post-apocalyptic govt...

[DubiousComforts]

I know, itd be funny to see a small encampment with all that crap around it. ALl you gotta do is douse the walls with gasoline, light it up and let the zombies come to town and finish em off. But don't you see: this is why many people that firmly believe in the right to bear arms are also scared to death of the gun lobby. Most of the rhetoric sounds a lot like wishful thinking, and not about protecting rights.

[Trencher]

When there is no law there are no rules except 1 rule, he who has the force, makes the rules. Its not a hard concept to understand really. Are your morals really that shallow that you need the threat of punishment to follow the law? I think you should join Evil Ned and become a communist that way atleast I could spot you in a crowd by your uniform and death grin. In any case raiding is the worst choice to defend humanity from the zombies, when you and your fellow raiders have razed all the villages you will only have other raider groups to raid then nothing.

[strayrider]

Well, genius, no solution is perfect, but would you really choose extinction over that? EvilOne, the human race wouldn't be facing extinction. Only those unprepared for the crisis (the "I need, want, gimme" crowd) would become extinct. Raiding parties led by you and Khardis might thrive for a short time, but eventually you'd come up against a well-prepared group that would slaughter you, thus ensuring the survival of the human race. If you really consider it, Peter could have held off the raiders in Dawn with his "super gun", but that would have made for a boring end to the movie. -stray- ps -- if they come at you in the dark on motorcycles, aim just above the headlights. Shoot those at the rear of the column first.

[Wyldwraith]

There's some truth to both "sides" positions, Yes, if misfortune (or the actions of my fellow man) left me and mine without the necessities and my only choices were indentured servitude to those more fortunate or sacrificing some aspects of my morality then yes, with regret I might be driven to take what did/does not rightfully belong to me. The difference I perceive is that I don't feel an automatic sense of entitlement. Such as "Hey, no sweat if there's a zombie apocalypse. I'll just loot some firearms and ammo and go rob the well-prepared." That's how Ned sounds to me, honestly. Mr. Survivalist on the other hand doesn't seem to be taking into account that this isn't the 1800s. There aren't going to be 40-50 others of like mind and with complimentary proficiencies in the immediate area in a couple dozen homesteads. To get past the short-lived Raider Era I'd imagine any of us would end up doing things that would haunt us for life. Giving in to the survival imperative and allowing it to overwhelm your sense of morality in a life or death survival situation does not necessarily make someone a monster. Telling yourself that whatever you believe, no matter how right you might be is worth more than a human life will do it every time though. That's why IMO these sorts of debates go in circles. There's no clear-cut right or wrong, because the means necessary for a race to survive when faced by an apocalypse of a sort never before seen on their planet really can't be known ahead of time, can they? Ultimately I think a balance of the two positions would probably be found by the best and most successful survivors. Do one's best to live a life worth living that will let you sleep at night, but be prepared to do what it takes, however ugly that might be if it gets ugly. Of course what do I know. I'm just a 29yr old with permanent injuries so extensive I'll be eating a bullet within five to ten minutes of it being confirmed that the dead have returned to devour the living. If one can't run it doesn't matter what your moral code is, right? Edit: Something else that popped into my head, about the mother with three starving kids knocking on the door. The answer given was something like: "If she doesn't have any practical skills then she can at least pull weeds or muck animal stalls" wasn't it? Wouldn't that sort of process rapidly lead to the "Well prepared" as essentially landed gentry providing protection and shelter to a less educated and relatively defenseless working class? That sounds suspiciously like feudalism to me. Not really a more attractive option than communism IMO. Feudalism died out precisely because an epidemic decimated the massive pools of cheap labor required as fuel for that economic engine. A single well-prepared survivor wouldn't be able to go that route for more than one or two mothers with starving kids, or you're back into the month's supply of food stocks being gone in two days, aren't you?

[Khardis]

Are your morals really that shallow that you need the threat of punishment to follow the law? I think you should join Evil Ned and become a communist that way atleast I could spot you in a crowd by your uniform and death grin. In any case raiding is the worst choice to defend humanity from the zombies, when you and your fellow raiders have razed all the villages you will only have other raider groups to raid then nothing. What does morality have to do with survival in post apoc society filled with zombies?

[Trencher]

What does morality have to do with survival in post apoc society filled with zombies? It decides how you will act.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Good reading so far, cheers guys

[Khardis]

It decides how you will act. Yes, it makes people like you who believe morality is relevant in a chaotic world easy prey to those of us who put survival ahead of archaic notions from a dead civilization. Of course at that time civilization would have died and the moral code and ethos with it. At least until Chaos is reigned in and the zombie plague has finished and society rebuilds itself. Until then though, morality is just going to make you weak. If you are fine with that, then fine... for me though survival of my loved ones would undoubtedly push me to do whatever was necessary and by whatever means to ensure their survival. if it means wiping out your village of soft targets by infiltrating it etc then thats what it would be.

[Trencher]

Yes, it makes people like you who believe morality is relevant in a chaotic world easy prey to those of us who put survival ahead of archaic notions from a dead civilization. So what you are saying is that you do actually need the threat of punishment to follow the law? Of course at that time civilization would have died and the moral code and ethos with it. I disagree strongly, morals have a value in them self, independent of the successes or lack of lack of successes. Few would say that China is a more moral nation than Tibet for instance. At least until Chaos is reigned in and the zombie plague has finished and society rebuilds itself. Until then though, morality is just going to make you weak. But you are the chaos! And the reigning in is a continious process consisting of those who have the moral values necessary to create justice in the land having to hunt you raiders down. Worse yet, your kind might win and then society would never rebuild itself, at least not for a very long time and the only way that it can happen is when raiders are planted turned into soil. (I told you that I would find a use for all kinds of people in my post apocalyptic government ) If you are fine with that, then fine... for me though survival of my loved ones would undoubtedly push me to do whatever was necessary and by whatever means to ensure their survival. if it means wiping out your village of soft targets by infiltrating it etc then thats what it would be. Thats the problem, if you can infiltrate then you can make yourself useful with honest work too. Raiding is overall a wasteful process because it gives a small amount of recourses to a few at the cost of a lot of resources for the many. In a zombie acopalypse all of humanity is in the same boat.

[Mike70]

OK. i started this thread with the intention of discussing what kind of society you would try to build or what kind you think would emerge after civilization crumbled. it has basically descended into internet tough guy bravado. so it is time for it to be put to sleep.

[Kaos]

Done.

[Mike70]

ok guys. i thought this thread had run its course and was starting to turn into a who can kick whose ass thread with all the attendant internet bravado. a couple of folks have asked for this thread to be reopened, so here you go.

[SRP76]

Well, this thread is indicative of what would really happen in the aftermath. One bunch of people want to something a certain way, and a group of others don't want to adhere to that. Result: there will be a clash.

[Trencher]

One bunch of people want to something a certain way, and a group of others don't want to adhere to that. That is a very polite way of describing one group wanting to live in peace and one group wanting to kill them and take their stuff.

[Publius]

Yes, it makes people like you who believe morality is relevant in a chaotic world easy prey to those of us who put survival ahead of archaic notions from a dead civilization. I think it boils down to this: Do you believe there is any fate worse than physical death? If not, there is nothing you will not stoop to in order to survive. Me, I believe I will one day stand before a God who will expect me to account for my actions. His expectations are not "archaic." If you don't believe in God, and therefore don't believe in a transcendent objective morality, I can understand how your choices would be different.