>> The global super wealthy think they can survive a complete societal breakdown in bunkers in New Zealand. I don’t know why they they think they’ll be able to keep those bunkers when the people who build them decide to take them back with their Army buddies.
> By that logic, no medieval castle would have survived any period of tumult. But they often did, and I think a similar gameplan would apply. I think it would turn out some of the toughest “Army buddy” types would rather have themselves and their families inside the fortress with the lord (or equivalent) and would fight like hell against any wayward “Army buddies” who tried to storm the place.
I'm not so sure:
1. Medieval castles were basically owned and operated by the "army buddies." IIRC, you became a "lord" by being part of the last invading army or descending from someone who was, and you stayed a lord by providing military capability.
2. The people that lived in them were part of the permanent social structure of the area.
The global super wealthy who think they can parachute into a bunker in some remote location during a time of collapse, and proceed to become a local lord on account of their pre-breakdown social standing are probably going to be in for a rude awakening. The system that gave them their power and status will be gone or crippled, their skill-sets will be obsolete, and what little of their wealth that translates into the new order will be plunder for the people who are better adapted to the new circumstances.
IMHO, at best such a bunker is a ticket to merely survive. After that, the bunker holder will revert to being a regular Joe, and maybe a somewhat disadvantaged one at that, due to lack of social connections.
Those are interesting points. I’m not in the Armageddon bunker business, so I don’t have a horse in the race. I was pointing out that the potential that previously loyal warriors will immediately turn on their bosses in times of strife is not a new problem. It’s also worth noting that the event that prompted all of this discussion was Mr. Page’s move to New Zealand now, with plenty of time to build social ties before any hypothetical Mad Max scenario takes hold.
Exactly. The people who dominate a law and order based society are a totally different set of people from those who dominate a Hobbesian “state of nature.”
> Exactly. The people who dominate a law and order based society are a totally different set of people from those who dominate a Hobbesian “state of nature.”
Yeah, after societal collapse my money is on these groups taking over (in this order):
1. Rogue ex-military
2. Existing street gangs
3. Some dude from the local community (if they have access to weapons), starting something that ends up like a gang.
> By that logic, no medieval castle would have survived any period of tumult. But they often did, and I think a similar gameplan would apply. I think it would turn out some of the toughest “Army buddy” types would rather have themselves and their families inside the fortress with the lord (or equivalent) and would fight like hell against any wayward “Army buddies” who tried to storm the place.
I'm not so sure:
1. Medieval castles were basically owned and operated by the "army buddies." IIRC, you became a "lord" by being part of the last invading army or descending from someone who was, and you stayed a lord by providing military capability.
2. The people that lived in them were part of the permanent social structure of the area.
The global super wealthy who think they can parachute into a bunker in some remote location during a time of collapse, and proceed to become a local lord on account of their pre-breakdown social standing are probably going to be in for a rude awakening. The system that gave them their power and status will be gone or crippled, their skill-sets will be obsolete, and what little of their wealth that translates into the new order will be plunder for the people who are better adapted to the new circumstances.
IMHO, at best such a bunker is a ticket to merely survive. After that, the bunker holder will revert to being a regular Joe, and maybe a somewhat disadvantaged one at that, due to lack of social connections.