ACers on an island

[Nielsio]

The ACers from this board decide to go on a cruise together.




They all have a wife and some children.

While out to sea a nuclear world war breaks out and all the countries are destroyed and uninhabitable (radiation, etc).

The one island they encounter is the only inhabitable place left. The island is 2500 by 2500km in size and has all kinds of resources.


What is going to happen in terms of society, economics, organization, order, arbitration, security and so on?

How does this change/evolve for population sizes of:

- 15 families

- 1000 families

- 300.000 families





Mind you: the initial population are all rational, non-theist, non-statist people with a solid understanding of fundamental and technical knowledge of reality.


***Edit//Jman220: Please post all further discussion of this topic HERE

[ConstantineX]

pvn seizes power and enacts himself dictator-for-life.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn seizes power and enacts himself dictator-for-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

They hit the fat kid in the head with a rock, I've seen this one before.

[ConstantineX]

Well, a comittee would be first formed to decide the law. Law would be probably common law, with key provisions for things like homesteading and arbitration. More likely the ACists would live in a shared community looking for food to take advantage of economies of scale. 1000 families would be the turning point.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, a comittee would be first formed to decide the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah right. This will not be a long meeting.

First Speaker: "You just leave me the hell alone and I'll leave you alone."

All Together: "Agreed."

[ConstantineX]

I see. So ACists aren't allowed to form mutually beneficial groups and courts.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I see. So ACists aren't allowed to form mutually beneficial groups and courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're allowed to do anything they want. They may choose to form mutually beneficial groups. There is no way they agree to a court system (in my opinion). IMO, they would seek out arbitrators as needed.

[ConstantineX]

Why not? There are certainly smart enough people who could agree to basic systems of property law, like homesteading. And we'd like to decide these things before there are entrenchd interests like the Coconut Fuel Company.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I see. So ACists aren't allowed to form mutually beneficial groups and courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they are, but they can't force those who don't want in to participate, which is what laws are for.

[latefordinner]

So you think that "leave me alone and I'll leve you alone" is the pinnacle of efficiency? I agree that most people would likely choose to live in some sort of community which would of course involve various discussion about the norms and rules for living in that community.

The less people there are, the more likely that they decide to make more decisions communally, rather than individually.

I doubt there would be much need for a court system, as there would be an immediate visceral understanding that "we are all in this together" that would result in fairly strong social ties and kinship groups.