(upd 4/22/17) Article - Bug-out or Bug-in Discussion

[ken_]

I agree with 230gr's definition of Mutual Assistance Group, but I'd prefer one set up as a democratic republic vs a democracy. I agree that participation is really important. What I've seen in my short time is, what is participation? Is it showing up once a month for a meeting? Does it mean everyone in the group agrees to buy the same gun, radio, water treatment/purification system, etc? Train together? Physical fitness standards?

Just as important to me is shared values, and how much do I actually like hanging out with them. If it's a guy, would I trust him alone with my daughter or my wife? If it's a gal, would I trust her alone with my son? Would I trust myself alone with her? Do they do lots of things that really annoy me? Do I do lots of things that really annoy them? Not to say that I'm right and they're wrong or vice versa, just that any one group might not be a good fit for any one person. I like Jerry's point about multiple groups with mutual assistance agreements.

[TWP]

My guess (and life experience) is that it is easier to get along with a small number of people than to try to fit into a larger group.

With more people, you get a wider range of personalities, preferences, and opinions.  It is also more difficult to agree on a "leader" or command structure.  Some people will simply not be comfortable when expected to subordinate.   It might be the military model, which has worked for large groups, but will also cause the "lone-wolf" or individualist to back away.  Even the "lone-wolf" has a set of guidelines within which they operate...

I prefer the "constitutional republic" form of organization.  This is not the same as a "democratic republic".  "Democracy" has gotten a lot of bad PR in the last few decades.  I find that many people who claim that a "Democracy" or "Democratic" organization may not mean the same thing when it comes time to act as a group member.

The "constitutional" part of organization is important (IMO) because it means there is an agree-upon set of rules or guidelines within which the group agrees to operate.  Do note that it might NOT be the U.S. Constitution, but it is formalized and recognized by group members.

So, in my unhumble opinion, smaller groups are better, giving a better chance of success.  Particularly if multiple small groups are able to cooperate.   The alternative is a kind of "tribal warfare"...

Much depends on the resources available in an area.  A large group will rapidly deplete resources and likely fall apart.  Smaller groups may be better able to survive on local resources.

[230gr]

I'd prefer one set up as a democratic republic vs a democracy.

Could you define that as it applies to a Mutual Assistance Group Mutual Assistance Group Mutual Assistance Group? For instance, for each family (or whatever sub-group you’re dealing with) would choose a voting representative rather than have every adult member vote? That would make since to me.   

what is participation? showing up once a month for a meeting? ….buy the same gun, radio, water treatment/purification system, etc? Train together? Physical fitness standards?

Train together..maybe as to the rest, my experience says, that will be tough under a loose construct like a MAG. Desirable yes but most preppers have very defiant views on fire arms and equipment.   

shared values, …do I actually like hanging out with them. If it's a guy, would I trust him alone with my daughter or my wife? do lots of things that really annoy me?

Now you are sounding like forming a Type 3 Survival Group! That needs much more structure, SOPs and a governing body…and yes, they will do lots of things that really annoy each other; nature of the beast (humanity), IMO.

I like Jerry's point about multiple groups with mutual assistance agreements.

So do I! it is not only the most practical but very likely to happen that way.

[ken_]

I'd prefer one set up as a democratic republic vs a democracy.

(1) Could you define that as it applies to a Mutual Assistance Group Mutual Assistance Group Mutual Assistance Group? For instance, for each family (or whatever sub-group you’re dealing with) would choose a voting representative rather than have every adult member vote? That would make since to me.   

what is participation? showing up once a month for a meeting? ….buy the same gun, radio, water treatment/purification system, etc? Train together? Physical fitness standards?

(2) Train together..maybe as to the rest, my experience says, that will be tough under a loose construct like a MAG. Desirable yes but most preppers have very defiant views on fire arms and equipment.   

shared values, …do I actually like hanging out with them. If it's a guy, would I trust him alone with my daughter or my wife? do lots of things that really annoy me?

(3) Now you are sounding like forming a Type 3 Survival Group! That needs much more structure, SOPs and a governing body…and yes, they will do lots of things that really annoy each other; nature of the beast (humanity), IMO.

I like Jerry's point about multiple groups with mutual assistance agreements.

So do I! it is not only the most practical but very likely to happen that way.

1. I meant constitutional republic, not democratic republic - I think. Some things could be voted on but some things are just given and would not open to discussion or vote. Politics is not my strong point so I might not be clearly stating what I want to on this...

2. I understand that people want what they want, but in a group situation it makes sense if everyone has a gun that uses common ammo, a common radio type so anyone can operate anyone else's radio, etc. Probably be a really good idea if everyone knew first aid, etc. as well. None of this would be 'forced' because no one would be forced to join the group.

3. I'm thinking more like a community. I'm also not good with analogies, but look at say, 4H. 4H is a group that has a set of core beliefs. Within 4H, their are various clubs based on location, shared expectations, general interests, etc. Within each 4H club, there are project groups based on specific interests and higher expectations of participation and commitment. For example, raising a pig requires a lot more commitment and participation than going out and taking pictures.

What I'm trying to do is meet as many preppers as I can. Hopefully, some of those will share general ideas on what to prep for and how to prep for it. Among those that do, some will share more specific goals and other interests. That's the hope anyway... I'd rather be part of a local network of like minded people than part of a Type 3 survival group.

[Jerry D Young]

I am going to be rather more contrary to that, and obviously controversial.

As it is a group set up to prepare for, deal with, and prosper after disasters from minor to major, I prefer a much stricter formal organizations. It will not appeal to very many, and that is just fine. Most will see the initial words and dismiss it out of hand. But if read fully and understood, it will be obvious that not only could it work, it has worked in the past in many places very well, for long periods of time. It does take into account what many will feel to be its biggest weaknesses, though many will not see it that way. And it is just my opinion.

My thoughts on a MAG or group organization:

It would amount to a benevolent monarchy, with whomever becomes the natural leader of the group having the last word in all things. But there would be guidelines such as Rules of Organization based on the US constitution, with a Bill of Rights based on the Ten Commandments, the US Bill of Rights, and the Golden Rule, tailored to a monarchy.

The leader would have two small groups of advisors, those he/she selects, plus a group elected by the other members of the group.

The leader can be changed by a seven-eighths majority decision by opinion vote, or seven-eighths advisor group vote. Open elections would be held to decide the new leader.

All adult members capable of doing so would be required to participate in the various activities required to keep the group safe and sustainable. Those doing so will gain the right to vote in elections and other situations that require a vote, as well as participate in the opinion polls the leader and his/her advisors will conduct to help them make decisions for the group.

Individuals, couples, and families would have to meet requirements set up by the group before being accepted into to the community.

Any conflicts would be resolved through the processes set up in the Rules of Organization, which in my case would be arbitration with an arbitrator selected by the leader or the group, if the leader so choses. Then a regular judicial process. The leader would have final say on all actions.

Just my opinion.