Fortitude Ranch

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

If their was an affordable ranch that you beloved suited your needs would you join

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
groups depend on who is in them, either family or people one has known for many, many years, about 20 -30 years minimum.
expecting complete strangers to join your group or community post collapse is not only foolhardy it could be fatal.
without having people you can trust, solo or small family groups will be the only option.
don't expect there to be a huge pool of labour you can pick from because once the power goes down and the supermarket shelves are empty the mortality rate is going to be huge.
 
Last edited:
I have a different mindset than most here. I’ve actually always thought it was a good idea to be in a group. You said people are assets, and I couldn’t agree more. You can accomplish so much more collectively than you can alone. A lot of the objections brought up are valid points to consider and should be thought out for the best solution available, but with planning and effort I think a community is a smart idea. Security alone is a huge weakness for a small family group. Having numbers to rotate people for patrols and watch would make it a lot less easy to attack. I think most of the negative points brought up are going to be the same for small groups as it is for a larger one. The larger one has more resources and manpower to deal with issues though. Overall I feel the benefits of being in a community outweigh the risks of being on your own. I think a religious free, democratic run group would have a lot of potential. No neegan in charge, no Jim’s passing out coolaid, but one where the group makes decisions. One other thing I believe is solar is a better power option. It is silent and has less moving parts, simpler is more reliable. As far as not producing after dark, well, without cable tv and the internet, nighttime would quickly revert back to time for snuggling and sleeping.
A democratic run group free of religion? That's that opposite of what you need. You need people that think alike and that have morals. You need a leader, you will not and I mean will not survive by a democratic committee. having a committee or council of the most respected and trusted of the group is good, but one such person will have to make the decisions and lead. The rest of the council advises the leader.
You need religion to form a common moral bond, not anything fanatical as your examples.
 
A democratic run group free of religion? That's that opposite of what you need. You need people that think alike and that have morals. You need a leader, you will not and I mean will not survive by a democratic committee. having a committee or council of the most respected and trusted of the group is good, but one such person will have to make the decisions and lead. The rest of the council advises the leader.
You need religion to form a common moral bond, not anything fanatical as your examples.
I have a moral code without religion. It’s called a conscience and knowing right from wrong. I do somewhat agree with having a smaller council to vote for the whole group. Taking a poll on every issue would be a waste of time. Not sure if I agree on one person being in charge though. Egos tend to get overinflated, and I believe several minds together make better decisions than just one.
 
I have a moral code without religion. It’s called a conscience and knowing right from wrong. I do somewhat agree with having a smaller council to vote for the whole group. Taking a poll on every issue would be a waste of time. Not sure if I agree on one person being in charge though. Egos tend to get overinflated, and I believe several minds together make better decisions than just one.
You think you developed your moral code without the influence of religion? One leader is needed to make fast decisive decisions. The group chooses who there leader is to make decisions for them. Any decisions that are not time sensitive can be decided by committee.
 
I don’t think any of us have a Chrystal ball and know exactly how any scenario will actually play out. There’s just too many variables. I think there will be a lot of desperate and hungry people that would want to join the stability and safety of a community. Drawing on the talent and skills of some of them would be wise. Of course there would have to be some kind of vetting before just letting anyone in and also some sort of punishment for anyone not following rules etc. all I can say for sure is to keep an open mind, be flexible and at least listen to others ideas, and adapt the best you can to any new situations. I hope I don’t have to deal with such things in my lifetime but am pretty certain the lifestyles we are used to will change before too long.
 
You think you developed your moral code without the influence of religion? One leader is needed to make fast decisive decisions. The group chooses who there leader is to make decisions for them. Any decisions that are not time sensitive can be decided by committee.
I think having an acting manager sounds better than leader. (Still have visions of neegan here). I do agree someone needs to be running the place on a daily basis though with the ability to make momentary decisions.
 
I don't need a crystal ball, I have history to see what the future could become. I hope you don't have to deal with such things either, you don't have enough of an idea how to handle such a situation. Sometimes people act automatically and make the right decisions no matter there sheeple programming, when there life is on the line, I hope you are such a person.
 
and how the heck can you vet somebody you don't know? what they tell you could be an outright lie.
"if you don't know then then don't trust them".
I guess that’s where the having a system to punish ones that don’t follow the rules comes into play. Would I let someone in the group and give them a loaded weapon on day one? Probably not.
 
punish? how? this is getter bizarre now.
don't ban them or ostrasize them or they'll come back with a mob of similar types and you'll have a fight on your hands.
you wont have facilities to imprison them and its wasted labour anyway.
you'll have to forgive them or hang them.
 
punish? how? this is getter bizarre now.
don't ban them or ostrasize them or they'll come back with a mob of similar types and you'll have a fight on your hands.
you wont have facilities to imprison them and its wasted labour anyway.
you'll have to forgive them or hang them.
I think in desperate times corporal punishment will be needed. Hanging certainly deterred crime in the early west here, I’m sure it could work again. I agree with banishment. Might make an enemy that knows your layout. I feel that ways now though. If someone is bad enough to be imprisoned for life, why not just go ahead and get it over with.
 
Funny we discuss the thread but the original poster seems to be missing. A community formed before the SHTF may work, and I say MAY in big capital letters. A community formed after the SHTF is doomed. You cannot screen, test and know anybody after the event. Some kind of test, may have to or any of the other uncertain platitudes will not work. Morals are taught by society which is mostly founded on religious teaching. Nobody and I mean nobody is born with any morals. Humans are simply animals with the ability to learn and be taught at a higher level. Humans left to them selves, will eat each other.

Governance by committee is subject to "Paralysis by Analysis" or in plane speak --- All Talk - No Action. Every group that plans to succeed, must have a leader to end the debate and make th final decision. I t is fine to have a committee to present idea's and concepts but there must be one person to make the final decision and keep things moving. The only problem with Neegan was he was psychotic. He did get things done and could have pulled the communities together. Before you can have a community, there has to be clear and enforceable structure. Defined leadership, defined Laws. defined penalties for braking laws and an enforcement arm to make sure these structures are maintained. How is the leader going to be chosen? How are grievances settled and by whom and by what method? Too many concepts and details to resolve after a SHTF event. That is the reason i always say family unit, simply all those or at least most of those issues have already been resolved.
 
I have a different mindset than most here. I’ve actually always thought it was a good idea to be in a group. You said people are assets, and I couldn’t agree more. You can accomplish so much more collectively than you can alone. A lot of the objections brought up are valid points to consider and should be thought out for the best solution available, but with planning and effort I think a community is a smart idea. Security alone is a huge weakness for a small family group. Having numbers to rotate people for patrols and watch would make it a lot less easy to attack. I think most of the negative points brought up are going to be the same for small groups as it is for a larger one. The larger one has more resources and manpower to deal with issues though. Overall I feel the benefits of being in a community outweigh the risks of being on your own. I think a religious free, democratic run group would have a lot of potential. No neegan in charge, no Jim’s passing out coolaid, but one where the group makes decisions. One other thing I believe is solar is a better power option. It is silent and has less moving parts, simpler is more reliable. As far as not producing after dark, well, without cable tv and the internet, nighttime would quickly revert back to time for snuggling and sleeping.
In an ideal world, this would be true. Everyone would work altruistically together for the good of the group as whole, and society would run smoothly. It would be beautiful and simple. It's actually the Marxist ideal of a communist society (after they get done with all the killing of the rich people, of course). But that is an idealist fantasy, and in a post-SHTF world, it will be even further from reality than it is today. And the larger the group, the more moving parts, and the more potential for failure, which is why smaller groups may be better after SHTF, especially initially.
 
In an ideal world, this would be true. Everyone would work altruistically together for the good of the group as whole, and society would run smoothly. It would be beautiful and simple. It's actually the Marxist ideal of a communist society (after they get done with all the killing of the rich people, of course). But that is an idealist fantasy, and in a post-SHTF world, it will be even further from reality than it is today. And the larger the group, the more moving parts, and the more potential for failure, which is why smaller groups may be better after SHTF, especially initially.

Very well Stated.
 
and how the heck can you vet somebody you don't know? what they tell you could be an outright lie.
"if you don't know then then don't trust them".
I hire people and I know better to trust them before I complete my vetting process. We do extensive reference and background checks, as well as interviewing and even probationary training before a permanent offer is extended, and still people manage to stab us in the back. I don't know how many times we were considering hiring someone until we discovered an extensive criminal history, shady employment record, or drug problem. After SHTF we won't have the benefit of these resources. I certainly will not be trusting strangers.
 
that's exactly my point, post SHTF it will all be different, not like it is now, you make your choices and take your chances, a bad mistake could be fatal.
Just because we both paid money to the same "prepper farm" pre-SHTF doesn't mean we're not strangers after.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top