All is not well in the UK's Socialist Utopia

[pErvinalia]

This is why I claim he is an authoritarian (despite still landing in the libertarian part of the 'political compass' graph).

[Audley Strange]

@Audley Strange: You are off topic. Your post belongs into the "All is not well in the USAnian Theocratic Utopia"

I'll raise you this sunshine....

Personal plan for the Zombie Apocalypse: Become a Zombie as fast as possible and you are on the winning side.

Stick it in the "All is not well in the Global Necropolitan Dystopia thread."

Got me?

[Coito ergo sum]

This is why I claim he is an authoritarian (despite still landing in the libertarian part of the 'political compass' graph).

I find it highly doubtful that his answers to the questions on the political compass grid could be in line with his political views espoused on this forum and have him land on the libertarian side of the chart.

I landed about 2/3 of the way toward libertarian and about 2 grid squares to the liberal side. So, I'm moderate-to-liberal-anti-authoritarian, as I interpret the chart. If I had to guess where he would land, it would be 2/3 of the way up into the authoritarian side, and extremely to the left side of the chart -- He's clearly a left-leaning authoritarian.

[MrJonno]

If society breaks down the military is expected to step in (call it the national guard in the US if you want but its the same thing). What is so controversial about that?. Happens all the time in the UK Fire Brigade goes on stirke , they are replaced with military fire engines, local flooding : bring in the army,
Rioting so big the police can't deal with it of course the military are going to be brought in. It's a total no brainier. Don't the US military swear an oath to defend their country against enemies internal and external?

All nations have laws that allow martial law to be investigated in a real emergency , the nation wide ones are obviously incredible rare but the option it there.

In the event of total blackout after more than a few days resources will be diverted to the only forces that can keep order and that's going to be the army. What the alternative allow survivalist nuts and their shotguns to defend their food while everyone else dies? .

Regarding the political compass it asks questions regarding trust of authority and often I don't trust it . Doesn't matter of course even if you don't trust something it doesn't mean its not needed

[Coito ergo sum]

If society breaks down the military is expected to step in (call it the national guard in the US if you want but its the same thing). What is so controversial about that?. Happens all the time in the UK Fire Brigade goes on stirke , they are replaced with military fire engines, local flooding : bring in the army,
Rioting so big the police can't deal with it of course the military are going to be brought in. It's a total no brainier. Don't the US military swear an oath to defend their country against enemies internal and external?

All nations have laws that allow martial law to be investigated in a real emergency , the nation wide ones are obviously incredible rare but the option it there.

In the event of total blackout after more than a few days resources will be diverted to the only forces that can keep order and that's going to be the army. What the alternative allow survivalist nuts and their shotguns to defend their food while everyone else dies? .

Regarding the political compass it asks questions regarding trust of authority and often I don't trust it . Doesn't matter of course even if you don't trust something it doesn't mean its not needed

You've phrased that in the passive voice -- expected by whom?

There are other options besides the military. The national guard is part of the military, so I wasn't splitting hairs. It's the rare case that the national guard gets called in. It's not really the job function of the national guard. It's just that there are few other quickly mobilizable military forces at the ready, and the government tends to want the quick fix -- it's easy to say "call in the national guard" and then wash one's hands of the situation. But, history has shown that callling in the military to quell civilian angst is almost always akin to throwing gasoline on a fire and expecting it to go out.

The "alternative" is not to confront unarmed civilians with military power to silence them. The alternative is to allow mass protests to occur, but bring in personnel whose job it is to keep the peace.

Sure, there may be a need to use whatever forces are available to quell armed rebellion.

But, the situation we were talking about is when scared people lose their power. My comment toward you was that I found it odd that your first reaction was to suggest calling in the military to keep the peasants quiet -- implicit in that is that you're more concerned with "keeping the peace" than the actual well-being of the populace. Instead of suggesting that the military be used to transport in needed supplies and assist the peasants in their time of need - you're first thought was to have have the military silence the "peasants." That's what I found interesting.

I like the traditional Merkin view that we don't have "peasants." The old-school Merkin way of thinking that eschewed aristocracy, lauded the individual, and considered each individual technically the equivalent of any other. The sentiment that founded our country is what we should strive to return to, and not toward the "silence the peasants so we all feel safe" mentality. I'm not talking about interpretations of the constitution or natural rights or any of that -- just the overall sentiment --- a guy who could have been a King, chooses instead to be "Mr. President" and then ride off on a horse after 8 years, voluntarily ceding executive power in a world that had hardly seen that done since Cincinnatus of Rome. Limited executive government. The political philosophy that power flows from the people to the State and not vice versa. That the government ought to fear its people, and not vice versa. These are things that should lay the foundation of our laws and government, and our government's reactions to crises.

[MrJonno]

We are talking end of the world type scenarios here, magnitudes greater than New Orleans. In those circumstances there aren't going to be any rights there is going to be survival and to keep large numbers of people alive needs a lot of force. The use of peasants was obviously a joke but if British civilians try to take food supplies they will be shot, if Americans try it considered they have handguns I suspect they will just be blown up with tanks instead but the result will be the same

[Azathoth]

I would hope that asking the UK army to shoot starving UK civilians who were trying to get food would lead to lots of guns on the other side when the bulk of them deserted. Unsure how it would go in practice though

[MrJonno]

I would hope that asking the UK army to shoot starving UK civilians who were trying to get food would lead to lots of guns on the other side when the bulk of them deserted. Unsure how it would go in practice though

I would hope they did, it would be the morally correct thing to do, shoot a few, enforce rationing and that way you are saving the most number of lives

[Pappa]

I'm sorry to say, Jonno, but that is the picture you paint of yourself.

I am a net contributor to society I see nothing positive in the concept of being independent. To me independent is too often just code for arrogant piece of shit

Why is is that people so easily equate a difference in political outlook with defective personal qualities?

[Seth]

I, on the other hand, improvise, adapt and overcome because I spend my life learning how to do things like plumbing, electrical work, welding, shooting, carpentry, masonry, concrete-laying, horse doctoring, delivering calves, fixing tractors and trucks, growing crops, slaughtering animals, gutting and deboning and preparing said animals, hunting, fishing, flying, shooting, taking photographs, building radios, installing antenna systems, tactical movement and fieldcraft and a thousand other things I've troubled myself to learn how to do because when it comes to the narrow passage, I want to not just survive, I want to thrive

Fat lot of good that will do if you are living on the 15th floor of a block of flats, humanity is urban these days and is becoming more urban by the day. Most of us left rural life behind centuries ago and good riddance. I prefer to know the bus timetable its far more useful than knowing 'tactical movement'

Until the busses stop running and your very life depends on your skills at tactical movement in an urban environment to keep you away from those who will take everything you have, anally rape you, kill you and make jerky out of your flesh.

You know what that sort of "human" being calls you? "Lunch."

Or maybe something as simple as pissing off a bunch of drunken soccer hooligans at the pub who chase you down the street with the intent of beating you to death. Tactical movement training has all sorts of uses, not that I want YOU to learn any...we're better off if you end up being smoked and cured. Keeps the cannibals occupied while the smart among us move tactically to a place of safety.

[Seth]

But, see, the thing is, you HAVE taken the contingency measures, only they are natural to your way of life. Having a safe back-up level of food is one of the contingency measures the crazies take. Only, they live in suburbia, so they buy barrels of dried foods and stockpile clean water to give them some backup. You have animals and plants and excess food, so you're covered. If you were in the US, as a small farmer you'd probably have a rifle or shotgun to address varmints on your property. Another tool of the crazy paranoids. That sort of thing. You likely have a well, and can expect clean well-water if there is a problem. But, a person hooked up to city water needs to have bottled water available, or they will have to immediately start boiling. In other words, your life closer to nature means that you of necessity do some of the things that the so-called paranoid nutters are doing.

The first thing any government would do in a nation wide disaster is stop people leaving the cities, not like in Hollywood movies where everyone is encouraged/tries to leave.

You can't feed millions of people unless they are very close together, food is rationed and forces capable of stopping millions of hungry people taking it are available (redneck with shotgun is not sufficient)

Damned good reason not to be anywhere near a big city when the balloon goes up because there is absolutely no way the government can feed, say 12 million people in New York City. They couldn't feed 30,000 trapped in the stadium in New Orleans. And the military might be able to handle a small town, but not a city if the residents want to leave. It's just not possible.

By the way, it's very strange that ordering people to LEAVE New Orleans...and the Jersey Shore...was exactly what the government did. Doesn't fit with your rather more than a little faulty understanding of disaster preparedness and response.

The reason they would contain the population is to protect THE REST OF THE COUNTRY from hordes of rapacious refugees. That's precisely why they have created lots of "FEMA Camps" around the US that have chain link fences around them with barbed wire angled to prevent people from ESCAPING the facility. This allows them to incarcerate people (after disarming them) who might be a threat...such as infected citizens in a biological attack or plague.

[MrJonno]

New Orleans wasnt a nationwide problem, if the entire country falls apart its population concentrations that enable feeding

[Seth]

New Orleans wasnt a nationwide problem, if the entire country falls apart its population concentrations that enable feeding

Horseshit. It's population concentrations that will starve because the government isn't capable of feeding them if the entire country falls apart. The feds don't have enough food stored away to serve 12 million people even ONE full meal, much less 300 million.

Cities will become death zones where people eat anything alive, including other people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And Devil take the hindmost!

[Seth]

And Devil take the hindmost!

The Devil (or the cannibals) will take those who are not prepared to survive. That's their fault, not mine. I suggest they prepare, and I'll feel little sympathy for them if they get eaten because they refused to acknowledge the inherent risks in life and prepare for them. Stupidity is its own reward.