Zuckerberg's bunker plans fuel speculation on billionaires building bunkers

You don't really get to accuse anyone else of comic book logic while missing basics like that.

Their whole point with the bunkers and stockpiles is that those assets don't need the state to be valuable and confer power and security. The asset itself provides the power and security that the state no longer does.

And they don't need the state to define and assert who is the owner and protect the asset. They use one asset to protect another asset.

They get other people to work for them the same way people have always done.

Or it's better exposed by phrasing from the other direction: People participate in organizations for the same reason they always have. They get something they want from it. At the top and at the bottom it's both just variations of the same thing which is the structure gives them safety that they can't get on their own. And they overwhelmingly value that more than freedom.

At the top they defend the leader because the leader is what grants the legitimacy of their own high position within the organization. I don't mean that they think the leader comes from god and actually has some higher authority and right to grant other authority, I mean as a #3 or #12 etc, you have a much easier time justifying your own position and authority and privilege when it came from some larger structure. It removes the focus and blame from yourself. So you love the structure and you defend it and enforce for it and rat out any subversive talk you overhear about it etc.

At the lower end, a lot of people, maybe even most people, value the safety of being within any structure way more than the freedom of being outside it. They don't have to like the guy at the top at all.

Why do you abide by civilized norms right now? Everyone in an apartment building could totally overpower the landlord at any time. 50 to 1 no contest. The biggest problem really is just getting the others to go along, but let's say the landlord is such a dick that you manage it. So the next problem is what, the police will come and you'll all go to jail? But what makes the police do that? Why do they agree to follow orders from just one pudgy little chief?

It's no different "after the fall" just at a smaller scale. The big structure broke down, but most people still want what it provided and will latch on to whatever smaller structure is available to replace it, and it's all the same interlocking dynamics of everyone holding each other in place, not any one magic person holding everyone else in place by mind force or something.

Even if the actual guy at the top is detestable, they will be surrounded by people who benefit from having that guy at the top. Do you really think all the politicians who supported Trump actually considered him superior to themselves? They universally think they themselves are superior to everyone else. Yet there they all were defending him like crazy, for years.

In fact his security would be the ones with all the power, he would have none.

1. pick guards he likes and who like him,

2. be really nice to them,

3. make peace with becoming their peer after the apocalypse.

He can probably buy survival, but he can't keep his power after the legal system (and his money) is useless. I'm guessing the required characteristics of post-apocalyptic warlord and a tech CEO have important areas of non-overlap. Zuckerberg certainly lacks the necessary charisma.

Edit: Here it is: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep...

> ...Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” The event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, solar storm, unstoppable virus, or malicious computer hack that takes everything down.

> This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from raiders as well as angry mobs. One had already secured a dozen Navy Seals to make their way to his compound if he gave them the right cue. But how would he pay the guards once even his crypto was worthless? What would stop the guards from eventually choosing their own leader?

> The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers – if that technology could be developed “in time”.

Personally, I think there needs to be a citizen mapping project to document the precise location of these billionaire bunkers, to make sure the quantity of looters in an apocalypse will overwhelm any guard force.

The oligarchs and plutocrats might have the collective power to put out that fire, but they'd rather take a fire escape. I say that, but I bet they donate more to different causes than I'll see in a lifetime. So -- who am I to fault them for hedging their bets right?

Yes, I noticed my typo and fixed it.

We're entertaining actions the rich take in preparation for a societal meltdown: build a bunker vs build a community. They take them now (hence the article).

Starting to build a bunker (or a community) in a post-apo world would indeed be a little too late for Mr. Zuckerberg & co.

> A really serious plan would be to stockpile goods/food/a means of production

You need loyal people first and foremost. Leadership and trust. Otherwise disloyal people (historically, your own guards / companions) take whatever you've stockpiled. Yours is that Grade B strategy I was talking about.

Your "goods/food/a means of production" are only useful insofar other powers uphold the overarching social structures & rules. To the extent that premise is fulfilled, I'd call such meltdown only a minor temporary hiccup. Beyond that, your stockpile and remote fortress is not much use. You need loyal people.