is to pledge your loyalty to the dude with food, guns and a bunker. You're not going to try to kill him and take what he has because under his protection in the bunker you're safe and being fed. What the commenter is missing is that the arrangement is actually extremely good relative to the suffering outside of the bunker. I also don't buy the idea that it would be easy to revolt. In fact if the dude with the bunker is protecting you and feeding you you're more incentivised to report any potential revolts to prove your own loyalty rather than want to participate. It's the same reason people generally don't bad mouth their employers in public because even if you hate your job, having a job is generally better than the alternative. Moreover, if they're fed and safe I'm not sure how they'd even benefit from trying to steel – would they want more food or more safety or something? It seems like a great way to great either get yourself killed with little to no practical gain. Obviously the bunker alone isn't enough though... You'd need ample food, guns and resources as well as some social structure to ensure everyone understands their place and that rebelling against the social order wouldn't be in anyone's best interest. People wouldn't be paid in cash, but like in feudal Europe people would instead be paid with food, safety, and status. So long as the bunker leader could provide some combination of these resources then people will be willing to serve for them in a world in which those resources are otherwise scarce. I think what's most unrealistic about what I'm saying is an outcome where civilisation totally collapses yet some percentage of humanity continues to survive. If there was a nuclear war today the US president would be unlikely to be killed and I'd assume a lot of military equipment would still be operational. What you'd probably see is localised pockets of lawlessness and famine directly after the nuclear exchange, but with time I'd assume that the government would be restored.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I find the different stories that people make up around this topic pretty interesting. These stories seem to be a litmus test for the authors, reflect more on their desires, but are treated as statements of fact.

flir 3y ago
Fun fact: In the centuries before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Emperors averaged 2-3 years apiece. I can't see Zuck, or any of the others, lasting too long after they set up their own Praetorian Guards.

kypro 3y ago

This is a great comment. Thank you for defending my comment better than I ever could. But yeah, the power comes from the bunker and other hard assets sheltered in it. The apocalypse bunker would in effect become a modern castle on the hill. It's funny the commenter accused me of "comic book logic", but seemed to think that I thought the bunker owner would be paying their personal in dollars (or crypto) over the internet in a post-apocalyptic world... If civilisation collapsed and now everyone outside the bunker is starving and killing each other for food then your best bet is to pledge your loyalty to the dude with food, guns and a bunker. You're not going to try to kill him and take what he has because under his protection in the bunker you're safe and being fed. What the commenter is missing is that the arrangement is actually extremely good relative to the suffering outside of the bunker. I also don't buy the idea that it would be easy to revolt. In fact if the dude with the bunker is protecting you and feeding you you're more incentivised to report any potential revolts to prove your own loyalty rather than want to participate. It's the same reason people generally don't bad mouth their employers in public because even if you hate your job, having a job is generally better than the alternative. Moreover, if they're fed and safe I'm not sure how they'd even benefit from trying to steel – would they want more food or more safety or something? It seems like a great way to great either get yourself killed with little to no practical gain. Obviously the bunker alone isn't enough though... You'd need ample food, guns and resources as well as some social structure to ensure everyone understands their place and that rebelling against the social order wouldn't be in anyone's best interest. People wouldn't be paid in cash, but like in feudal Europe people would instead be paid with food, safety, and status. So long as the bunker leader could provide some combination of these resources then people will be willing to serve for them in a world in which those resources are otherwise scarce. I think what's most unrealistic about what I'm saying is an outcome where civilisation totally collapses yet some percentage of humanity continues to survive. If there was a nuclear war today the US president would be unlikely to be killed and I'd assume a lot of military equipment would still be operational. What you'd probably see is localised pockets of lawlessness and famine directly after the nuclear exchange, but with time I'd assume that the government would be restored.