Survival Community: Justice in a WROL world?

We plan for losing the ability to purchase healthy food, losing access to water, health care and yes for bad guys coming down our street to loot or destroy, but eventually the fires will die down and we will have to restore our own semblance of society. In a worst case scenario, there will likely be no police force. We call this WROL (Without Rule of Law) You won’t have courts, lawyers, probation officers or detention centers paid for and run by taxpayer dollars. What happens when these legal process systems we have relied on to deal with the criminals among us are gone?
Justice when the grid goes down

Last Updated on March 26, 2015

As editor for the Prepper Journal, I think it’s fair to say that I might think of Doomsday more than a lot of people. I think all preppers do to varying degrees. I try to imagine a world on the other side of collapse; a future that is soaked in chaos and anarchy, of people on the edge of survival. I think about these things not because I am a deviant psychopath bent on seeing the world burn while I assume some throne atop the wreckage of civilization; I think about the worst our society can become so I am hopefully able to plan in some way for contingencies like this. I figure if I plan for the absolute worst case scenario I will have at least spent some brain-power now trying to figure out solutions to the challenges in my imagination. If nothing happens, that is perfectly fine but I don’t want to be shell-shocked and unable to act if something horrible really does happen. In reality, that may be what happens regardless, but I do consider mental practice a worthwhile exercise.

We talk about combating violence with violence on this blog a lot, but usually from the standpoint of protecting yourself, your home or your loved ones and that is a very real and tangible possibility even now. If you add some SHTF event on top of the regular evil in the world, I believe violence will become extremely more prevalent. We in the U.S. have been largely insulated from violence and war inside our borders anyway for a very long time. Strangely enough, the rest of the world has not. I believe it only takes the right scenario or chain of events for our nation to see tanks rolling down our streets, massive protests with hundreds injured or even killed in the name of ‘restoring order’, martial law, and many thousands arrested for dissent. I also think it is possible for the right trigger event to completely destroy all semblance of society and with it our understanding of law and order. When there are no rules anymore, what do you do?

When there is no more Rule of Law

As preppers we prepare for disasters and unplanned events of all shapes and sizes. I like to believe that the actions I take to be more prepared can be used for millions of different scenarios and enhance the lives of my family even if there are never any disasters. Just the other week, I was fortunate enough to put out a small fire in our home with one of the fire-extinguishers I had purchased expressly because I was thinking about living without the benefit of the fire department. This simple prep we made was able to potentially save our home from burning down. In this case, that small act of preparing for fire actually made me prepared to act in a way that protected my family for a situation I had planned for. Go Figure!

We plan for losing the ability to purchase healthy food, losing access to water, health care and yes for bad guys coming down our street to loot or destroy, but eventually the fires will die down and we will have to restore our own semblance of society. In a worst case scenario, there will likely be no police force. We call this WROL (Without Rule of Law) You won’t have courts, lawyers, probation officers or detention centers paid for and run by taxpayer dollars. What happens when these legal process systems we have relied on to deal with the criminals among us are gone?

At some point in the bleakest future we can imagine, maintaining the rule of law might be our responsibility. Your community might be the police force, the judge and in some cases, the executioner. Instead of protesting police, you may find yourself along with your neighbors in the role of dealing with the bad guys.

All crimes are not equal. Different punishments for different offenses will be wise.
All crimes are not equal. Different punishments for different offenses will be wise.

Crime and punishment when the grid goes down

We are a nation of laws and regardless of what you think about the particular laws, civil society needs rules to live by. To enforce the laws we have consequences and those are all sloppily handled by our local governments in various fashion. If you ask me there are entirely too many laws on the books now, but that’s an argument for another day. I do agree that some laws/rules are needed to keep everyone responsible or to hold people responsible for their actions. These will be no less important in a SHTF scenario, but your problem could be codifying the laws your community agrees on and identifying some process for carrying out justice when everything has gone to hell.

In this case I am referring to communities of people. When a group of people are together and relying on each other for mutual support, they will need to answer some questions if they want to formalize a process. Lone Individuals who are on their own will be ruled only by their own individual morals and ethics I think in a SHTF scenario. If you are living out on your remote piece of land and someone comes into your house at night, or is caught stealing some livestock, you will be left to your own devices I think in dealing with them.

In a community and maybe even in large families you will have to deal with consensus and agreement more so I believe unless you plan on running things like the Governor of Woodberry. In order for communities to get along, the rules will either need to be agreed upon or enforced under penalty of threat of violence. For the sake of this article, let’s assume your neighborhood has formed a small survival community, the worst of whatever disaster has passed and now you are trying to rebuild your own society piece by piece. This is TEOTWAWKI here, not some regional disaster that you would eventually recover from.

Justice in some cases may mean the death penalty.
Justice in a WROL world may mean the death penalty.

What could you possibly have to consider when it comes to the rules and laws of the community?

Who decides what the rules/laws are? – In a survival community, I don’t see anyone electing a single leader, but that could happen. There should be some form of leadership and this can be made up of several adults chosen by the group. The community should identify what rights this leadership has and the extents of any power provided to the leadership. No point in giving someone control over the community who will be a dictator.

What are your rules/laws? – This might sound easy at first, but over time it could become more complex without clear wisdom. I think it might make sense to deal with offenses against people first such as theft, injury or murder. These crimes may have clear-cut victims but for the sake of your conscious, a method of determining beyond a shadow of a doubt; the guilt or innocence of someone is key. You could start with the Bible and use elements of Levitical law, but that will set you up for harsh penalties that may not always seem fair. Do you really want to cut off someone’s hands for stealing? What if the person who stole was a child?

How are the rules shared with the survival community? – If you make a law/rule for your community you will have to ensure that everyone knows about the rules. You can’t simply say, the penalty for dumping poop near the stream is death and start killing people if they didn’t know the rules. Publish the rules in a common place and have a meeting with the community to go over all of the laws and give them a chance to offer feedback or ask questions.

How do you come up with penalties? – You can assume you won’t have access to a prison to incarcerate anyone as punishment for their crimes. Even if you did, you would have to spend resources feeding and taking care of the person. Punishment should be swift and effective so that the community isn’t burdened by the person who committed the crime. Could you make them spend the day in the stocks like they did as recently as the revolutionary war? For the penalty or punishment, this should be agreed well in advance so the rules come with penalties that are publicly known ahead of time by all members of the committee. Outsiders, if they are let in should be notified of the community rules immediately. Another reason to keep them simple.

Who will establish guilt or innocence? – I think an impartial party or group of people should be responsible for deciding guilt or innocence when it comes to punishment. This could be as simple as three people from the community who each get a vote after hearing the evidence. The people chosen could be different for each “Trial” to keep things fair.

How is punishment carried out? – I don’t think the people who decided the laws or a person’s guilt or innocence should be responsible for punishment. In the case of the death penalty, who will be the executioner? Who will slide the hangman’s noose around their fellow community member’s neck? This is not a job for a sick or vindictive individual. It should weigh heavily on anyone responsible with carrying out death in the name of justice.

As many problems as I have with the justice system in our country, I am not excited about the prospect of potentially being responsible for dispensing justice in my community. Again, this is an extremely bleak vision of a future that I don’t believe anyone wants, but topics like this do interest me with the potentials they highlight.

What about you? Have you thought about community rules and laws after a SHTF event?

18 comments
  1. oh wow. Way to take it to the next level Pat. Very much like the things our founding fathers (and dare I say it – mothers!!) had to consider.

    You might enjoy thinking about the Rules of Saint Benedict. Incredibly simple and workable for people of many backgrounds.

    If any one of us has been paying any kind of attention, we’ve watched so many potentially positive global movements devolve into deeply disturbing forms of rule of law. (there are a couple places on the planet right now that are giving me the serious heebie jeebies.) Is it alchemy to get the right thinkers together to come up with systems that mostly work?

    It’s worth considering: Is the intellectual work that it took to write the Constitution be something we as individuals be prepared to undertake if necessity forced us to do so? Even if it were for a relatively small community?

    What would any of us change?

    1. Thanks Elizabeth,

      I have been a little out-of-pocket this past week and the blog and my commenting has suffered. It should return to a more normal schedule now I hope.

      To your question: I don’t know if we as a society would have the intestinal fortitude to make the same decisions our forefathers did. I also don’t think even a minority of us would have the same wisdom they showed either. Not without a cataclysmic shift in the world, our beliefs, our ethics and our priorities. Sure, we might have some novel ideas to make the old constitution better in some areas, but I think we would miss the boat and water it down even further in our efforts.

      Pat

  2. As in the fiction book, “One Second After”, describing what life would be like in TEOTWAWKI, there came a time necessary in their community for some type of justice system. There were thieves, murderers and groups of sick, roving marauders to deal with. Evil must be dealt with. Even now truth is being compromised in our nation. “No one calls for justice, nor does anyone plead for truth. They trust in empty words and speak lies. They conceive evil and bring forth inequity. Justice is turned back. Righteousness stands afar off. Truth is fallen in the streets and equity cannot enter. The truth fails and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.” In other words you put a target on your back if you don’t go along with the political correctness or what the bible calls evil. Imho using God’s Word and biblical rules as a plumb line for truth, righteousness and justice would be a most excellent way for survivors of TEOTWAWKI. Neighborhood meetings, discussions of such before hand would be most advantageous. The question is…..will we do it?

    1. Madelyn,

      One Second After was definitely on my mind when I wrote this post. I love that book too and need to read it again. Currently I am reading Lucifer’s Hammer at the suggestion of Bolo and I can already see similar problems for the book’s cast to find ways of dealing with.

      Pat

    2. A theocracy imposing your religious beliefs upon everyone would not be welcome. There has to be a more ethical and humane way to deal with one another.

  3. Finally, I have some time to respond to this. Good thinking article.

    I think I differ in my thoughts on this than many preppers, and most definitely from most of society.

    For the past year I have been trying to put my thoughts on laws and governance of humans in an essay/treatise, but I’m having a lot of trouble staying on focus because I get sidetracked with every possibility under the sun; rather than defining and expounding upon the major tenets.

    I am a very firm believer in natural law, which comes from God (or from the very fact that you exist as a natural being if you don’t believe in God) and is supreme to any man-made law. My take on what that means is all humans have the right to exist and to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want so long as they do not physically harm others or the property of others, and so long as they do not deal fraudulently or coercively with others because those things take away the autonomy (informed, self-direction) of others.

    The biggest problem with this absolute freedom is human nature. We are selfish, we are dishonest, and we are violent. Person 1 and Person 2 might be able to live and let live and put their differences aside so long as the people remain reasonably physically separated and don’t compete over resources, or they may even get along swimmingly or symbiotically, but once Person 3 enters the picture all bets are off. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes described this as “the natural condition of mankind”, a state of constant warfare with fear as the biggest motivator. His is a dog-eat-dog world whereby every person is out to kill, maim, and conquer so as to attain the largest amount of resources to ensure survival. All competition (other living humans) is a lethal threat because all competition is after the same thing and view you as a lethal threat simply because you exist. In Hobbes’ world, we would kill each other to the last man.

    Hobbes postulated that the way mankind rises above his animal nature is to elect a “sovereign” who unites the people and provides strategy, logistics, and concentrated power and safety in exchange for permanently surrendering your liberty and right to choose/dissent “for the greater good.” This sovereign is judge, jury, and executioner by the whim of his will alone and he is capable of no wrongdoing because everyone surrendered their freedom to him to make these sorts of difficult choices.

    This might sound all well and good for those who freely entered into this agreement, but what if they wanted to change their mind? Changing one’s mind is treason against the sovereign and against the society to which one has become an immovable and vital cog in the machinery of daily life. To wish for a different life is to wish death upon all; to act towards freedom is to act towards the death of all and must be punished by death itself as the ultimate crime against society. This eternal slavery is known as the “social contract” and is extended to all born after the initial election of the sovereign because those born were only able to have been conceived due to the safety and security provided by the society which the benevolent sovereign has created. They are born indebted through no fault of their own. I vehemently reject the social contract with every fiber of my being.

    Our founding fathers fought a Revolution against such abuses and tyrrany; fought for the right of self-governance and limited government power. Today, our own nation operates in much the same way as those against whom we fought. We may technically have the right to vote and change things, but the criminality within the system is so entrenched as to be permanent except through extraordinary means. Only the names and faces change, not the game. We also technically have the right to go so far as to surrender our citizenship and move to another country, but those are run essentially the same – by an oligarchy demanding your obedience. Gone are the days when one could simply pack up and move into the wilderness and say “this, and all that I see are mine” and it would be so.

    Back to my original statement about natural law, when humans live in close proximity to one another they usually choose to give up certain freedoms for “the greater good” so as to attain an artificial peace whereby they are willing to be punished for violating arbitrary societal norms. All man-made laws are an imposition of morality. We may agree with the reason and the surrendering of liberty because we believe the end is justified, but what about those who disagree with the moral majority? Take speed limits as an example. In a school zone, I would say 99% of us agree that going 50 mph is a bad idea because we value our children and understand their limitations and poor decision making skills. We don’t want them killed under a car so we agree to limit our speed for their safety. A moral decision and a generally large consensus. But isn’t 25 mph arbitrary? Isn’t the fine of the ticket ultimately arbitrary? What if I agree with not speeding, but not with the punishment if I do?

    Now take those same speed limit laws on a busy thoroughfare. Perhaps the speed limit in your town is 35-45 mph but you know you’re capable of going 55 mph safely so you disregard the laws and do your own thing. According to the moral majority, you’re a criminal. I disagree. I believe you are a sovereign human acting as you see fit because it is your right to do so so long as you don’t harm people or their property and don’t deal fraudulently or coercively. Just because you “could” kill someone or wreck their car by going fast, in my mind, doesn’t justify limiting your rights and freedoms as a precautionary measure. You may voluntarily choose to limit your freedoms, but for others to force you to goes against natural law. It might piss others off, but you haven’t harmed them. I am not going to force my will upon others out of fear of the boogie man Hobbes argues we would all fall to without arbitrary laws and punishments.

    If you want to paint your house blue, go ahead. If you want to listen to your music blaring at 0430, go ahead. If you want to leave a car on blocks on your front lawn go ahead. These things may bother me, but they do not harm me. I have no right to demand you live the way I want you to live, just the same as you have no right to demand that I live the way you want me to live. Yes, I’m targeting nuisance laws here. It would be convenient if we got along, but neither of us has the right to force our will upon another as sovereign human beings. For one to force his ideas upon another is to reject his ability as an adult to self-determination. It is the epitome of arrogance and disregard for the rights of our fellow human beings. But modern society and laws do just this on a daily basis – they fine, beat, imprison, and kill those who don’t comply.

    The natural solution is to live distantly from other humans. If you can’t hear or see what I’m doing then you can’t be bothered by it, can you? This does not allow for strong government or grand civilization to be built – both of which I am ok with. I wouldn’t mind living distantly from others and hope to do so on a homestead, but I know that life isn’t for everyone – even throughout history people have flocked to the safety and convenience of cities. Cities will not go away, nor will the problems which arise from people with conflicting world views living in close proximity to one another.

    So how do we deal with those petty crimes against person and property (notice, I didn’t say nuisances or things which annoy us)? According to natural law we can’t deal fraudulently or coercively with others, but we do have a right to protect ourselves. In these situations where a person has harmed another or his property or dealt fraudulently or coercively with another, I believe (imposition of morality here) that a society has the right to banish those who commit such crimes, or to execute if the crime involves variations of murder, intentional serious bodily injury, or rape. etc.

    In lieu of banishment or execution a society may freely choose to allow for a criminal to voluntarily surrender himself for imprisonment or fine, but to forcibly hold (jail) him prisoner except to dispense justice is a form of kidnapping and slavery. And if said criminal doesn’t voluntarily submit to laws and punishments, the only naturally lawful route a group of people has to rely on (in my opinion) is to run them out of town and not let them back (or execution for the serious crimes) as a form of self-preservation.

    This form of minimal law (near-anarchy) probably isn’t ever going to be an effective reality (at least on a scale larger than a village), but I believe it to be the most respectful of the individual. Man has many rights which are trodden upon by government, and the only thing keeping the jackboot on everyman’s throat is threat of force via police and military. I am not against those institutions because I know the nature of the world is evil and there are many who will take advantage of and attack, enslave, and destroy those weaker than themselves, but when evil men make laws and foster a culture of disregard for liberty which empower those institutions to infringe upon the rights of free people, I believe it is time to wipe away those men, those institutions, those laws, and that culture to start anew.

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    1. Matt,

      You are a perfect example of why I say we have the smartest readers out there of any prepper blogs. Excellent and well thought out points and arguments as always.

      Could we ever get to a place like you mention? I think we would have to go through TEOTWAWKI for that and a population reduction of about 90% for us to all have enough space without worrying about forming together for protection.

      Pat

  4. There is only one perfect Law Book. It is the Bible. After TEOTWAWKI I would be in favor of a Bible based law. Citizens would have to agree to live according to the law or not become citizens. Only citizens could own property or vote. Once a citizen owned property, said property could not be taxed or seized by the state or any other person. Property rights would be the “First Law” and irrevocable by any future governing body. In fact a death penalty clause would be added to the law for any person so much as mentioning seizure or taxation of personal property. Corruption proven against any elected official, including going back upon a political promise or being caught in a lie would also carry the sentence of death.
    A non-citizen would not be subject to the law, but if they harmed a citizen they would be subject to the wrath of the state. It’s simple. Agree to live within the law or don’t live here. Let all people agree or leave, but don’t force people to live by any law that they don’t agree to. There will be plenty of other societies to choose from.
    Like Israel I would require all citizens to serve in the military male and female. Like Switzerland military grade weapons and ammunition would be issued at no cost to every citizen by the state along with a requirement to be proficient with that weapon and be tested annually.
    Finally, once the law was set, there could be no further laws written. There would be no need for congress or the house. The judicial would be elected by the citizenry and would hold absolute power over the executives actions. The executive would be elected by the citizenry and would be responsible for overseeing the enforcement of the law. The refusal to enforce the law, or the special treatment of any group would be a crime punishable by death. The military would consist of every citizen in the nation. The ranks would be determined by time served and merit. War could only be declared by a vote of 75% of the population.
    Just a few thoughts… Pie in the sky? We will see if TEOTWAWKI ever does happen and I happen to survive it, I will start a society of my own. If it grows it grows. If it fails, it was never meant to be.

    1. I can see how like-minded people would definitely enjoy that form of government as long as “First Law” required that people who lived a few hills over were free to live by their own laws as long as they weren’t harming anyone in that community (which I think you mentioned). …I’m of the ‘fewest number of rules possible’ type of person & think I’d look for people who wouldn’t mind having many different spiritual points of view in the community.

      1. Well for example the Levitical (Bible) Law for theft would require that the thief repay what he took plus 20%. No chopping off of hands (that’s Islam, not Bible BTW), no jail time, just repay the theft with a penalty. The penalty fits the crime. If you gouge out a man’s eye then yours would have to be gouged out. If you killed a man then you would be killed. Very simple and very just. Real common sense law! No more of this highest paid lawyer wins crap. No more legal double speak. The Levitical Law was written at a 6th grade level of understanding. It means what it says and says what it means. Trials would not last for years, they would be decided before the sun went down. No lawyers, just a plaintiff a defendant the witnesses and a few elected judges to weigh the outcome. Real justice delivered that day! If you were convicted of a capital crime the sentence would be carried out that day on the back steps of the courthouse. No death row, no housing and feeding convicted murderers and rapists, just put a bullet in their head right after the trial and bury them in a common grave that evening. Justice served. Done.

      2. “Like-minded people” is the key.

        The biggest problem, logistically speaking, in governing large groups of people is disparate world views and tolerances. The larger government gets, the more hamfisted its approach must be to pound the square peg in the round hole of universal blanket laws that negatively impact a region or regions because it was intended to be a specific fix in another locale.

        For example’s sake, we have about 320 million people in America. Who knows how to live best for each individual? The person or a group of delegates hundreds or thousands of miles away? Obviously, each person knows what is best for himself in his unique enclave, but if we had complete and total anarchy, we’d have 320 million governments running around. That chaos would not last.

        So let’s say we bump up the number of people covered under a government to a family of, on average, 5 people in it. The children” surrender freedom of action and choice for the experience/skills of the parents. It’s much like Hobbes’ concept of the sovereign, except that children grow up and can leave and the powers are not over large swathes of people. Still though, we would have 64 million governments in our country if this is where we drew the line.

        The next largest government grouping would be a neighborhood (HOA?). Let’s say, 50 houses, each with 5 people in them for a total of 250 people. (256,000 unique governments in our country, able to conflict with each other.) In our scenario Family A likes loud parties and Family B goes to bed at 1900 every night. Something’s got to give and the neighborhood finds a consensus that works for them which results in some or all of the people surrendering more freedoms for a common good. If Family A doesn’t like the laws they still have the opportunity to move to another neighborhood where folks can party till the wee hours.

        Going further, we combine neighborhoods into a “city” of say, 10,000 people. Now we have 25 different governments in place. There’s much less likelihood of one city going to war with another city because it’s easier for the 25 mayors to get together and hammer out issues, but what of the individual needs of the people? Because I live with 10,000 other people I may not be able to do anything I used to do when it was just me and 250 of my closest friends. While dumping my waste in a field and setting it on fire works great on my farm, the people in the high rise tenement can’t do it, so my way of life gets overruled “because its not fair” by a committee who never lived in the country.

        Laws have to be more generalized the broader we make our government umbrella in order to force disparate people into a nice, cozy fabricated peace. As government gets bigger and more removed, each person or group loses the ability to make specialized decisions regarding its own self-determination.

        I highly advocate smaller cities and rural living to avoid the nonsense that comes with being forced to live as others dictate. Things can be harmonious when everyone is on the same page and working towards the same goal. The downsides though are weak government and societal insulation which can lead to bigotry, xenophobia, and warfare. This doesn’t have to happen though if people can get off their high horses and stop demanding others live as they think they should. Will humanity rise to the occasion? Of course not, but there’s always hope.

        A good essay to read for anyone thinking about forcing beliefs or behaviors on others is “But I could be wrong” by George Sher. https://books.google.com/books?id=3M0xHAVZQnUC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=but+i+could+be+wrong+george+sher&source=bl&ots=Pc9mstNCzA&sig=Mjw56tUtc8ifSX5paTNOXb5rpHY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D-kYVe74Ic_qoATyxYLABQ&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=but%20i%20could%20be%20wrong%20george%20sher&f=false

  5. I posted a philosophical response to Justice in a WROL World two days ago and it has not been entered into this discussion. It contained no 4-letter words or insensitivity language. Are responses being edited and deleted at the whim of Pat Henry?

    1. Gary,

      I haven’t deleted anything and I checked my comment database and nothing with your email appears in there. It is possible something happened when you originally posted but it looks like your latest attempt was successful.

      Thanks for adding to the dialog.

      Pat

  6. I will try again to post my response:

    So, we should go to the bible for advice on how to organize a society and deal with
    its problems! For the last 2000 years and far longer, violence has been both the
    solution and the problem in dealing with crime and punishment. Have the
    solutions of the past resulted in less crime or better morality of members of a
    society. They have not and it can be argued that we have more crime today per
    capita than ever before. Stoning, crucifixion, hanging, shooting, gassing…all
    an eye for an eye. They do not solve the problem of crime but merely perpetuate
    and increase the amount of violence in the society.

    How can you think about organizing a rational society if you have not read Andrew Galambos, Murray Rothbard, M. & L. Tannehill, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Harper and many others? The solutions are well known by those willing to learn from those intellectuals who have spent their lives studying and writing about an alternative to
    violence? Most recognized that moral solutions to crime cannot and will not
    evolve within the all-powerful state. But communities without the state are
    what you will have with TEOTWAWKI. That will be the opportunity to organize a
    society based on the principle of total property sanctity, not a bunch of
    arbitrary man-made laws.

    Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has total (i.e. 100%) control over their own property. Property is individual man’s life and all
    non-procreative derivatives of his life. Any solution to crime must not
    interfere with the property of the criminal or you have forfeited the freedom
    which you seek. You say the criminal must be punished, detained and prohibited
    from future crimes…that you have to have laws created by men to which everyone
    agrees…that breaking those laws may mean you will pick someone to kill that
    person! That is not a free society. Self defense is moral. Killing someone who
    has broken a man-made law is not moral.

    The only moral solution to crime is to require full restitution from someone who interferes with another’s property, or they starve. If you do not understand that,
    read The Market for Liberty by Tannehill, or The Libertarian Manifesto by
    Rothbard. This is not the forum to teach morality based on total property
    sanctity. But please do not preach that repeating methods used in the past
    including those in the bible will create a better world in which to live. They
    did not create freedom with justice for all…and they will not.

    1. I am not sure I understand, although truth be told I haven’t read any of the books you mention. In your scenario, what is supposed to happen if someone in the TEOTWAWKI community breaks into a home and rapes a small girl?

  7. THE BIBLE was the best law book ever written,but of course americans are to well educated to read a book they hate,and are to stupid to know why they hate it,considering THEY’VE NEVER READ IT……..but it don’t matter anymore now,america used to go by the BIBLES LAWS,then they decided being queers and fagots,and commie traitors, was more fun,so it was abandoned and now the whole country has turned to shit,and americans are truly happy now,HEY you guys YOUR GOING TO LOVE IT IN HELL,you can hang out with your new DADDY satan every day…….AND GOOD LUCK IN YOUR NEW HOME…………

  8. In the 299 Days fictional series, the main character, Grant (who was an attorney who prepped) help set up a law-enforcement & legal system in a small town/ rural area. They had a trained shooting team that had practiced shooting & team-work maneuvers b4 shtf, & became the law enforcement team of the sm community. They even set up a simple justice system w/ a judge & jury, although that was used only occassionally, b/c after a few initial times & one “death penalty” by hanging, people knew that justice was nearby & lived w/ people fairly.

    299 Days is a 10 book series by Glen Tate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *