"Bunker" Mentality.

[bulldog75]

It would probably be advisable to at least talk to them and find out information. They would be a great source of intel but they may be trying to decieve you also. Hard question to answer until faced with it.

[tombogan03884]

The way it was handled in Rawles book was they conducted a search and field interrogation of every one who came along.
When they finally started linking up with other groups, initial meetings were held on neutral ground.

[bulldog75]

Neutral ground that my friends can cover with a .308

[tombogan03884]

Not a very "Trusting" sort are you ?   

[bulldog75]

Nope.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

What y'all are dancing around, but haven't named, is the breakdown of trust. Communities, as Rastus notes are made up of those of like minds or goals. Yet how are you to know who is who in a TEOTAWKI scenario? This board is an example.We are an intentional community, built on shared principles and interests.  We (even me, Eric and TAB) are folks we can trust. But, it is a community built on a very fragile infra-structure. Turn off the net and we are on our own. In order to thrive, not just survive in your own private Alamo, trust needs to be built. This is the big question. How do you do it? Rastus and I disagree on small stuff, on the big things, we would get along if we had to. How do we decide to round file small things? How do we decide which refugee wuld be a useful member? These questions are what I study for  living as a political scientist and darned if I know the answers.
FQ13

[bulldog75]

I am not saying that I dont trust fellows from this board, but you live far away from me and our chance meeting in that scenario is limited. It is most of my neighbors that I do not trust because they may be a little liberal and I take them as a threat.

What y'all are dancing around, but haven't named, is the breakdown of trust. Communities, as Rastus notes are made up of those of like minds or goals. Yet how are you to know who is who in a TEOTAWKI scenario? This board is an example.We are an intentional community, built on shared principles and interests.  We (even me, Eric and TAB) are folks we can trust. But, it is a community built on a very fragile infra-structure. Turn off the net and we are on our own. In order to thrive, not just survive in your own private Alamo, trust needs to be built. This is the big question. How do you do it? Rastus and I disagree on small stuff, on the big things, we would get along if we had to. How do we decide to round file small things? How do we decide which refugee wuld be a useful member? These questions are what I study for  living as a political scientist and darned if I know the answers.
FQ13

[fightingquaker13]

I am not saying that I dont trust fellows from this board, but you live far away from me and our chance meeting in that scenario is limited. It is most of my neighbors that I do not trust because they may be a little liberal and I take them as a threat.

I'm a little liberal, but I'll show up at your door with a lot of supplies, a bunch of guns, survival skills and old school values when it comes to taking care of your own. If it ever comes to this, politics are over, no one with a brain will give a damn about abortion or gay mariage. It will be  about protecting the "tribe" and being useful.
FQ13

[bulldog75]

I'd welcome you, but not my neighbor across the street he hates my guts and I hate his.

I'm a little liberal, but I'll show up at your door with a lot of supplies, a bunch of guns, survival skills and old school values when it comes to taking care of your own. If it ever comes to this, politics are over, no one with a brain will give a damn about abortion or gay mariage. It will be  about protecting the "tribe" and being useful.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

What y'all are dancing around, but haven't named, is the breakdown of trust. Communities, as Rastus notes are made up of those of like minds or goals. Yet how are you to know who is who in a TEOTAWKI scenario? This board is an example.We are an intentional community, built on shared principles and interests.  We (even me, Eric and TAB) are folks we can trust. But, it is a community built on a very fragile infra-structure. Turn off the net and we are on our own. In order to thrive, not just survive in your own private Alamo, trust needs to be built. This is the big question. How do you do it? Rastus and I disagree on small stuff, on the big things, we would get along if we had to. How do we decide to round file small things? How do we decide which refugee wuld be a useful member? These questions are what I study for  living as a political scientist and darned if I know the answers.
FQ13

That's why you want to have your home as fitted out for survival as possible, the less reason you have to leave the better, you have spent years learning who is who and what is what in your own vicinity, It's part of why I go downtown for coffee every day, it's a place to meet the locals on neutral ground, the regulars all know each other, maybe not by name, but by face, and since I'm not shy about throwing comments into the others conversations, they know where I stand on most things.
Every where I live I pick one restaurant to frequent, it becomes the place "where every one knows my name " and gives me an introduction to locals I would not have met other wise, the out going Mayor for example, is a regular at lunch time.
It's kind of simple, if it isn't worth dying over, then it gets filed under agree to disagree, because that might be the result of not pooling your resources, But that is only the case with some one you already know. Strangers aren't trusted until proven by acts.
FQ, you will never reach a practical  answer by "studying" it. You have to go into the real world and LIVE it. That's why you and I seldom agree on things, you "study" human interactions, I get out and experience them OUTSIDE of a structured setting of a class room. Once a person has the 3 R's down and knows where to go for reference material, (Library, or Internet ) a classroom has little or no practicle information to offer.
As an example, BO has a whole bunch of college educated advisers, and he says he's going to "spend us back to prosperity".
Any one who has ever balanced a check book knows that that is sheer idiocy.