Except we were specifically talking about 'authority' that was non-governmental. So, knowing what you are, how you are... in a real disaster I strongly suspect you would *be* one of those local self-organizers that Yogi is talking about and you are so paranoid of. And that would be a good thing, if everything really went to shit, your local community would probably be better off if you were one of the people who stepped up and, well, led.Netpackrat wrote:Given the number of people already in positions of authority, who feel entitled to the resources of others, I think it's totally reasonable to be suspicious of any who would appoint themselves the arbiters of resource allocation during times of trouble. And I think that to assume that there would not be a movement, favoring confiscation of resources from those who planned ahead, somewhat naive.Greg wrote:I honestly saw no menace there, that it was a reference to voluntary resource pooling, both from outside acquisition and internal donations.
Which means it's time for a The Last Centurion reference. Bottom-up community self-organization is enormously powerful, and yet many can't comprehend it. Those that can't tend to be undesirable, either evil or parasites, or both.
And you really ought to read the book I mentioned. It's more eloquent than I could be about the difference between... there are a couple different possible ways to say it. Say between useful people and useless people. And communities function better than individuals, especially communities composed of useful (or at least led by useful) people.