post-apocalyptic govt... [Archive]

Wooley

03-Aug-2008, 07:51 AM

If you've got something that can help the greater good of the people, you WILL share it with them or else we WILL take it from you. It's that simple.

Good luck with that.

A survivalist I know on a forum has managed to prepare food supplies for 6 people for 2 years at a cost of 12.50 per person per month. If you don't seem to think you are worth 12.50 per month, WTF makes you think that you are entitled to his food? He, by virtue of planning and preperation has earned his lifeboat, while you have not. The greater good is for those who failed to see hard times ahead and prepare leave this mortal coil.

A man buys a years supply of staple foods. If he takes in another person, the food runs out in 6 months, 3 people, 4 months, 4 people, a mere 3 months, etc.

If the SHTF in late fall, they're all starving by spring. How is that the greater good?

As far as taking it by force, defensive obstacles, mantraps, fighting positions, not that difficult to build. There are a variety of improvised explosives and incendiary devices that will add a new level of hell to anyone seeking to take what does not belong to them by force.

In fact, there are many books out there that tells one how to make such weapons as mortars and poison gas out of easily available materials.

The only thing you will take from such people is your earned ticket out of the human race for being a armed robber and dickhead.

Fact is, Communism is a failed ideology, that does not take into reality that humans are a bell curve-you have the Bill Gates, the Tiger Woods, the Steven Speilbergs, and you have the great majority of people who take no more risk than buying a lotto ticket, no more reward than being a parent, spouse, worker, and then the people who are overpriced at .02, the habitual criminals, the mutigenerational welfare recipients, the life failures.

Name me a successful, true Communist system. You can't because none exist. Even in Russia, China, Cuba, there were the party elites, the connected people, and the regular folks, and the worthless. I've read stories of Russians showing up drunk and sleeping at their jobs. Why should a man who can't be bothered to show up sober and do his job get the same as the man who comes up with a better idea on how to do something, or who consistantly exceeds his quota?

Mikhail Kalashnikov has medals for his invention, the AK-47. Eugene Stoner has millions from his copyrights.

No, capitalism works now, and it'll work in an emergency. Granted, there might be some changes to the system, different forms of credit, a system of quid pro quo, but capitalism will work a lot better than Communism.

For example, right now, a farmer sells his grain to a mill which sells it to a bakery. When the dead walk, or any other number of catastrophes, the people who would have bought the bread at the bakery come up and harvest their own grain and plant next years crop under the farmers direction. It's mutually beneficial-they eat, the farmer didn't have to kill a whole lot of starving townies Those who refuse to harvest grain should starve, since they can't seem to be bothered with feeding themselves. The level of charity shown to those who can't should depend on what others are willing to provide, not what is mandated by some government stooge. And arrangements for those who otherwise are serving the community but couldn't harvest-the town security force, the town doctor, should be that they are paid for their services in a tax of grain.

EvilNed

03-Aug-2008, 09:49 AM

A survivalist I know on a forum has managed to prepare food supplies for 6 people for 2 years at a cost of 12.50 per person per month. If you don't seem to think you are worth 12.50 per month, WTF makes you think that you are entitled to his food? He, by virtue of planning and preperation has earned his lifeboat, while you have not. The greater good is for those who failed to see hard times ahead and prepare leave this mortal coil.

Sorry to say, but if you're going to want to ensure the survival of the human race, it's not a question of communism vs. capitalism. It's a question of wether what's right or wrong. Communism? When has it worked? Oh, I don't know, perhaps in the place in time which we WILL revert back to for a brief time after the crisis: The hunter-gathering society?

Don't be silly. It's not as if someone would say "Here ye, here ye, capitalism has failed, the dead have risen, it's time to start up the flame of communism!"

It's more like someone would say: "Uh, you have alot of stuff that this group of people need to survive... And you're just one. If we die, so do you, be extention. You're just being stupid, now share or we'll just take it. Because the survival of the human race is more important to me, than your personal integrity."

In the end, when we're starting to rebuild, whoever starts thinking of individualism is really, really so much a relic of a past that they might actually be dangerous.

Wooley

03-Aug-2008, 09:03 PM

It's more like someone would say: "Uh, you have alot of stuff that this group of people need to survive... And you're just one. If we die, so do you, be extention. You're just being stupid, now share or we'll just take it. Because the survival of the human race is more important to me, than your personal integrity."

In the end, when we're starting to rebuild, whoever starts thinking of individualism is really, really so much a relic of a past that they might actually be dangerous.

Still trying to justify extortion and theft, huh? Good luck with that. Monsters can always justify their actions. Those who prepare to survive, deserve to survive. If 12.50 is too much for you to buy your own survival insurance, don't be surprised when the other thing you get from the prepared is .50 of copper covered lead. Oh, and individualism is dangerous? So, what are you going to do, hunt them down? Force them to leave the group? That might be better so that there is someone left when the malingerers and cowards who find refugee in communism bring down your group.

EvilNed

03-Aug-2008, 09:26 PM

Still trying to justify extortion and theft, huh? Good luck with that. Monsters can always justify their actions. Those who prepare to survive, deserve to survive. If 12.50 is too much for you to buy your own survival insurance, don't be surprised when the other thing you get from the prepared is .50 of copper covered lead. Oh, and individualism is dangerous? So, what are you going to do, hunt them down? Force them to leave the group? That might be better so that there is someone left when the malingerers and cowards who find refugee in communism bring down your group.

Right, and all this logic holds up perfectly well when you're stockade is overrun by the undead, or hit by a meteor, and all your stocks are destroyed and you have to seek help from others. Don't they, Mr. Spock?

If you see it as theft and extortion, so be it. It's the right way to do it to ensure the human race survives. I'd rather see that, than people dying because of greed.

If a .50 hit my head, I'd at least die knowing that we got the supplies and we saved the human race. Small price.

Oh, and if they left the group, I wouldn't worry about them bringing us "down", because they wouldn't survive. We'd of couse invite them to stay and live in our society. But if people like that left our group? I'd never have to worry about them again, because they'd die within days. People who won't cooperate with others will die in such a situation.

CornishCorpse

03-Aug-2008, 09:40 PM

Have to say Im with EvilNed on this although Wooley does make some good points but the problem with youre argument wooley is that the rules changes as the circumstances things we cant do normally become accesible in an emergency such as this. If I go and kill someone on the street Im arrested, go to court and eventually jail if the dead were stumbling around you think the goverment would take as much notice? They would be focused on controlling the crime.

Yes it is theft and indeed murder but as EvilNed said its what takes for humanity to survive, yes it would be a crime but sometimes you need to look over youre morals for the greater good. So when a mother stumbles off the road with her three children and comes knocking on youre door you intend to poke youre head out and say "Its only 12.50 you cheap bastards" and lock up youre keep? Sorry but somethings are better in theory than practice.

Of course law and order is needed here more than ever but realistically you would share one way or another. Reminds me of the scene in the new war of the worlds were the protagnoist is driving through the crowds but because of the people he cant move and they begin smashing the windows. People will do whatever it takes to keep them and theirs breathing.

Legion2213

04-Aug-2008, 12:02 AM

How about the folks who need suplies from mr survivalist offer him something of value for his hard earned stash instead of stealing it?

I'm with wooley on this one...the folks who would take mr survivalists stuff are no better than the biker gang in dawn, thieves, bandits and scum...not the sort of folks one wants to rebuild society, not the sort of folks one wants to teach a future generation about the way to conduct themselves

CornishCorpse

04-Aug-2008, 12:25 AM

Legion2213

04-Aug-2008, 12:38 AM

Fair question CC, and personally speaking, I'd probably more inclined to give to a needy person who asked or was willing to earn it than somebody who demanded it and would murder me and my family for it, in fact, in mr survivalists place, I'd rig my suplies with some plastic explosive and blow them to kingdom come rather than hand them over to thieving scum...the likes of EvilNed and his posse would die for hot ashes and melted plastic.

And another question is important here, if those sort of folk are willing to kill and steal to "save humanity" what lengths would they go to to "repopulate humanity"...for the greater good and all that...

CornishCorpse

04-Aug-2008, 01:21 AM

Fairpoints to you their legion. I was assuming people would ask because although there would be guarnteed assholes who would look to take rather than bother to ask I was thinking more of the everyday survivor. I mean if I was stuck in a pinch and I was desperate with my family begging for food at the doors of a survivor who has enough ration packs to last him and his family for over a year Id take it if I could. If I had the choice between letting my family die or stealing some food to save them I would do it in a second. Thats how I percieve it, I dont approve of the bikers and the looting and Im not talking for the people who would see it as a way to get rich and think they deserve the world and more. Lazy bastard on job seekers would be zombie food in couple of hours and if the **** hits the fan then and Im starving Ill be sure to come knocking at youre door Legion and Ill be sure to be the most polite person on the face of the earth ( and to look out for trip wires )

How far would people go to repopulate humanity? Thats a terrible/question. Good for the discussion terrible because of the answer. There are always those that wont take no for an answer and in a situation like this makes sense the same people who would be stealing would also be taking women. Hmm now Im torn between camps...

Wooley

05-Aug-2008, 11:38 PM

Ooo the board is split on this one. What if those in need of the supplies have nothing to offer in exchange only the clothes on their back? The family I said coming off the road and knocking on the survivalist`s door what can they trade? I understand what youre saying Legion and currency is a must but not everyone is going to have anything. People will just be fleeing, admittdly they should have been prepared but the dead are rising for fecks sake who woulda thunk it?...........Well cept for you guys

They have more than the clothes on their backs. What did they do for a living? What were their hobbies? A nurse or a guy who liked to wood carve could be useful, and I might find something for them to do and pay them in food. If nothing else, they have the ability to cut firewood, muck out an outhouse, or other manual labor tasks. They can trade labor.

And if they make it up to Mr survivalist's door to knock without being stopped by a sentry or something, his security sucks.

But the fact is, people SHOULD have more than the clothes on their back in an emergency. We are only reminded daily of crises, small and large around the globe where a supply of nonperishable food, a water filter, a first aid kit, and other odds and ends, none terribly expensive, and all so useful, would make a difference.

But they are caught up in spending their every penny they have, and a lot they don't have, on material wants, rather than useful needs, and suffer greatly in the aftermath of a hurricane, or other disaster.

Hence my 12.50 comment. He was able to put back food for 6 people for 2 years. That's not even two grand. Yet, what does a plasma screen tv cost? Yet, they guy with the plasma screen that hasn't had a broadcast, much less been on in 6 months should get some of that guy's food?

That's the point. Our society has become so specialized, so interconnected, and so fragile because of it, that a major crisis will result in a massive die off of people. It's called carrying capacity. Modern farming and other things have increased the carrying capacity of our planet far, far beyond what it could have been with say, hand plows and such.

Take modern farming, dependent on fuel, seed, and fertilizers, as well as pesticides, and billions will know hunger, and hundreds of millions will starve.

The guy with food isn't going to be able to feed everyone. Hell, he might not even be able to feed himself if the situation outstrips his supply. A guy on another board had preps for himself and his wife for a month or two, but had 30 people show up after Katrina and they were gone in two days. Now, how does everyone starving help anyone?

It doesn't.

Fair question CC, and personally speaking, I'd probably more inclined to give to a needy person who asked or was willing to earn it than somebody who demanded it and would murder me and my family for it, in fact, in mr survivalists place, I'd rig my suplies with some plastic explosive and blow them to kingdom come rather than hand them over to thieving scum...the likes of EvilNed and his posse would die for hot ashes and melted plastic.

And another question is important here, if those sort of folk are willing to kill and steal to "save humanity" what lengths would they go to to "repopulate humanity"...for the greater good and all that...

Exactly. A needy person who asked me for something, and was willing to barter with me, either goods or labor as I explained above, is likely to get something, unless I'm really hard up and can't spare it.

A guy who comes to the gate and demand or threatens me? Well, **** him. A soft pointed .223 Remington slug will settle his ass down permanently.

My thoughts have always been to break up one's stash into small, man packable loads and spread them around one's area post-crap fan impact. That way, one won't make a tactically foolish decision to stand and fight a much larger, better armed and tactically superior foe. One retreats, and rigs what can't be taken with with boobytraps, and comes back to pick up the pieces later.

Won't RedNed and his biker posse be surprised when they pick up that MRE box and find it's been rigged with a pound of homemade explosives rigged to a trembler switch, which closes the circuit when disturbed, like the tilt switch on a pinball machine? Or that the food they stole was laced with a slow acting poison? That the box of ammo they took from me had been rigged to blow up the gun and kill the shooter that uses it, like a US operation that inserted boobytrapped ammo into the North Vietnamese Army supply system? Which was also used by others?

As far as how far RedNed would go to repopulated the earth... We all know. We don't need to speak the answer, but we know, and we know that if that's the method used, it'd be better we just go extinct. If armed robbery and murder and slavery and god knows what else is his way of preserving the human species, then it's better we just leave planet earth. If we have to sacrifice what makes us human-empathy, reason, etc to survive, then it's just better we go.

Have to say Im with EvilNed on this although Wooley does make some good points but the problem with youre argument wooley is that the rules changes as the circumstances things we cant do normally become accesible in an emergency such as this. If I go and kill someone on the street Im arrested, go to court and eventually jail if the dead were stumbling around you think the goverment would take as much notice? They would be focused on controlling the crime.

Yes it is theft and indeed murder but as EvilNed said its what takes for humanity to survive, yes it would be a crime but sometimes you need to look over youre morals for the greater good. So when a mother stumbles off the road with her three children and comes knocking on youre door you intend to poke youre head out and say "Its only 12.50 you cheap bastards" and lock up youre keep? Sorry but somethings are better in theory than practice.

Of course law and order is needed here more than ever but realistically you would share one way or another. Reminds me of the scene in the new war of the worlds were the protagnoist is driving through the crowds but because of the people he cant move and they begin smashing the windows. People will do whatever it takes to keep them and theirs breathing.

I don't think the rules change as much as people think they do. There would still be 'justice'. Ned rips off my place, and it's six months after everything went to hell, no, there's no cops, no courts, but I do gather my neighbors, the ones I'm working with, and we go hunt Ned and his clan down because we all realize we could and when we find Ned, there's no courts, no trail, just a short dance at the end of a long rope. Sooner or later, we'll run out of people who need such a permanant attitude adjustment.

The trick to survival is that in order to see the sunrise tomorrow, you need to sleep tonight. Now how well will Ned and the others who resort to armed robbery and murder sleep? You need to balance survival with being human.

As far as mom and her kids, like I said above, what did she do for aliving? Hobbies? She's got some skill, and the kids too, and I'm not talking about that.
If nothing else, she'll trade labor cleaning animal pens or something for their meal. Yes, "It was only 12.50 yah cheap bastards!" would be great, but then I'd have a Ned type on my hands, and even at $0.50 cents each, the bullets would be expensive, especially on my conscience. To see tomorrow, one must sleep tonight.

Yes, self preservation is hard wired into each of us, which is why it irritates me so much that survivalism much less disaster preparedness is so uncommon.
I'm far from what I'd like to be, but I'm so much better off than many.

Wooley

06-Aug-2008, 12:33 AM

Right, and all this logic holds up perfectly well when you're stockade is overrun by the undead, or hit by a meteor, and all your stocks are destroyed and you have to seek help from others. Don't they, Mr. Spock?

They're called caches Ned, and improvisation, and wild edibles, etc

If you see it as theft and extortion, so be it. It's the right way to do it to ensure the human race survives. I'd rather see that, than people dying because of greed.

Survive as what, Ned? Isn't that George's usually hamhanded message in the movies, that people are the real monsters here? And you go right ahead and prove him right. And who said anything about greed? We work something out, even if you're mucking out animal pens or pulling weeds by hand, or I'm using your midlife crisis hotrod for raw materials for any number of other projects, but no one eats for free. Who shall not work, shall not eat, according to John Smith, and that's good enough for me.

If a .50 hit my head, I'd at least die knowing that we got the supplies and we saved the human race. Small price.

That was supposed to read $0.50, which is the price of new .223 Remington ammo, like what my AR-15 rifle eats. Cute, Redned thinks himself a martyred prolatariat Robin Hood in a war against the greedy bouguios. When you're really just an armed robber, shot dead in self defense, like a methhead who tries to knock over a liquor store and gets lobotomized by the clerk's Glock 19. And you didn't get anything. You and your raider puke pals all got shot down or blown up or burned up. You kinda glossed over my improvised weapons and defensive works line, didn't you? And it's a big price, because anyone of your pals who is still breathing is going to be questioned by me or the security force and then we're going hunting for the rest of your band. Actually, we'll probably be able to just backtrack you, as I doubt you know how to really hide a trail. When we find the rest of your band, all will die, most likely, probably by something I cooked up, probably potassium cyanide smudge pots. Bad way to go that, but ironic, since it's what is used in the gas chamber. A pack of criminals dying a criminal's death. And again, survive as what? A pack of armed robbers and killers? Great plan that-didn't Bonnie and Clyde do that, oh yeah, look how they ended up

Oh, and if they left the group, I wouldn't worry about them bringing us "down", because they wouldn't survive. We'd of couse invite them to stay and live in our society. But if people like that left our group? I'd never have to worry about them again, because they'd die within days. People who won't cooperate with others will die in such a situation.

Fail. Who said anything about not cooperating? I said quid pro quo, not that fail called Communism. As far as the drop outs, they'd leave because they'd be tired of being taken advantace of in a system that rewards mediocridy. Why work hard, do well, and get ahead when you get the same slice as the lazy, failure who is contnet to wallow in his own wastes? Of course, we'd snatch such folks up in a heartbeat, because they'd do well in the system I forsee.

EvilNed

06-Aug-2008, 02:31 PM

How about the folks who need suplies from mr survivalist offer him something of value for his hard earned stash instead of stealing it?

That's the whole point. Working together. Sorry, but anyone who hoardes and then expects to be able to rightfully keep it from people who have gotten their supplies ripped from them is in for one big surprise.

This is the kind of mentality that would cause the human race to die out. But hey, if that's what you prefer, sure go ahead.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted that anyone can think that personal belongings should have the same value then, as they have now. Now that's capitalism gone wrong, when you put YOUR THINGS infront of saving the HUMAN RACE.

Wooley, as for your imaginative description of how you'd deal with robbers, let me just say I found it highly amusing... As a piece of fiction. :) But yeah, you're so cool, with your defences and stuff.

Khardis

06-Aug-2008, 03:16 PM

Still trying to justify extortion and theft, huh? Good luck with that. Monsters can always justify their actions. Those who prepare to survive, deserve to survive. If 12.50 is too much for you to buy your own survival insurance, don't be surprised when the other thing you get from the prepared is .50 of copper covered lead. Oh, and individualism is dangerous? So, what are you going to do, hunt them down? Force them to leave the group? That might be better so that there is someone left when the malingerers and cowards who find refugee in communism bring down your group.

Some people pack up on bottled water toilet paper and tins of soup. I stocked up on ammo, guns and items to make explosives. I can justify theft and murder by my own hands in a post apoc world by the simple fact that the government and civilization will have broken down and its now a survival of the fittest. If you think someone like me is going to go hungry while someone hordes their food supplies, you are grossly mistaken I will take what he has wether he wants to give it or not. THAT is how the world will operate under those circumstances. Right, wrong, moral, immoral or not is all up for grabs.

Trencher

06-Aug-2008, 03:33 PM

Communism allthough a nice principle does not work because it turns the people into thughs and tyrants, I think this thread show that quite well.

SRP76

06-Aug-2008, 10:57 PM

And this is why I like my idea of kill everyone in order to be the lone survivor most of all. People get together, and next thing you know, there's a civil war over some tuna.

Publius

07-Aug-2008, 01:54 PM

This is the kind of mentality that would cause the human race to die out. But hey, if that's what you prefer, sure go ahead.

And yours is the kind of mentality that discourages people from preparing in the first place, because they expect the government (if nothing else, a mob) will just take from those who do prepare to provide for them.
Creating a sense of entitlement to the work of others does not encourage work.

Mike70

07-Aug-2008, 03:08 PM

And this is why I like my idea of kill everyone in order to be the lone survivor most of all. People get together, and next thing you know, there's a civil war over some tuna.

wouldn't that be the truth. hopefully it would at least be chicken of the sea and not some generic brand of tuna.

EvilNed

07-Aug-2008, 03:54 PM

And yours is the kind of mentality that discourages people from preparing in the first place, because they expect the government (if nothing else, a mob) will just take from those who do prepare to provide for them.
Creating a sense of entitlement to the work of others does not encourage work.

Well, genius, no solution is perfect, but would you really choose extinction over that?

DubiousComforts

07-Aug-2008, 04:45 PM

Communism allthough a nice principle does not work because it turns the people into thughs and tyrants, I think this thread show that quite well.
Is there an economic system which doesn't have thugs and tyrants?

Trencher

07-Aug-2008, 06:53 PM

Yes socialdemocracy manages quite well with just using guilt and nagging, so far...

EvilNed

07-Aug-2008, 08:09 PM

Is there an economic system which doesn't have thugs and tyrants?

Good point. No system is perfect. They're just suited to different situations.

Dillinger

08-Aug-2008, 02:21 AM

Totalitarian.

"It's my way or the highway, b|tch."

Publius

08-Aug-2008, 02:17 PM

Well, genius, no solution is perfect, but would you really choose extinction over that?

No, personally I extinction is best avoided by encouraging people 1) to be prepared for emergencies, 2) to take responsibility for themselves, and 3) to voluntarily join together to respond to common threats.

Jonathan

09-Aug-2008, 03:59 PM

Some people pack up on bottled water toilet paper and tins of soup. I stocked up on ammo, guns and items to make explosives. I can justify theft and murder by my own hands in a post apoc world by the simple fact that the government and civilization will have broken down and its now a survival of the fittest. If you think someone like me is going to go hungry while someone hordes their food supplies, you are grossly mistaken I will take what he has wether he wants to give it or not. THAT is how the world will operate under those circumstances. Right, wrong, moral, immoral or not is all up for grabs.

So you're saying that you're a scumbag thug who if the police weren't around would rape and pillage.

Well, genius, no solution is perfect, but would you really choose extinction over that?

I would rather die than become a Thieving, Murdering scum sucker (which is what you're proposing we become)... But that's just me.

Wooley

12-Aug-2008, 12:28 AM

I see EvilNed and Khardis continue to persist in their Lord Hummungus fantasies, and continue to sidestep my position that A, they have no right to another's property.

B, Others will defend their property by lethal means and, as defenders, will have home field advantage. Potassium Cyanide smudge pots might be a bit much for mentally deficent thug wannabe to wrap their wee brain around, so try punji stick pits, and directional mines made from shotgun shells, rat traps and fishing line, barbed wire entanglements, posts sunk to stop vehicles, sandbagged fighting positions made from feed bags, backed with scoped hunting rifles, shotguns, probably a selection of improvised explosives, communications with neighbors in the form of CB radio to summon help, and skills at arms honed by years of hunting and possibly service in the Armed Forces.

C, Fighting will mean Ned and the other Hummongous wannabes, here and elsewhere, will take casualties, and will probably be wiped out in short order as the ad hoc militias take up arms to defend themselves from the raider vermin

D, Any supplies still available can only be splint so many ways, and by demanding those with supplies share, you serve only to doom all to starvation. Carrying capacity.

E. Get your own goddamn supplies. It's not hard, it's not even expensive, and it's the only right choice to make before someone drops 147 grains of lead in your diseased head.

Khardis

12-Aug-2008, 01:17 AM

So you're saying that you're a scumbag thug who if the police weren't around would rape and pillage.

I would rather die than become a Thieving, Murdering scum sucker (which is what you're proposing we become)... But that's just me.

Yes, and as to what you said to Ned, I am glad you would prefer to die than to become a realist, I wouldn't have any problem killing you and your family if it meant my families survival in that situation.

I see EvilNed and Khardis continue to persist in their Lord Hummungus fantasies, and continue to sidestep my position that A, they have no right to another's property.

B, Others will defend their property by lethal means and, as defenders, will have home field advantage. Potassium Cyanide smudge pots might be a bit much for mentally deficent thug wannabe to wrap their wee brain around, so try punji stick pits, and directional mines made from shotgun shells, rat traps and fishing line, barbed wire entanglements, posts sunk to stop vehicles, sandbagged fighting positions made from feed bags, backed with scoped hunting rifles, shotguns, probably a selection of improvised explosives, communications with neighbors in the form of CB radio to summon help, and skills at arms honed by years of hunting and possibly service in the Armed Forces.

C, Fighting will mean Ned and the other Hummongous wannabes, here and elsewhere, will take casualties, and will probably be wiped out in short order as the ad hoc militias take up arms to defend themselves from the raider vermin

D, Any supplies still available can only be splint so many ways, and by demanding those with supplies share, you serve only to doom all to starvation. Carrying capacity.

E. Get your own goddamn supplies. It's not hard, it's not even expensive, and it's the only right choice to make before someone drops 147 grains of lead in your diseased head.

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. And if my group of raiders wanted your village of soft targets dead we wouldn't just out and out raid you, we would rig explosives and lights and loudspeakers to your walls blow them and draw the Zombies in and let them polish you off while we hid in cover. THen after you waste all your ammo we would come in for a clean sweep. Don't tell me you thought we were going to do a tit for tat fight on you and avoid guerilla warfare. In that situation defense almost always loses because they have everything to lose and no mobility.

DubiousComforts

12-Aug-2008, 01:24 AM

Potassium Cyanide smudge pots might be a bit much for mentally deficent thug wannabe to wrap their wee brain around, so try punji stick pits, and directional mines made from shotgun shells, rat traps and fishing line, barbed wire entanglements, posts sunk to stop vehicles, sandbagged fighting positions made from feed bags, backed with scoped hunting rifles, shotguns, probably a selection of improvised explosives, communications with neighbors in the form of CB radio to summon help, and skills at arms honed by years of hunting and possibly service in the Armed Forces.
This is beginning to sound more like a wish list than responsible preparation.

Khardis

12-Aug-2008, 01:26 AM

This is beginning to sound more like a wish list than responsible preparation.

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.

DubiousComforts

12-Aug-2008, 01:34 AM

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

12-Aug-2008, 04:23 AM

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

12-Aug-2008, 07:49 AM

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.

:D

-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

12-Aug-2008, 09:14 AM

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

12-Aug-2008, 10:03 AM

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

12-Aug-2008, 11:37 AM

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

Deadman_Deluxe

12-Aug-2008, 02:27 PM

Good reading so far, cheers guys ;)

Khardis

12-Aug-2008, 08:02 PM

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

12-Aug-2008, 08:54 PM

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. :rant: 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 :thumbsup: )

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

12-Aug-2008, 08:56 PM

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

12-Aug-2008, 09:02 PM

Done.

Mike70

13-Aug-2008, 11:52 PM

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

14-Aug-2008, 12:01 AM

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

14-Aug-2008, 09:56 AM

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. :D

Publius

14-Aug-2008, 01:19 PM

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.

Mike70

14-Aug-2008, 02:31 PM

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.

great point and even though i don't believe in god, such considerations should cause any rational person to pause and think about it.

i've said i don't believe in god but i might be wrong. something some of you would rather die than even consider.

some of the ridiculous things i've read in thread make me wonder how some of you were raised. by wolves? by jackals? i strongly believe that you go through life treating people the way you want to be treated, regardless of the situation.

EvilNed

14-Aug-2008, 02:53 PM

EvilOne, the human race wouldn't be facing extinction. Only those unprepared for the crisis (the "I need, want, gimme" crowd) would become extinct.

And what of those who are unable to prepare? Who do not have the money to prepare? Who's stockades are lost or overrun by the undead? Who, in turn, are raided by people who refuse to share with them?

I'm not proposing we TAKE and KEEP. We SHARE and REBUILD. If you see "evil" or "communism" in that then I can't be bothered to talk with you on this matter.

In the end, anyone who is clogged down with Cold War mentality is just digging his own grave. It's not about communism or capitalism. It's about rebuilding and surviving, something we have to do TOGETHER. Oh, I know the die hard capitalists in you tremble at the thought of doing something together, but that's the reality of it.

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.

Why would we "eventually" com up against such people, when we'd simply rebuild, prepare and share? If so, they would have to come to us, and we'd invite them in.

Few would say that China is a more moral nation than Tibet for instance.

Uhm, I would say that China today is ten times more moral than Tibet, pre-invasion.

Mike70

14-Aug-2008, 03:13 PM

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.

you fail.

i have been to a country without a central govt., no law, no order. the vast majority of the people behaved as if it made no difference. the reason? because they had moral ideas and beliefs about how you conduct yourself in dealing with others.

granted there were people acting the fool. folks who thought that they could push people around and take what they want but they were a small, small minority. besides, they were probably total scumbags before the govt. collapsed anyway.

bassman

14-Aug-2008, 03:24 PM

If we lose our morals, beliefs, and general code of conduct, we sink to the same level as the mindless creatures that are attacking us....

Mike70

14-Aug-2008, 04:00 PM

If we lose our morals, beliefs, and general code of conduct, we sink to the same level as the mindless creatures that are attacking us....

or we become something worse...

EvilNed

14-Aug-2008, 04:08 PM

In the event of an apocalyptic event, the most moral choices are those which save the largest amount of human life. Wether they be close family or complete strangers makes no difference, because the goal is to save the human race.

Khardis

14-Aug-2008, 08:27 PM

i strongly believe that you go through life treating people the way you want to be treated, regardless of the situation.

Fairly naive, did you grow up with 2 parents middle class with plenty to eat? If you did it might explain your naivety.

you fail.

i have been to a country without a central govt., no law, no order. the vast majority of the people behaved as if it made no difference. the reason? because they had moral ideas and beliefs about how you conduct yourself in dealing with others.

granted there were people acting the fool. folks who thought that they could push people around and take what they want but they were a small, small minority. besides, they were probably total scumbags before the govt. collapsed anyway.

Sounds like you were in a country thats used to having no centralized government and live in a tribal society. Thats not chaos. Chaos would be the united states government falling apart and people being left to fend for themselves. What you are describing sounds like a country that can exist and does exist without central government for 1000s of years. Thats like saying Native Americans lived in Chaos and Anarchy which we know isn't true at all.

In the event of an apocalyptic event, the most moral choices are those which save the largest amount of human life. Wether they be close family or complete strangers makes no difference, because the goal is to save the human race.

Maybe from where we sit now it is... in my opinion, in the even of an apocalypse the most moral choice is for me to make sure my loved ones survive 1st and foremost, and screw everyone else if its a choice between them and mine.

darth los

14-Aug-2008, 08:36 PM

It seems that an apocalyptic event would accomplish something that we as americans seem unwilling or maybe just unable to do... Scrap this crazy system of government where no significant legislation ever gets passed and our elected officials break the law with impunity. Anything that does that can't be all bad.

Trencher

14-Aug-2008, 10:15 PM

Uhm, I would say that China today is ten times more moral than Tibet, pre-invasion. How about today? As the invasion is the main point of the example.

Maybe from where we sit now it is... in my opinion, in the even of an apocalypse the most moral choice is for me to make sure my loved ones survive 1st and foremost, and screw everyone else if its a choice between them and mine.
Did you catch the post above I made right before the thread was closed? I tried to explain to you why your attitude is counter productive.

Khardis

15-Aug-2008, 12:23 AM

How about today? As the invasion is the main point of the example.

Did you catch the post above I made right before the thread was closed? I tried to explain to you why your attitude is counter productive.

it might be counter productive to you, to me though my family is more important than you and every other human on earth. I would gladly sacrifice all humans on earth to save just my own loved ones. In a heart beat without second thought.

Trencher

15-Aug-2008, 04:33 AM

it might be counter productive to you, to me though my family is more important than you and every other human on earth. I would gladly sacrifice all humans on earth to save just my own loved ones. In a heart beat without second thought. As would we all. But I think I made some good points for how raiding lifestyle would be hazardous for all even the raiders and their loved ones. What do you think about those arguments?

Bub666

15-Aug-2008, 04:47 AM

it might be counter productive to you, to me though my family is more important than you and every other human on earth. I would gladly sacrifice all humans on earth to save just my own loved ones. In a heart beat without second thought.

I agree.My family is more important to me,then anyone else on earth.

EvilNed

15-Aug-2008, 09:55 AM

Maybe from where we sit now it is... in my opinion, in the even of an apocalypse the most moral choice is for me to make sure my loved ones survive 1st and foremost, and screw everyone else if its a choice between them and mine.

So you'd rather face annihilation? I know it might not be an easy choice to make, but it's definetly the most moral. Not only do you save the human race right now, but all those people yet to be born.

How about today? As the invasion is the main point of the example.

Today Tibet is occupied by China and is integrated into Chinese society. They still obey the same feudal structure as 50 years ago, so I'd probably still say China.

Khardis

15-Aug-2008, 10:03 AM

So you'd rather face annihilation? I know it might not be an easy choice to make, but it's definetly the most moral. Not only do you save the human race right now, but all those people yet to be born.

Today Tibet is occupied by China and is integrated into Chinese society. They still obey the same feudal structure as 50 years ago, so I'd probably still say China.

Most moral to you, to me letting my loved ones die and saving the world is immoral.

EvilNed

15-Aug-2008, 10:26 AM

Most moral to you, to me letting my loved ones die and saving the world is immoral.

:stunned:

I didn't even know there were people who held that opinion.

Publius

15-Aug-2008, 01:36 PM

I'm not proposing we TAKE and KEEP. We SHARE and REBUILD. If you see "evil" or "communism" in that then I can't be bothered to talk with you on this matter.

Have you considered the difficulty, if you're holed up in a farmhouse with your family and a few neighbors and a bunch of supplies, of telling the difference between a group of strangers who want you to give them your stuff so they can TAKE and KEEP it and a group of strangers who want you to give them your stuff so they can SHARE and REBUILD? The easiest way to distinguish between the bandits and the benevolent communitarians is whether they say "hand it over OR ELSE!"

Scrap this crazy system of government where no significant legislation ever gets passed and our elected officials break the law with impunity.

From my perspective, the less "significant legislation" the politicians manage to dump on us, the better. :p

Trencher

15-Aug-2008, 03:07 PM

Today Tibet is occupied by China and is integrated into Chinese society. They still obey the same feudal structure as 50 years ago, so I'd probably still say China. So what do you think? Is China or Tibet the more moral state? Or the most sucksessfull post invasion?

EvilNed

16-Aug-2008, 01:32 PM

So what do you think? Is China or Tibet the more moral state? Or the most sucksessfull post invasion?

Back then? They were both immoral and depraved societies. Today? Well, call me crazy, but Tibet is undeniably kind of integrated by now, and has a very small population. It's like asking which is more moral: The USA or the State of Maine.

Have you considered the difficulty, if you're holed up in a farmhouse with your family and a few neighbors and a bunch of supplies, of telling the difference between a group of strangers who want you to give them your stuff so they can TAKE and KEEP it and a group of strangers who want you to give them your stuff so they can SHARE and REBUILD? The easiest way to distinguish between the bandits and the benevolent communitarians is whether they say "hand it over OR ELSE!"

It's not like it would be our business to roam around the countryside to steal stuff just because. That's not very productive rebuilding, is it? But if, somehow, we had barricaded up the entire city of Whatever and had thousands of citizens living in there, and inside that city there were people sitting on agriculture equipment they would not share others with, because they simply considered it "their property", what would YOU do? We share out stuff with them, and they share their stuff with us. That's how simple it is, and together we survive.

Given such a society, people would come to us, we would not come to them.

Khardis

16-Aug-2008, 01:58 PM

Back then? They were both immoral and depraved societies. Today? Well, call me crazy, but Tibet is undeniably kind of integrated by now, and has a very small population. It's like asking which is more moral: The USA or the State of Maine.

It's not like it would be our business to roam around the countryside to steal stuff just because. That's not very productive rebuilding, is it? But if, somehow, we had barricaded up the entire city of Whatever and had thousands of citizens living in there, and inside that city there were people sitting on agriculture equipment they would not share others with, because they simply considered it "their property", what would YOU do? We share out stuff with them, and they share their stuff with us. That's how simple it is, and together we survive.

Given such a society, people would come to us, we would not come to them.

is the guy with the ag-equptment producing food or anything with it?

EvilNed

16-Aug-2008, 02:00 PM

is the guy with the ag-equptment producing food or anything with it?

Not enough food.

Khardis

16-Aug-2008, 04:17 PM

Not enough food.

In such a case if i was starving and he was making food for his family only with it, I would probably steal or kill him for it. But then I would kill anyone who tried to take it from me too.

Trencher

16-Aug-2008, 05:43 PM

It's like asking which is more moral: The USA or the State of Maine.
The hell? :eek:
The people of the state of maine are not killed by the boatload if they dare question the state. Live ammo is not used on protestors in Maine. And Maine is not under milltary occupation, with armoured venchiles patrolling the streets looking for "troublemakers". :mad:
If you want to discuss this further I suggest you open up a seperate thread. My point about China and Tibet is that what is sucksessful is not necesary moral.

In such a case if i was starving and he was making food for his family only with it, I would probably steal or kill him for it. But then I would kill anyone who tried to take it from me too.

It is refreshing with such honesty, but as I tried to tell you in the post you did not answer to above (hint-hint) that would kill your family in the long run.

Khardis

16-Aug-2008, 06:05 PM

The hell? :eek:
The people of the state of maine are not killed by the boatload if they dare question the state. Live ammo is not used on protestors in Maine. And Maine is not under milltary occupation, with armoured venchiles patrolling the streets looking for "troublemakers". :mad:
If you want to discuss this further I suggest you open up a seperate thread. My point about China and Tibet is that what is sucksessful is not necesary moral.

It is refreshing with such honesty, but as I tried to tell you in the post you did not answer to above (hint-hint) that would kill your family in the long run.

Thats what you think, I would be prepared to kill anyone who tried to **** with us from there. Start a new Spartan community.

Wooley

16-Aug-2008, 09:50 PM

Khardis

16-Aug-2008, 10:56 PM

With each post in this thread, Khardis shows himself to be a disgusting, worthless creature, not even human, but rather a foul thing who will in the end ensure the death of himself and those he says he cares for. Why would survivors spare food or manpower to guard and feed captured raiders when they could simply wipe them out utterly upon capture?

Rabid dogs get put down, boy. Remember that. Likewise, treat others as you'd have them treat you isn't weakness, it's the basis for any functional human society.

Never did say how you'd deal with the booby trapped material or poisoned food left by those you'd rob or kill, did you dick skinner? You are morally bankrupt, but I doubt you know the first thing about searching for and dealing with such devices, and that's going to bite you in the ass.

lol you are cute when you try to talk tough. Don't worry I wouldn't steal anything from you, I would feed you to the zeds and watch for sport. ANd how would I deal with all your booby traps? What booby traps? Youll be barricaded up somewhere, not living in some military fortress. Youre going to make a pungee trap? OK good for you I will make sure to set your house and garden on fire then and burn down your cover and let the zeds finish you off. Its much easier to loot a corpse than a person who is alive.

The funny thing about dishonest moral weasels is that they tend to be the 1st ones to go nuts and wipe everyone out thats friendly toward them and betray their loved ones. You can talk a big game now but when the SHTF you would be just as greedy and selfish as anyone else if not more so. The only difference is that I wouldn't judge you for it because its natural reaction. You Mr High horse though can suffer in the knowledge that you would rat backstab everyone to survive, wether you want to believe it or make pretend is irrelevant.

capncnut

16-Aug-2008, 11:25 PM

Never did say how you'd deal with the booby trapped material or poisoned food left by those you'd rob or kill, did you dick skinner?
lol you are cute when you try to talk tough.
Let's keep this civil please.

Trencher

17-Aug-2008, 12:16 AM

Thats what you think, I would be prepared to kill anyone who tried to **** with us from there. Start a new Spartan community.
Why not just start there then? I know I am nagging you but I just feel that you are trapped in this "I has to do this" mindset. You dont have to do anything.

strayrider

17-Aug-2008, 01:26 AM

Let's keep this civil please.

Yeah, let's keep it civil. We can disagree on issues without calling one another "dick skinners". LOL.

The funny thing with the Khardis/Wooley debate is that both are, based on what I've read in past posts on various topics over the last few years, right-wingers.

So, as a right-winger (with a mild lefty twist) I'm wondering how we can put our disagreements aside and get to setting up a workable government in a post-apocalypse world.

At this point Scipio in his initial post has come up with the best idea. (of course, if we banish Khardis from our enclave, he might return a few years later at the head of an armored column.)

:D

-stray-

Mike70

17-Aug-2008, 01:59 AM

So, as a right-winger (with a mild lefty twist) I'm wondering how we can put our disagreements aside and get to setting up a workable government in a post-apocalypse world.

frankly man, at this point i am glad i live hundreds of miles away from most of the rest of you.:D

now what was this thread about again??:p

oh yeah, what kind of society you'd set up or what kind do you think would emerge. i've heard precious little about that in the last few pages of this thread...

strayrider

17-Aug-2008, 03:32 AM

what kind would you want to see set up?

me i'd go for a style of govt. based on the roman republic with elements of athens thrown in (big surprise huh?).

a. an assembly of all the people 17 and over would have legislative power.

b. two people would be elected for one year terms as sort of "chief executives." no one could hold this office for consecutive terms nor be re-elected within any 10 year period.

c. a council would also be elected by the assembly to terms of one year to handle to the day to day things that would need to be tended to.

d. everybody fights. everyone. if are 17 and over and capable of pointing a gun in the right direction, you fight. no exceptions other than for medical reasons.

e. the only penalties for serious criminal activity would be either death or exile.

these are just a few ideas. i might add more as time goes by.

A: An assembly of people 28 and over would have legislative power.

B: Three persons would be elected to one year terms and could be re-elected unto death.

C:

a: Scipio, Publius, and myself appointed first Governor(s) (elections held thereafter).

b: Wooley appointed as Minister of Defense and Emergency Preparation.

c: Khardis appointed as Commander of Expedition and Salvage.

d: Cap'n Knut appointed as Territorial Marshal.

e: Kaos appointed as court jester and pan pipe player (dressed like John Amplas in Knightriders ... "Blow, man, blow!").

D: If you are 13 or older and capable of being trained and following orders, you fight. If not, you are GONE. The only exceptions to this rule are to be applied to those disabled while in service to the Community.

E: Agreed.

F: All persons 13 and over not required for defense purposes will work for the common good.

G: Any person voting against any candidate for enforcing the above mentioned rules ... GONE.

-stray-

EvilNed

17-Aug-2008, 09:13 AM

The hell? :eek:
The people of the state of maine are not killed by the boatload if they dare question the state. Live ammo is not used on protestors in Maine. And Maine is not under milltary occupation, with armoured venchiles patrolling the streets looking for "troublemakers". :mad:
If you want to discuss this further I suggest you open up a seperate thread. My point about China and Tibet is that what is sucksessful is not necesary moral.

I have no desire of discussing this further. I'm gonna encase my final comment in spoilers, so people can easily skip it:

All I have to say is Tibets social code is a feudalistic state where the priests were favoured and would often torture or rape the farming class for fun. Much like Medieval europe. Only reason they're not doing it today, is because the "evil communists" have outlawed the class system.

Mike70

17-Aug-2008, 01:52 PM

A: An assembly of people 28 and over would have legislative power.

e: Kaos appointed as court jester and pan pipe player (dressed like John Amplas in Knightriders ... "Blow, man, blow!").

A. wow, 28 huh? that is closer to the idea the spartan's had about such things. personally, i'd like to see that everyone involved in fighting to defend the place have a say in what goes on.

e. i think kaos would make a good chief judge for the settlement. "sir, your thread with us is closed. have a nice vacation.":lol:

mista_mo

17-Aug-2008, 01:59 PM

D: If you are 13 or older and capable of being trained and following orders, you fight. If not, you are GONE. The only exceptions to this rule are to be applied to those disabled while in service to the Community.

I'll fioght sur!

But I propose we name our new society "The Imperium of man"

It cannot fail!

strayrider

17-Aug-2008, 04:16 PM

e. i think kaos would make a good chief judge for the settlement. "sir, your thread with us is closed. have a nice vacation.":lol:

Na, I've known Kaos for a long time. If I recall correctly his first message to me (and this was during a chat with Kyra Schon on the old Homepage) was: ==) so I know he has a fine sense of humor. I'll bet he can even tell me what famous novel the line "Blow, man, blow!" is from.

However, if you want him as Chief Judge that is fine by me. He can play the panpipes on the side during one of our weekly bashes.

:D

-stray-

Wooley

17-Aug-2008, 09:23 PM

Let's keep this civil please.

Difficult if not impossible to hold a 'civil' conversation with a degenerate who states he will immediately resort to armed robbery, extortion, murder, rape, slavery, and torture as a means of survival when other methods that don't result in terminal lead poisoning are available.

Anyway, back to Scorpio's base question. I think Kurt Saxon's essays "Roadblocks" and "The Coming Warlords" covers a fairly realistic and reasonably fair method of emergency government that would probably work in much of the country, and could probably turn into the Starship Troopers type government I championed earlier. Granted, there are parts of the essays I don't agree with, but like I said early, there is a balance between survival and your conscience. And his essay "The Killer Caravans" seems to describe Khardis and those with his sickness well, and how they must be handled by those who are not morally bankrupt. I think Ole Kurt is a bit weird, but I think he makes a good point.

http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/roadblok.html

http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/warlords.html

http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/caravans.html

strayrider

17-Aug-2008, 10:45 PM

Difficult if not impossible to hold a 'civil' conversation with a degenerate who states he will immediately resort to armed robbery, extortion, murder, rape, slavery, and torture as a means of survival when other methods that don't result in terminal lead poisoning are available.

Anyway, back to Scorpio's base question. I think Kurt Saxon's essays "Roadblocks" and "The Coming Warlords" covers a fairly realistic and reasonably fair method of emergency government that would probably work in much of the country, and could probably turn into the Starship Troopers type government I championed earlier. Granted, there are parts of the essays I don't agree with, but like I said early, there is a balance between survival and your conscience. And his essay "The Killer Caravans" seems to describe Khardis and those with his sickness well, and how they must be handled by those who are not morally bankrupt. I think Ole Kurt is a bit weird, but I think he makes a good point.

http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/roadblok.html

http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/warlords.html

http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/caravans.html

Yes! Kurt Saxxon would be required reading in the Imperium of Man enclave.

I used to listen to his broadcast on shortwave radio back in the late 90's. Interesting fellow.

:D

-stray-

ps -- F: Service in the Militia is mandatory for all persons 13 and older. Your enlistment lasts until death.

Khardis

17-Aug-2008, 11:34 PM

Difficult if not impossible to hold a 'civil' conversation with a degenerate who states he will immediately resort to armed robbery, extortion, murder, rape, slavery, and torture as a means of survival when other methods that don't result in terminal lead poisoning are available.

Anyway, back to Scorpio's base question. I think Kurt Saxon's essays "Roadblocks" and "The Coming Warlords" covers a fairly realistic and reasonably fair method of emergency government that would probably work in much of the country, and could probably turn into the Starship Troopers type government I championed earlier. Granted, there are parts of the essays I don't agree with, but like I said early, there is a balance between survival and your conscience. And his essay "The Killer Caravans" seems to describe Khardis and those with his sickness well, and how they must be handled by those who are not morally bankrupt. I think Ole Kurt is a bit weird, but I think he makes a good point.

http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/roadblok.html

http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/warlords.html

http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/caravans.html

Yeah you are only against those methods because you are a weakling and need a community of stronger people to survive it sounds like.

Trencher

18-Aug-2008, 01:46 AM

Yeah you are only against those methods because you are a weakling and need a community of stronger people to survive it sounds like.
You cant know that, maybe he just want to protect the weak?

Khardis

18-Aug-2008, 02:44 AM

You cant know that, maybe he just want to protect the weak?

Thats noble, although I highly doubt that nobility would survive an apocalypse.

Trencher

18-Aug-2008, 05:39 AM

Just because you are not sure something will survive does not mean you have to drag it out into an back alley and shoot it in the head.

EvilNed

18-Aug-2008, 07:10 AM

Yeah you are only against those methods because you are a weakling and need a community of stronger people to survive it sounds like.

This is kinda interesting, I was just reading the Zombie Survival Guide the other day, and it had this to say about individuality:

"As with any other type of combat, undead warfare should never be a solo mission. As stated before, in Western - particularly American-cultur--culture, there is the myth of the individual superbeing. One man or woman, well-armed and highly skilled, with nerves of steel, can conquer the world. In truth, anyone believing this should simply strip naked, holler for the undead, then lay down on a silver platter. Not only will going it alone get you killed--it may also create one more zombie."

Not saying this is the be-all and end-all of survival knowledge, but it does seem like you've seen one-to-many Hollywood actionfilms Khardis.

Khardis

18-Aug-2008, 10:08 AM

This is kinda interesting, I was just reading the Zombie Survival Guide the other day, and it had this to say about individuality:

"As with any other type of combat, undead warfare should never be a solo mission. As stated before, in Western - particularly American-cultur--culture, there is the myth of the individual superbeing. One man or woman, well-armed and highly skilled, with nerves of steel, can conquer the world. In truth, anyone believing this should simply strip naked, holler for the undead, then lay down on a silver platter. Not only will going it alone get you killed--it may also create one more zombie."

Not saying this is the be-all and end-all of survival knowledge, but it does seem like you've seen one-to-many Hollywood actionfilms Khardis.

You know that the zombie survival guide is a comedy book right? Written by Mel Brooks' son.

EvilNed

18-Aug-2008, 10:48 AM

You know that the zombie survival guide is a comedy book right? Written by Mel Brooks' son.

Yes, and it's quite a good book. The only real comedy element in it is that it's about... zombies. The rest of the stuff is actually well researched. You should check it out.

mista_mo

18-Aug-2008, 01:05 PM

Yes! Kurt Saxxon would be required reading in the Imperium of Man enclave.

I used to listen to his broadcast on shortwave radio back in the late 90's. Interesting fellow.

:D

-stray-

ps -- F: Service in the Militia is mandatory for all persons 13 and older. Your enlistment lasts until death.

For the Imperium!

damn this is interesting should make a thread for the enclave lol.

Mike70

18-Aug-2008, 01:49 PM

has anyone ever read Alas, Babylon by pat frank? a lot of what we are talking about here is dealt with in one way or another in it.

Difficult if not impossible to hold a 'civil' conversation with a degenerate who states he will immediately resort to armed robbery, extortion, murder, rape, slavery, and torture as a means of survival when other methods that don't result in terminal lead poisoning are available.

wooley, just remain sure in the knowledge that you are a better person than anyone who openly boasts of such things. it is one thing to talk tough, another to actually be tough. the two are almost never found in the same person. i seriously doubt they coexist in this case.

failing that simply do what i've decided to do. i've grown weary of feeding the immature and trollish nature of some of the people on this forum, so i've had their posts expunged from my sight. it is so much more of a peaceful place to come to now.

Na, I've known Kaos for a long time. so I know he has a fine sense of humor.

ditto here. the ronski is one of the main reasons i've been coming around this joint for so long.

Kaos

19-Aug-2008, 01:31 PM

Na, I've known Kaos for a long time.
-stray-

Must be 11 years now, stray. :)

ditto here. the ronski is one of the main reasons i've been coming around this joint for so long.

Aw shucks, guys. :o

strayrider

20-Aug-2008, 05:52 AM

Must be 11 years now, stray. :)

11 years ... damn, that's nearly a quarter of my life. Looking back, I kinda miss those chats on Kyra's site. Yourself, myself, Ghoul, Greek, Snappy, occasionally Savini and Taso, Marty Schiff (sp?) once or twice, Terran, Arianna, and that one cat ... what was his name? Oh, yeah ... Skazz. A224 and Zombie. Sh*t, where has the time gone? I'm getting misty-eyed ...

:D

-stray-

Ov3rlord

20-Aug-2008, 07:43 AM

In my opinion I think if it were possible then have everyone be trained in a bit of everything by someone who knows what they're talking about. By the end I think it would be productive to have everyone trained in security, agriculture, first aid and if possible some type of technical training to fix and handle radios or some type of communication. I know this is probably an impossible dream but that's jsut how I would want to see things. That way if someone wants to leave they have the training to survive on their own. They probably won't be as effective as the group working together but that's a part of their free will and denying them that is denying their humanity. You can't just say that it will be like this and it will work. That would mean you need every aspect of everything to work perfectly which it almost never does. To the side saying that holeing up and stashing supplies what would happen if there were an accident and all the supplies were destroyed and you weren't able to get to your supposed caches? Now you turn on your neighbors for whatever is left because there isn't enough to go around. To the nomads moving on and taking from those to ensure the well being of their own what if there is some kind of plague in your group and you are all to sick to go and gather supplies? Now you die because you weren't as well prepared because you weren't well off pre-apocalyptic event, I know where you're coming from I'm not saying I'm the worst off in the world but it hasn't always been easy and it sucks but it happens. Whatever happens happens one idea may work better than the other but it won't be perfect sometimes you need to look at others ideas and mix and match till it works. I'd like to think that beliefs like treat others the way you want to be treated would be able to prevail through anything because I believe that morals are what make us humans and to see them fall apart because something terrible happened is saddening.

Wyldwraith

20-Aug-2008, 09:28 AM

Khardis

20-Aug-2008, 10:19 AM

Something I have a hard time with,
Khardis: To paraphrase what you've said.."I would rather see the human race wiped out than see myself or my loved ones not survive"

You then went on to detail the various means that in many cases prominently feature you using the cannibal corpses to slaughter your fellow man so you can then pick through their belongings for your own benefit.

Question: If you TRULY believe that what is best for you and yours outweighs the worth of all 8 billion lives on Earth then why aren't you out killing people in the dark of night right now to steal their money/valuables in order to improve the lives of you and yours?

Is the presence of effective law enforcement the only obstacle to your acting on these loudly professed beliefs?

::shakes head:: Please, PLEASE seek counseling sir.

If petty crime was more lucrative than dangerous i just might.

Yes, and it's quite a good book. The only real comedy element in it is that it's about... zombies. The rest of the stuff is actually well researched. You should check it out.

Already got it and World War Z, wasn't impressed by either. Its interesting, he thinks communities are the way to go whereas Romero seems to think its communities that ends up killing everyone and that being on your own is better.

Ov3rlord

20-Aug-2008, 10:59 AM

Really being on your own is better is the message Romero is conveying, I haven't seen Diary of the Dead so I can't say for that but as far as I've seen most of the people that are living at the end of the movie were (get this) working together and not worrying only about themselves. NotLD= the main characters die but the guy who shot Ben was with the town posse, the remake Barbara comes back after working with the town, DotD Francine and Peter escape on the helicopter together, the remake most of the group makes it to the boat except for Michael when he was bitten helping Ana, DayotD the non-military group help each other to escape and make it to a deserted island, in the remake some of the protagonists help each other to escape, and LotD where would Riley have been without Charlie, which goes so far as to mention they helped each other more than a few times. Sure these aren't grand examples of community brotherhood but it does show people need each other whether most want to admit it or not. "The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation", Shaun Riley quoting Lord Bertrand Russell

Mike70

20-Aug-2008, 02:15 PM

people are not going to survive on their own. that is a fantasy that a lot of pseudo-tough internet big mouths share. i seriously doubt that in the real world a lone person would last very long.

bassman

20-Aug-2008, 03:29 PM

Really being on your own is better is the message Romero is conveying

I would have to disagree. Romero isn't saying that we should be alone, but be together and cooperate. The zombies aren't the bad guys, we are because we can't isten to one another. Work together as the more intellegent group rather than fight and rally against one another. He's saying that being with others is the MOST important thing. We just have to make it work.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation", Shaun Riley quoting Lord Bertrand Russell

I never knew Shaun had a last name.:eek:

Khardis

20-Aug-2008, 08:53 PM

people are not going to survive on their own. that is a fantasy that a lot of pseudo-tough internet big mouths share. i seriously doubt that in the real world a lone person would last very long.

You do realize that in a plague being segregated saves lives right? Thats why they quarantine and such. THe idea is to stop the spread from person to person, when you band together in communities you almost ensure always that some form of the plague will survive because like a fire in a dense forest is has many hosts to cling to, whereas a fire in a sparse field wont quite catch.

All the silly crap about putting together your own governments etc is cute for a forum and all but in reality building a government i'snt easy, usually you will have to kill other people to enforce your government on them. Lets say I join your little militarized community and I refuse to work and share, then what are you going to do? Take my stuff? Kick me out? kill me? Now what if in that community theres say 100 people and 30 of them are on my side and we disagree with the way you want to run your little paradise? Well I reckon the same thing that happens in MOST romero movies would happen, we would all fight and weaken each other and then be over run by the dead.

Now if I am on my own or with a small cluster of loved ones surviving away from the rest of the weaklings who need numbers to conceal their weakness, then that strife is less likely and we are all on the same page. Our odds of surviving are better. Especially when we start raiding your settlements lol.

I would have to disagree. Romero isn't saying that we should be alone, but be together and cooperate. :

Sarah: Maybe if we tried working together we could ease some of the tensions. We're all pulling in different directions.

John: That's the trouble with the world, Sarah darlin'. People got different ideas concernin' what they want out of life.

Bub666

20-Aug-2008, 09:17 PM

You do realize that in a plague being segregated saves lives right? Thats why they quarantine and such. THe idea is to stop the spread from person to person, when you band together in communities you almost ensure always that some form of the plague will survive because like a fire in a dense forest is has many hosts to cling to, whereas a fire in a sparse field wont quite catch.

All the silly crap about putting together your own governments etc is cute for a forum and all but in reality building a government i'snt easy, usually you will have to kill other people to enforce your government on them. Lets say I join your little militarized community and I refuse to work and share, then what are you going to do? Take my stuff? Kick me out? kill me? Now what if in that community theres say 100 people and 30 of them are on my side and we disagree with the way you want to run your little paradise? Well I reckon the same thing that happens in MOST romero movies would happen, we would all fight and weaken each other and then be over run by the dead.

Now if I am on my own or with a small cluster of loved ones surviving away from the rest of the weaklings who need numbers to conceal their weakness, then that strife is less likely and we are all on the same page. Our odds of surviving are better. Especially when we start raiding your settlements lol.

Sarah: Maybe if we tried working together we could ease some of the tensions. We're all pulling in different directions.

John: That's the trouble with the world, Sarah darlin'. People got different ideas concernin' what they want out of life.

If you have enough supplies to last you,you can survive alone.

Khardis

20-Aug-2008, 10:02 PM

If you have enough supplies to last you,you can survive alone.

Of course, and the less people you have the longer the supplies last. And the cool part about myself I think is that I have really good survival skills, I shoot regularly not just hand guns and shotguns but assault rifles and bows. I am trained in carpentry and masonry, i've literally built entire houses foundations and all. And I have kept an awesome garden for years, its an Italian thing my Dad raised me to know how to grow my own food and to hunt my own food if need be. I also know a lot about survival in the woods, I spent many years getting lost in the forests learning which mushrooms are edible which roots are edible, hot to set traps for rabbits etc. I think I would have a really good shot at surviving alone or with a small group of friends and family.

Bub666

20-Aug-2008, 10:09 PM

Of course, and the less people you have the longer the supplies last. And the cool part about myself I think is that I have really good survival skills, I shoot regularly not just hand guns and shotguns but assault rifles and bows. I am trained in carpentry and masonry, i've literally built entire houses foundations and all. And I have kept an awesome garden for years, its an Italian thing my Dad raised me to know how to grow my own food and to hunt my own food if need be. I also know a lot about survival in the woods, I spent many years getting lost in the forests learning which mushrooms are edible which roots are edible, hot to set traps for rabbits etc. I think I would have a really good shot at surviving alone or with a small group of friends and family.

A person with your skills stands a great chance of surviving.

SRP76

21-Aug-2008, 01:09 AM

people are not going to survive on their own. that is a fantasy that a lot of pseudo-tough internet big mouths share. i seriously doubt that in the real world a lone person would last very long.

No way. It's the other way around. If you have other people with you, you have a greater chance of one of them making a mistake that gets you all killed. And the more people there are, the greater that chance. And that gets compounded by the false sense of security a group brings. For example, you don't feel the need to triple-barricade that door, "because Tim's guarding it". Next thing you know, a zombie's chewing on you, because Tim was incompetent and fell asleep on watch.

Ov3rlord

21-Aug-2008, 03:54 AM

Which can happen but if you're caught in a zed apocalypse and you have training that would allow you to survive wouldn't it at least make sense to train other people in your group to have some rudimentary skill to ensure at least an extension of your survival. Also it never hurts to triple barricade the door any way.

SRP76

21-Aug-2008, 04:05 AM

Also it never hurts to triple barricade the door any way.

Which makes extra people useless, since you'll end up living like you were on your own anyway.

But no matter how much you train people, no matter how much they say they won't screw up, you can NOT trust them. Unless you are physically controlling someone, there's never any telling what may happen. The only person you can ever be sure about is yourself.

And in the end, you'll wind up tearing yourself apart going back and double-checking everything everyone else does. Having "teammates" will end up burning more of your energy than being alone would. Which brings us back to the start of this post.

And that's not even taking into account all the other drawbacks associated with groups, like dwindling supplies, lack of options for hiding all these people, and the fact that groups tend to attract a LOT more zombies than one quiet individual.

Ov3rlord

21-Aug-2008, 04:24 AM

You seem to conveniently ignore the cons of being a loner, such as the energy of watching your own back 24/7 losing sleep, thus subjecting you to exhaustion and a weakened immunity which leaves you vulnerable to debilitating diseases. Not to mention what happens if you're stealthing along hiding from ghouls you trip and break a hand, wrist, or ankle. Normally no big deal but on your own you now have to treat your own wounds possibly one handed which could make it unproperly prepared which makes it heal all wrong crippling you possibly permanently. You can't say being on your own is better than a group and vice versa. People think what they want and it won't change.

SRP76

21-Aug-2008, 04:37 AM

You seem to conveniently ignore the cons of being a loner, such as the energy of watching your own back 24/7 losing sleep

You'll be doing that anyway, like I said before. You're really going to trust Tim at the door? I doubt it; you'll be up making sure he's doing his job.

thus subjecting you to exhaustion and a weakened immunity which leaves you vulnerable to debilitating diseases.

That's another thing that's going to happen anyway. There will not be an adequate supply of food, clean water, medicines, etc. It will be like living in a septic tank. Everyone's going to have health problems, no matter how many people are together.

Not to mention what happens if you're stealthing along hiding from ghouls you trip and break a hand, wrist, or ankle. Normally no big deal but on your own you now have to treat your own wounds possibly one handed which could make it unproperly prepared which makes it heal all wrong crippling you possibly permanently.

I'd rather improperly set a broken ankle and hobble from ghouls the rest of my life, than be shot by my "comrades" because I'm now a liability to their group. And anyone that says they wouldn't gun you and cut their losses is lying to you. After all, Khardis is ready to kill people over a loaf of bread around here.

You can't say being on your own is better than a group and vice versa. People think what they want and it won't change.

I can say being alone is better than being in a group. I explained why in these past few posts. A group doesn't bring any benefit other than "you aren't alone". That's it. Other than that, you're lifestyle would not change from how it would be if you were on your own.

Ov3rlord

21-Aug-2008, 05:10 AM

No what you're saying is that the group you would have are a bunch of brain dead nimrods, I never said being on your own didn't have its advantages but from the group I would set up out of people I know would be people I could trust at the door. If you feel like you would thrive on your own more power to you but you can't say my choice is doomed to fail.

bassman

21-Aug-2008, 11:48 AM

Sarah: Maybe if we tried working together we could ease some of the tensions. We're all pulling in different directions.

John: That's the trouble with the world, Sarah darlin'. People got different ideas concernin' what they want out of life.

:rockbrow:

Is this supposed to be an argument towards what I said? Don't know what you're trying to say here. I might as well pull out a quote from the night remake. "Ya bunch of yo yo's!".:rolleyes:

Publius

21-Aug-2008, 12:41 PM

You'll be doing that anyway, like I said before. You're really going to trust Tim at the door? I doubt it; you'll be up making sure he's doing his job.

You would never ever sleep, from the time the zombies rise until the last one is put down? You can't do that anyways. Ov3rlord's point is that you have to sleep sometime. If you're in a small group it's possible to set up 24-hour watches and always have someone on guard, even if you think some of them are less reliable than you are and you want to triple-barricade the door anyways. If you're alone, your only option is to rely while you sleep solely on the physical barriers you set up when you were awake.

Dillinger

21-Aug-2008, 02:45 PM

Mike70

21-Aug-2008, 03:03 PM

I would love to see anyone of you assholes try to form a post-apocalyptic government. I think I already know what the outcome would be!

A few of you on here walk around like you're hot sh|t, like Ben or Rhodes or something. I would love to see what happens the first time you barked an order at somebody. :lol:

nice way to add some mature, reasoned comments to the debate.

Kaos

21-Aug-2008, 03:19 PM

Please keep things civil. Infractions issued.

bassman

21-Aug-2008, 03:30 PM

How many times has this dude been banned?

He seems mature.:rolleyes:

darth los

21-Aug-2008, 03:42 PM

I can say being alone is better than being in a group. I explained why in these past few posts. A group doesn't bring any benefit other than "you aren't alone". That's it. Other than that, you're lifestyle would not change from how it would be if you were on your own.

Well, it depends on what your goal are. If you're already hunkered down in a place and The extra people are causing the group's supplies to dwindle at an alrming rate then it might me a good idea to get rid of them. ( from a purley cold blooded/survival point of view ) I mean you already have a spot where your safe and you don't really need them. In fact, they probably are a detriment to your survival. But if that's not the case and the group is still roaming around trying to gather supplies etc. it would probably serve you well to have a sizable force. I know it's just a movie, but the bikers in dawn survived for months on the road most likely because of their numbers. The protagonists of that film were much fewer in number, however, they were already in a fortified location so it was o.k. And there were more than a few movie references in this thread already.

Yojimbo

21-Aug-2008, 03:46 PM

How many times has this dude been banned?

He seems mature.:rolleyes:

It takes a mature and honest person to admit to themselves that the way they have been conducting themselves is not working. Obviously, this dude has a lot a growing up and self-actualizing to do. I suspect that on a kinda sad level he craves everyones attention, even if it ends up being negative. Annoying and sort of sad.

darth los

21-Aug-2008, 03:53 PM

How many times has this dude been banned?

He seems mature.:rolleyes:

The real question is how does he keep getting back in? :confused:

Kaos

21-Aug-2008, 06:12 PM

The real question is how does he keep getting back in? :confused:

He has only been banned once before. A member's final ban can be the first (in the case of spammers), the second ban (if particularly egregious, or the mod thinks there is no hope), or a third ban (when an extensive outreach and two other bans didn't do the trick.

My philosophy is a warning or infraction, followed by either a second infraction or 3 day ban depending on the nature of the problem. After that it is either a 2 week vacation or permabanned depending on what I feel is necessary. Specific punishments given to specific users are confidential, however.

Spammers are permabanned immediately.

DubiousComforts

21-Aug-2008, 06:12 PM

I would have to disagree. Romero isn't saying that we should be alone, but be together and cooperate.
Sarah: Maybe if we tried working together we could ease some of the tensions. We're all pulling in different directions.

John: That's the trouble with the world, Sarah darlin'. People got different ideas concernin' what they want out of life.
Completely misinterpreted that exchange, but all righty then. :D

So, as a right-winger (with a mild lefty twist) I'm wondering how we can put our disagreements aside and get to setting up a workable government in a post-apocalypse world.
You do realize that the real-life pre-apocalyptic government has insured its own survival post-apocalypse, so that outside of living in a remote cave, any discussion of setting up a workable governing body is moot?

Mike70

21-Aug-2008, 06:22 PM

You do realize that the real-life pre-apocalyptic government has insured its own survival post-apocalypse, so that outside of living in a remote cave, any discussion of setting up a workable governing body is moot?

you mean old parade rainer.:p

certainly has been interesting to hear what some of these, ahem, folks have had to say on this issue. like i said before, i'm glad i live nowhere near most of them.

darth los

21-Aug-2008, 06:35 PM

He has only been banned once before. A member's final ban can be the first (in the case of spammers), the second ban (if particularly egregious, or the mod thinks there is no hope), or a third ban (when an extensive outreach and two other bans didn't do the trick.

My philosophy is a warning or infraction, followed by either a second infraction or 3 day ban depending on the nature of the problem. After that it is either a 2 week vacation or permabanned depending on what I feel is necessary. Specific punishments given to specific users are confidential, however.

Spammers are permabanned immediately.

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation K. You're good at this stuff !! :)

DubiousComforts

21-Aug-2008, 07:16 PM

you mean old parade rainer.:p
Hey, don't go draining your boils on the messenger. :D I assume everyone else understood the very obvious "meet the old boss, same as the old boss" theme in LAND?

certainly has been interesting to hear what some of these, ahem, folks have had to say on this issue. like i said before, i'm glad i live nowhere near most of them.
Curious how most if not all members of the He-Men Zombie-Haters Survival Club will adamantly stick by his or her family. The truth is, there is absolutely nothing special about one's family and anyone that actually walks the walk realizes that blind devotion to family is a weakness that would prove to be the greatest liability.

No worries, Scipio--you're welcome to hang with me when there's no more room in Hell. Survival at the expense of humanity is not worth living.

dmbfanintn

21-Aug-2008, 07:16 PM

He has only been banned once before. A member's final ban can be the first (in the case of spammers), the second ban (if particularly egregious, or the mod thinks there is no hope), or a third ban (when an extensive outreach and two other bans didn't do the trick.

My philosophy is a warning or infraction, followed by either a second infraction or 3 day ban depending on the nature of the problem. After that it is either a 2 week vacation or permabanned depending on what I feel is necessary. Specific punishments given to specific users are confidential, however.

Spammers are permabanned immediately.

I would sure love to know how one certain person continues to spew his B/S, always has members calling him out, doesnt have a single person on here that can stand him that I know of, but continues to manage to hang around and avoid the ban hammer. Amazing!

Kaos

21-Aug-2008, 07:20 PM

I am sure that person skirts the boundaries in most cases and is very bright about it. I am only one supermod of 5 plus 2 Administrators so if it is that rampant you as members should be reporting posts more than you have been.

DubiousComforts

21-Aug-2008, 07:26 PM

members should be reporting posts more than you have been.
Now why would we want to do that and miss out on the entertainment?

dmbfanintn

21-Aug-2008, 07:38 PM

I think the funniest thing about this whole discussion is how Ned and Khardis both approach the whole "I will kill you and take what I want" attitude with an air of certainty that they would actually come out on top in the fight.

They speak as if it isnt even a question of WHO would win the fight, they are SOOOOO good at ahuntin and atrappin and akillin that no one would ever possibly be able to out shoot them, or out fight them.

Its so funny watching internet tough guys puff out their chests and brag to the interwebs about how "BAD" they are.

I can tell you right now, Those two wannabes would never last in redneck tennessee hill country. You'd get your little NRA asses blown off by a hick with a shotgun! New Engladers talking about guns and survival, :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Khardis

21-Aug-2008, 07:53 PM

:rockbrow:

Is this supposed to be an argument towards what I said? Don't know what you're trying to say here. I might as well pull out a quote from the night remake. "Ya bunch of yo yo's!".:rolleyes:

I was partial to:

"LAME BRAINS!!!!"

That film had the most stellar writing for insults.

SRP76

21-Aug-2008, 07:57 PM

I think the funniest thing about this whole discussion is how Ned and Khardis both approach the whole "I will kill you and take what I want" attitude with an air of certainty that they would actually come out on top in the fight.

EvilNed and Khardis aren't the only ones doing that. The anti-them crowd keeps claiming they would "win the battle" against them, as well.

We have seen how things would work. Nobody can agree, and it's all-out anarchy amongst a few types of groups and individuals:

1. Group that puts "the good of the many" (with them deciding what's "good for the many", of course) first, to the extent of squashing all individual "rights". Example is EvilNed.

2. People that simply want to survive "by any means necessary". Doesn't matter what they have to do to get what they need/want, they'll stop at nothing to obtain it. Example is Khardis.

3. Groups and individuals that perceive things in their area as "theirs" (the Flyboy mentality), and don't want to hear about the rest of the human race. As long as they have enough, everyone else can find their own supplies. Example is Wooley.

And across the board, no matter what camp or how they preach "morality", every one of these groups will simply shoot dissenters in the back of the head. Example of this is Dillinger.

And these people can not "just get along". There will be nothing but open warfare until only one group remains alive.

dmbfanintn

21-Aug-2008, 08:03 PM

EvilNed and Khardis aren't the only ones doing that. The anti-them crowd keeps claiming they would "win the battle" against them, as well.

We have seen how things would work. Nobody can agree, and it's all-out anarchy amongst a few types of groups and individuals:

1. Group that puts "the good of the many" (with them deciding what's "good for the many", of course) first, to the extent of squashing all individual "rights". Example is EvilNed.

2. People that simply want to survive "by any means necessary". Doesn't matter what they have to do to get what they need/want, they'll stop at nothing to obtain it. Example is Khardis.

3. Groups and individuals that perceive things in their area as "theirs" (the Flyboy mentality), and don't want to hear about the rest of the human race. As long as they have enough, everyone else can find their own supplies. Example is Wooley.

And across the board, no matter what camp or how they preach "morality", every one of these groups will simply shoot dissenters in the back of the head. Example of this is Dillinger.

And these people can not "just get along". There will be nothing but open warfare until only one group remains alive.

I get what your saying, but I was more referring to the absoluteness of thier comments. Its not IF I win the fight and take your stuff, its WHEN I win the fight and take your stuff, thus my comment about them getting thier asses handed to them by them good ole TN redneck boys....(Of which I do not claim to be one, but I know plenty that would put those two posers in thier place real quick!)

Khardis

21-Aug-2008, 09:46 PM

I get what your saying, but I was more referring to the absoluteness of thier comments. Its not IF I win the fight and take your stuff, its WHEN I win the fight and take your stuff, thus my comment about them getting thier asses handed to them by them good ole TN redneck boys....(Of which I do not claim to be one, but I know plenty that would put those two posers in thier place real quick!)

lol, its because we accept facts, to us its going to be survive, or not survive. If I don't survive I don't need to worry about it, so for me losing wouldn't be an option.

With that abandon in such a situation, there are moral codes I don't need to worry about like you civilized, socialized types. I can do whatever must be done for me to win, even if it means poisoning your TN Hillbillies water well or food supply and letting them die without knowing why they are dying and who caused it. Capiche?

Only a fool would attack head on a fortress with only a few in his army and many in your enemies armies. As someone who will avoid civilization and destroy it if needed to get what we need, i would of course use Subterfuge, Chaos, Guerilla and covert tactics. You wouldn't even know why your gates are being damage at night or why your barns are burning or how come everyone is dying from poisoned water.

DubiousComforts

22-Aug-2008, 05:32 AM

With that abandon in such a situation, there are moral codes I don't need to worry about like you civilized, socialized types. I can do whatever must be done for me to win,
So this means you'll be abandoning and/or killing off your family? Certainly you've accepted the fact that they would be a liability to your survival.

You wouldn't even know why your gates are being damage at night or why your barns are burning or how come everyone is dying from poisoned water.
Sure they would because you just informed everyone. Will all of your tactics be as equally 'covert'?

Khardis

22-Aug-2008, 10:14 AM

So this means you'll be abandoning and/or killing off your family? Certainly you've accepted the fact that they would be a liability to your survival.

Sure they would because you just informed everyone. Will all of your tactics be as equally 'covert'?
My family will be y 1 liability.

And most of my tactics would be equally covert.

Ov3rlord

22-Aug-2008, 11:42 AM

Khardis I don't think sarcasm is one of your strong suits

Mike70

22-Aug-2008, 11:44 AM

Khardis I don't think sarcasm is one of your strong suits

funny, i didn't think he had any at all. is he still using the first person plural and starting all his posts off with lol?

Ov3rlord

22-Aug-2008, 12:07 PM

funny, i didn't think he had any at all. is he still using the first person plural and starting all his posts off with lol?

First point to you sir :lol::lol::lol:

Khardis

22-Aug-2008, 08:06 PM

First point to you sir :lol::lol::lol:

Scip is just mad because he isn't as smart as he pretends to be, he stalks me through many threads and always feels he must ankle bite me. A minor nuisance really. As per his character, well he is the kind of guy who has a thread he starts closed because no one agrees with his infantile logic.

DubiousComforts

22-Aug-2008, 08:38 PM

My family will be y 1 liability.
Is that English or Spanish or both?

And most of my tactics would be equally covert.
As covert as posting your survival strategy on a public message board?

I wonder how long until your family realizes that you're the liability. :D

Mike70

22-Aug-2008, 09:26 PM

Scip is just mad because he isn't as smart as he pretends to be, he stalks me through many threads and always feels he must ankle bite me. A minor nuisance really. As per his character, well he is the kind of guy who has a thread he starts closed because no one agrees with his infantile logic.

i think you have finally lost all contact with reality. mmm, funny how i am stalking you when you are posting over and over again in threads i've started. you are even using the short version of my screen name, is this yet another sign of your longing and affection?

like i've said before, i think you harbor a secret love for me. that is why you consistently jump at every word i post on here. sorry to disappoint but you just aren't my type. i prefer actual human beings.

strayrider

22-Aug-2008, 09:59 PM

Only a fool would attack head on a fortress with only a few in his army and many in your enemies armies. As someone who will avoid civilization and destroy it if needed to get what we need, i would of course use Subterfuge, Chaos, Guerilla and covert tactics. You wouldn't even know why your gates are being damage at night or why your barns are burning or how come everyone is dying from poisoned water.

Excellent point, Khard. We would have to have at least one (or more) members of the enclave who would be willing to "live outside" the walls and aggressively patrol the area to protect against such vandalism. A Carlos Hathcock type.

"Sniper -- Training and Employment" would also be required reading in our public school.

As long as everyone isn't sitting on their porches passively discussing last nights damage.

Scipio: Damn shame about farmer Johnson's barn last night, weren't it?

Stray: A'yup.

Publius: Looks like it might rain later.

Wooley: A'yup.

:D

-stray-

Khardis

22-Aug-2008, 10:51 PM

Is that English or Spanish or both?

As covert as posting your survival strategy on a public message board?

I wonder how long until your family realizes that you're the liability. :D

Yes because in the event of a zombie plague going down, you will be hanging out on a zombie film web forum. Well then again... you probably would.

Excellent point, Khard. We would have to have at least one (or more) members of the enclave who would be willing to "live outside" the walls and aggressively patrol the area to protect against such vandalism. A Carlos Hathcock type.

"Sniper -- Training and Employment" would also be required reading in our public school.

As long as everyone isn't sitting on their porches passively discussing last nights damage.

Scipio: Damn shame about farmer Johnson's barn last night, weren't it?

Stray: A'yup.

Publius: Looks like it might rain later.

Wooley: A'yup.

:D

-stray-

So when you establish this Fascist utopia you actually expect people to obey you?

SRP76

22-Aug-2008, 11:00 PM

I doubt anyone would have any of these sniper-equipped, exploding-food-having, Thunderball-style hideouts. There simply wouldn't be enough people.

You're only going to find 5 or 6 people in any one area. Then another 5 or 6 a hundred miles away, and so on. You're not going to have hundreds of people around you to establish a real "community".

jim102016

23-Aug-2008, 01:16 AM

I would love to see anyone of you assholes try to form a post-apocalyptic government. I think I already know what the outcome would be!

A few of you on here walk around like you're hot sh|t, like Ben or Rhodes or something. I would love to see what happens the first time you barked an order at somebody. :lol:

What do you know about giving and taking orders, soldier? I see your point, but you're not in the barracks or the NCO Club here. Clean it up and put your comments into a more productive form.

strayrider

23-Aug-2008, 03:36 AM

So when you establish this Fascist utopia you actually expect people to obey you?

Of course, because they will be "obeying" their own will and need to survive and be governed.

I doubt anyone would have any of these sniper-equipped, exploding-food-having, Thunderball-style hideouts. There simply wouldn't be enough people.

You're only going to find 5 or 6 people in any one area. Then another 5 or 6 a hundred miles away, and so on. You're not going to have hundreds of people around you to establish a real "community".

Using Fiddlers Green as an example, there would be hundreds of people available to populate the community. Unlike FG, however, our enclave would operate more like Boulder from The Stand.

You feel me?

:D

-stray-

Wooley

26-Aug-2008, 12:19 AM

3. Groups and individuals that perceive things in their area as "theirs" (the Flyboy mentality), and don't want to hear about the rest of the human race. As long as they have enough, everyone else can find their own supplies. Example is Wooley.

And across the board, no matter what camp or how they preach "morality", every one of these groups will simply shoot dissenters in the back of the head. Example of this is Dillinger.

And these people can not "just get along". There will be nothing but open warfare until only one group remains alive.

Incorrect. I've said what is mine is mine and I will be the one to decide what if any charity I am going to give, because I cannot help everyone. I've preached that everyone should prepare their own lifeboat in case of emergency, not just zombies, but the much more real threat of nuclear war, economic downturn, pandemic, etc. But, like Cassandra of old, myself and the others who practice preparedness see nothing but blind eyes turned towards us, with comments like "It'll never happen here", or "The government will take care of us", or any number of excuses.

Then, the situation happens, and it's too late for people to stock their own lifeboats. Happens every year in hurricane country, the shelves empty of bottled water, plywood, etc.

I can not and certainly should not be expected to prep for others who had both time and opportunity to do the same and chose otherwise.

But I realize those fools won't want to here that, and I do lack certain skill sets, materials, etc, so, let's make a deal. I pay you X amount of food, for Y skill, or Z materials. They can take it or leave it, but they get nothing for free. Welfare died with the current society. I'd probably throw in lessons in a skill or some knowledge I have but for whatever reason can't make the best use of, such as my info on how to make chloroform, a old anesthetic, or how to grow penicillin. How valuable could such info be to a small town hospital?
Or how to build a water powered grain mill, and make grain milling stones?

I've never said I don't care about the rest of the human race, just that it'd be mutual suicide to try to feed them all, and I won't do that to myself. I'll help who I can, when I can, on my terms. Sucks to be you if you don't like them, should have bought rice and beans when you could.

And I never said I'd win every gunfight with raiders, just that I'm likely to make any victory a Pyhrric one. Just because knowledge of rogue science is lacking in todays society among the brain dead majority does not mean that the knowledge to create explosives, incendiaries, poisons, and heavy weapons from easily available, non regulated sources is Hollywood fiction.

And you don't know me from Elvis, so HTF do you come off saying I'll simply slot anyone who disagrees with me? You don't, you're talking out your butt.

As far open warfare until the last man is left standing, such happens when the other groups are going to drag you into the cold dark depths. There wouldn't be a problem if Ned and Khardis and Dillinger had their own lifeboats, but they don't, the ship has sunk and they're trying to pull mine down into the cold dark depths, so I swing the oar at their heads until the ocean is still except for me. The same action that made them try to get into mine despite the fact it won't carry two much less four is the same that made me swing that oar. I get to live with that afterwards, but dying with them would have served no purpose.

I have read and own Alas Babylon and Lucifer's Hammer, which is also a good read and goes with what we've talked about, and it jives with the Saxon article on emergency governments. A permanent, and immediate anarchy is simply not going to happen. Those who act otherwise will pay for their actions, either during the emergency or after.

Wyldwraith

26-Aug-2008, 01:01 AM

Sorry, double post. Please delete.

Legion2213

26-Aug-2008, 01:08 AM

Approaching this from another angle, what sort of people would you be looking to hook up with, what sort of folks would you trust to help you and your loved ones? The preparedness types who will share if they can or if you can offer something in return, or the new barbarians, marching from safe house to safe house, murdering and burning everything in their path until there is nothing left for anybody?

Wyldwraith

26-Aug-2008, 01:15 AM

Wooley,
There's one problem with drawing from those 2 sources. None of the currently conceptualized disasters are self-renewing. Yes, some catastrophes have EXTREMELY long durations; nuclear winter and the secondary effects from an asteroid just shy of a total planet-killer impacting for example. Yet even in both those cases the disaster has a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end, even if that end won't be for a great many human generations. That provides an opportunity for the intelligent and thoughtful to prepare a sort of Ark contingency community and wait it out in their self-sustaining enclave until the planet regenerates itself in some distant future.

Here's a problem though. What if the zombies *never* completely go away? Check out Monster Island/Nation/Planet for examples of how this could happen. If the cause of reanimation is permanent then so long as humanity endures the problem of coping with the living dead will endure.

I think that requires a mode of thought completely different than simple disaster-preparedness or self-sufficiency as they are currently defined, or even a radical overhaul of concepts like community and governing can deliver. Death being final has been one of the few true constants in the human condition. At several points in our history the light of civilization flickered and almost went out in many areas simply due to the secondary effects of having more dead bodies around than there were people to dispose of them. (An oversimplification I know, bear with me please) Over time our communities learned to deal with the loss of knowledge and contributions that come with the unexpected passing of a large percentage of the population. We haven't always coped with it well, but we survived. What we're talking about here though is Death becoming more than simple attrition. We're talking about Death becoming the direct and immediate trigger for predation events leading to more death. I think that unless humanity can adapt to that everything else is just lacquering the coffin to bury our species in.

Wooley, I totally get what you're saying by the way. I live in Florida. A "simple" Tropical Storm, something that barely even catches the rest of the country's attention just displaced FIFTY THOUSAND people, rendering over 15,000 homes permanently unfit for human habitation. I see the desperation that mocks the snide sociopathic bragging of Khardis and his ilk every other year it seems like. I also see how in spite of all the commentary about how man is his own worst enemy that in the immediate aftermath of the hurricanes the thing that stands out the most is how many more lives are saved by regular people than by any government agency.

Compassion isn't so easily discarded as some seem to think. It's harder to paddle past a 69yr old woman with a compound fracture who's clinging to her crumbling porch as the flood waters continue to pull it out from under her than even the hardest-hearted might think.

At the same time though we DO have the drive to save ourselves. So I don't really know what to think anymore. I've seen what I've seen, and I know what I know, but those things don't all easily reconcile themselves in my mind whenever I consider a catastrophe that threatens extinction.

::shrugs::

SRP76

26-Aug-2008, 01:51 AM

Approaching this from another angle, what sort of people would you be looking to hook up with

The non-existent kind. People are bad.

what sort of folks would you trust to help you and your loved ones?

Please tell me you didn't just say "trust" in this situation.:D

The preparedness types who will share if they can or if you can offer something in return

Why hell no. They can find slaves to work their plantation someplace else. WTF do I need them for? Everyone's DEAD; I can pick damn near anything up off the abandoned streets. Who's there to stop me?

or the new barbarians, marching from safe house to safe house, murdering and burning everything in their path until there is nothing left for anybody?

They can do whatever they want. I'm not a "safe-house", so they aren't targeting me. And as long as they never figure out that things are free for the taking, and keep trying to fight some bomb-shelter type for things they could get anywhere, they'll never notice me.

Bub666

26-Aug-2008, 04:09 AM

what sort of folks would you trust to help you and your loved ones?

You can never fully trust anyone in this kind of situation.

Wyldwraith

26-Aug-2008, 04:13 AM

Know this is sort of parochial,
I'd be looking for people much like myself. Ones I could tell hadn't lost it (and yes, you spend more than twenty minutes talking to someone and there are signs that something is off with them, even if you can't put your finger on what it is), that aren't tied to some goal that's counter-productive to my generalized goal of survival (A good example of this would be Kenneth from Dawn '04. That cop had a lot to offer a group of survivors, but if he hadn't been absolutely forced into the pinned down position the Mall became his fixation on "somehow" getting past a million zombies to find his brother, in a fort he KNEW had been overrun would have led him to abandon them in a heartbeat.), and someone that has made the choice to fight back instead of giving up. Give me those qualities and I can work with any other difficulties that might arise.

I'm a big believer in the notion that trying to go it alone will get you killed. Sure, taking a chance on some stranger(s) you meet MAY get you killed, but alone I'm sure that sooner or later I'll slip up. I won't notice a crawler before its teeth find my leg, or the shelter I select to rest in will be breached while I'm asleep, or I'll simply encounter an obstacle during a life or death scenario that I can't overcome by myself. (Like running into an alley that turns out to be a dead end, the only possible escape being the fire escape nine feet off the ground.)

Then there's simple basic things like two heads being better than one, or having the chance at least that whoever I'm with might help me if I'm injured/get sick.

Yea, I'll use the word trust in a situation like this. Mine wouldn't be easy to earn, but those who had could count on me for everything short of sticking with them if they were infected. It's a pretty simple yet profound truth our ancestors learned. Loyalty to the tribe will get you a lot further than "Everything is for me, I do nothing that doesn't directly benefit me"

I would rather meet a 35yr old former housewife with few practical skills who had the mental and emotional qualities I just described than an unstable egomaniac of a Green Beret. The special forces guy might keep me alive for a few days, but I'm looking for more than to become a follower of a Neo-Rhodes. Skills can be learned, supplies can be acquired, but a person either has a personality and values compatible with your own or they don't.

How do the rest of you feel? Would you rather bump into a Khardis-like super-survivalist, or someone you could honestly come to trust with your life that doesn't have any of those desirable skills at the apocalypse's start?

Trencher

26-Aug-2008, 03:07 PM

lol, its because we accept facts, to us its going to be survive, or not survive. If I don't survive I don't need to worry about it, so for me losing wouldn't be an option. Being able to think further than your own nose could mean the difference between your family members life or death so I think you should con cider the option that your raiding ways would make you loose.

With that abandon in such a situation, there are moral codes I don't need to worry about like you civilized, socialized types. I can do whatever must be done for me to win, even if it means poisoning your TN Hillbillies water well or food supply and letting them die without knowing why they are dying and who caused it. Capiche?
You forget that ruthlessness only is a strength when the other people are not ruthless. Raiding partys dont have monopoly on ruthlessness.
Those tactics you describe needs lots of civilians (women and children are preferred) to hide amongst.

And when you burn their barns and poison their water some innocent people die and you get some tin cans that would maybe give you some food for a couple of weeks.
Soon you would run out of places to raid.
In the long run people who are willing to work hard always wins out over people who are willing to stab his fellow man in the back. History shows us that.

Legion2213

27-Aug-2008, 02:38 AM

You can never fully trust anyone in this kind of situation.

Bub, if you were running down a street, slipped and snapped your ankle (while hundreds of zacks were on your tail) would you trust a stranger who came along, threw you over his shoulder and saved your life? (unless it was Khardis, who would just snap your other ankle, steal your stuff and leave you to die).;)

I suppose I am trying say what Wyldwraith said, but less eloquantly...I suppose we all have the image of ourselves as the 21st century "high plains drifter" roaming around the post zombie planet and kicking ass, but the truth is, we are not robots, we get tired, we get sick and sometimes we just get damn sloppy...look at the original dawn of the dead, how long do you think any of the original characters would have lasted on their own...there certainly wouldn't have been any shopping going on in Monroeville Mall!

SRP76, see Wyldwraith's post, we would have to trust somebody at some stage, I'm not talking about instantly giving 100% trust to a total stranger, we don't do that now, and there is no zombie/apocalypse crisis.

Edit: This is a great thread, a bit heated here and there, but some great reading and opinions.:cool:

Khardis

27-Aug-2008, 02:49 AM

Being able to think further than your own nose could mean the difference between your family members life or death so I think you should con cider the option that your raiding ways would make you loose.

You forget that ruthlessness only is a strength when the other people are not ruthless. Raiding partys dont have monopoly on ruthlessness.
Those tactics you describe needs lots of civilians (women and children are preferred) to hide amongst.

And when you burn their barns and poison their water some innocent people die and you get some tin cans that would maybe give you some food for a couple of weeks.
Soon you would run out of places to raid.
In the long run people who are willing to work hard always wins out over people who are willing to stab his fellow man in the back. History shows us that.

lol I don't think i would run out of places to raid, there are over 300 million people in the United States alone. Lets say 295 million of them die and become ghouls, then thats 295 Million worth of homes, grocery stores, cars, guns etc I can now take freely.

Its funny even GAR agrees with me, Watch Dawn and see, he says it in the commentary track when the raiders are taking over the Mall, when this stuff goes down its those people who will survive.

Bub, if you were running down a street, slipped and snapped your ankle (while hundreds of zacks were on your tail) would you trust a stranger who came along, threw you over his shoulder and saved your life? (unless it was Khardis, who would just snap your other ankle, steal your stuff and leave you to die).;)

I suppose I am trying say what Wyldwraith said, but less eloquantly...I suppose we all have the image of ourselves as the 21st century "high plains drifter" roaming around the post zombie planet and kicking ass, but the truth is, we are not robots, we get tired, we get sick and sometimes we just get damn sloppy...look at the original dawn of the dead, how long do you think any of the original characters would have lasted on their own...there certainly wouldn't have been any shopping going on in Monroeville Mall!

SRP76, see Wyldwraith's post, we would have to trust somebody at some stage, I'm not talking about instantly giving 100% trust to a total stranger, we don't do that now, and there is no zombie/apocalypse crisis.

Edit: This is a great thread, a bit heated here and there, but some great reading and opinions.:cool:

I dunno, what everyone here who disagrees with me seems to be advocating for is some sort of proto-facist military-ocracy where they control everyones lives. Not for me, raiding seems to be less fascist and totalitarian when compared.

SRP76

27-Aug-2008, 02:52 AM

I suppose I am trying say what Wyldwraith said, but less eloquantly...I suppose we all have the image of ourselves as the 21st century "high plains drifter" roaming around the post zombie planet and kicking ass, but the truth is, we are not robots, we get tired, we get sick and sometimes we just get damn sloppy...look at the original dawn of the dead, how long do you think any of the original characters would have lasted on their own...there certainly wouldn't have been any shopping going on in Monroeville Mall!

We're talking about post-apocalypse here. No more zombies. Any of the characters would do just fine roaming on their own.

Legion2213

27-Aug-2008, 02:59 AM

Khardis, I personally am not advocating "control" of other peoples lives, I am advocating "no more welfare state", like most others, I think it's fair to expect everybody in the "PA community" (or what ever you wish to call it) to pull their own weight and contribute something. I wouldn't be forcing anybody to join up with us if they don't wish to, they can go their own way.

SRP76, zombies and zombie scenarios have been mentioned frequently in this thread.

Mike70

27-Aug-2008, 12:38 PM

and the award for the thread that refuses to die goes to...

i'm not advocating "control" over people's lives either. in the scenario i put forward in my original post, everyone over 17 would have a say in what goes on through a direct vote.

Trencher

27-Aug-2008, 08:33 PM

lol I don't think i would run out of places to raid, there are over 300 million people in the United States alone. Lets say 295 million of them die and become ghouls, then thats 295 Million worth of homes, grocery stores, cars, guns etc I can now take freely.
No argument there, but I would like to point out that if you are strong enough to take what you need from the zombies then you dont need to attack the living.

Its funny even GAR agrees with me, Watch Dawn and see, he says it in the commentary track when the raiders are taking over the Mall, when this stuff goes down its those people who will survive.
The people in the mall were just a bunch of thiefs not really a big loss in the big picture, you might even say that they were raiders too even though they were non violent. I think its pretty obivious that the raiders lost a bunch of people raiding while the defenders lost only one. how many places could they raid again before they would be wittled down?

I dunno, what everyone here who disagrees with me seems to be advocating for is some sort of proto-facist military-ocracy where they control everyones lives. Not for me, raiding seems to be less fascist and totalitarian when compared. I want a democracy where there is place for all. The advantage that an post acopalyptic goverment has is that the people feel hunger and death breating at the back of their necks, this will make them work harder and choose their leaders with more care than they do now.

Wyldwraith

28-Aug-2008, 06:47 AM

There are other problems with raiding,

1) Unless your raider contingent is comprised entirely of Ninjas or ex-Spec. Ops members the chances of eliminating 100% of a community larger than 10-15 people is close to zero. What happens if out of a community of 20 six of them bolt in six different directions away from the now-ruined community? Chances are that the survivors know the surrounding area much more intimately than even the best information short-term recon could provide raiders with. Sure, with contingencies for such events you might track down the majority of those who fled, and the zombies will probably get some more of them. You can be sure though that those on the run know where the nearest community is and are headed for it. If even ONE gets there the jig is up.

2) Logistics: If you cover a lot of ground using whatever vehicles you're either carrying a ton of fuel with you or relying on your ability to scavenge it. Even laying aside whether or not the time may come when you find yourself in unfamiliar territory and on fumes, what about shelter? You can't have perfect multi-directional/multi-aspect recon. Your scouts might find the perfect structure for your boys to hole up in for the night six miles northwest, but then miss the unusually large clump of zombies moving as a group that randomly happens to be moving down towards that shelter from beyond the scouted area north of the shelter. In the morning you may find a 1,000 ghouls on your doorstep, or at best your sentries will sound the alarm at 3am as they start to stagger in, forcing a night-evacuation. There's a reason that true nomads (Those who weren't simply following long-term cyclical migration routes) almost invariably moved in some sort of large, slow, caravan-like methodology. You have to carry EVERYTHING you might need for EVERYONE in your group to survive on for some time, because you never know when you're about to roam into an area which has been intensely scavenged down to nothing. Look at the Rom, or the Mongols. Both cultures had significantly higher mortality rates than settled peoples, and that had much more to do with factors besides casualties of violence.

3) Success breeds a reputation. The better/longer you've been at it, the more aware settled communities will become of you. Range over a wide enough area, or become too intense a competitor for scavenged resources and you may unite communities that for any other purpose would consider themselves too distant from one another to make day-to-day relations worthwhile. Example: If a gang of 50 motorcycle bandits are picking clean the small towns between Orlando and Jacksonville, then the communities inhabited by the survivors who successfully fled the medium sized towns between those two points would both be equally threatened by them. Sacrifices that would otherwise be considered too great might be considered acceptable to remove such a serious threat, ESPECIALLY if the raider/nomads are also known to be violent/homicidal, and not just mobile scavengers.

Yes, there are a host of difficulties in establishing a settlement under such hostile circumstances, but history shows us that in the long run settlers prosper and flourish while nomads at the best remain static.

Put more simply. Anyone advocating the violent raider methodology is aspiring to become a shark. Keep moving or die, kill to eat, breed when offered the opportunity, repeat until violence or natural causes claim you.

If that's all life has to offer once the zombie apocalypse has begun then I might have to revise my theory about being eaten alive by cannibal corpses being about the worst thing that could happen to you, because that life truly sounds like being in Hell to me.