Conflicted Tuesday

conflicted 300x140 Conflicted Tuesday

We have worked out an exclusive deal with the publishers of the survival card game “Conflicted” where we will be posting one question per week from the deck for open discussion here on TheSurvivalistBlog.net.

You can buy your own Conflicted Deck here and play it with your friends and family…

Okay here we go…

A human trafficker’s caravan arrived at the local trading outpost, offering ammunition, food and water in exchange for prisoners. You have three families as prisoners, the husbands and wives tried to loot your camp but fell into your hands. These prisoners require 30% of your supplies and manpower to look after them, the people in your camp are growing tired of sharing the little food you have. You can’t replenish your supplies at this time without placing people at considerable risk. Everyone is looking to you, as a leader, to make the right decision. Would you sell the families and their kids or not? Why?

Looking forward to the discussion in the comments below…

my family survival

Comments

  1. Nebraska Woman says:

    Never. I will meet my maker some day, and I have enough sins to atone for. I would not sell people into bondage.
    That being said, wouldn’t there be a way to make these people work for their food or teach them the skills necesssary?
    Off topic: another reason to have a BOB. Castleton, No. Dak. One of Warren’s trains exploded, and people need to get out of town. Keep your tanks full also.

    • j.r. guerra in s. tx. says:

      Very difficult question to answer – their are many layers to this onion . . .

      Amen to the Nebraska Woman 9:20 a.m. above. I own no one, no one owns me.

      Ronald 9:44 a.m. reasoning to me sounds good, I would tell them no 2nd chance if they come back looking – their good luck is used up here. Spacing out their release would lessen their chance of meeting back with their former partners.

      Killing them on the spot? I cannot see the reason for killing a child who was dragged along with their parent. Their parents made the choice, not them. Leaving them to survive on their own – a death sentence, likely suffering before they die. Keep them – sounds like a future revenge killing to me.

  2. No-I can’t sell another person into slavery. I will set them free(one family per week) after they learn (by working) how to survive.

  3. No trading. It would be a “learn and work or leave”…and they wouldn’t be leaving with much that would be helpful to them to come back and bother me.

  4. Although I disagree with slavery and human trafficking, I also have to consider my own family and friends, the ones who are looking to me for answers. These people attempted to steal food out of the mouths of my children. If, and only if, they were professional looters (meaning their only means of subsistence was stealing from others) and I had a feeling they would have killed us to take the food, I’d have no qualms in returning the favor. I would sell every last one of them to the traffickers. The problem with keeping them around would be that they’d be looking for any opportunity to escape or kill us. We’d be wasting time and energy having to guard them, and using them as slaves ourselves would be just as bad, so might as well sell them. No reason to keep a dangerous threat in the camp, and I can’t let them go since they’d probably just return later on. However, if it was evident that they were just stealing to survive, because their children were hungry, then I would not sell them. I’d either give them a chance to be part of our community (especially if they had talents or skills that we could use) or I’d give them some food and send them on their way, promising that if they returned there would be consequences. I can understand them going to the extreme to feed their hungry children, but I have mouths to feed as well.

    • Todd,
      As horrible as what you say here sounds on it’s face, I totally agree. If these folks attempted to loot in the first place, and are dangerous enough that you must keep them guarded, lest they continue to be a threat, then they have made their own bed, and must learn to sleep in it. Actions have consequences, and we must all think things clear through including the potential consequences.

    • I agree with you, Todd. The only thing I might do differently is to keep any children the looters may have had. The parents may beyond reasonable chance of rehabilitation, but the kids could be brought up as part of the community and become valuable members. Teens would be a tough call: are they still salvageable, or have they been infected by their parents mindset?

    • My first reaction is that I refuse to take prisoner any who attempt to overwhelm me and mine. Here, the situation is forced upon me and I must decide.
      First thought: “Where do these ‘slavers’ get their food and ammunition? Do I really think they’re getting it from willing suppliers? Probably not. Most likely, they’re getting it from people like me (and you).
      Second thought: I will not turn any man into a slave or profit from such. Depending upon their numbers, this slave caravan isn’t going to make it out of my AO if I can help it.

  5. This is one of the scenario’s that left me scratching my head. Why would a group in that position be dumb enough to take prisoner’s in the first place. Looting supplies is the same as attempting to murder my group in my eyes, there would be no prisoners taken. Ever.

    But for the sake of the scenario as written. Since I would never trust a thief/attempted murderer I’d trade them off without a second thought to replace the supplies this worthless baggage consumed.

  6. There would be no prisoners. There would be either bodies of the attackers,newly converted Christians greatful to be part of a group that will show them how to live or at the very least very tired people who have begrudgingly partaken in the cost of their own support who are free to leave after a short period of learning skills to live without taking from others. It sure is easy to suppose and hope that you won’t be an animal in those circumstances. It could be just as possible that the captives who weren’t killed during the attack would be used to bury those that were and then those people executed. I know what and who I want to be,but never having faced a time when someone else’s life was mine for taking it’s just to easy to assume I would be above that.

  7. Lurker Judith says:

    I would have executed them on the spot to begin with. I agree with tommy2rs. Sell them without a qualm.
    Also Todd would last about 2 minutes in a real crisis. Morals and mythology will fall by the wayside when faced with real starvation.

    • Right. They chose to take our supplies. Sell them.

    • Lurker Judith,

      Would you have executed the children?

      • patientmomma says:

        If I remember correctly, when the Lord had Moses lead his people out of Egypt eventually to their “promised land,”along the way the Lord instructed them to go into the land and kill every living soul = men, women, children, even animals. He did this (IMHO) to keep their “wicked” ways from influencing the children of Israel. If any had lived they would have sought revenge in multiple ways upon the Jews. I can’t remember exactly why He had them kill the animals; maybe someone can remember the reason. But, anyway, every living thing was supposed to be killed.

        • Encourager says:

          patientmomma, all the people and all their animals were killed because the Lord said to do it. They were “holy unto the Lord”. I believe it was also a test. I cannot offhand remember the Israelites that brought back some of the animals, and even one time, the king they conquered. But God was very angry, as was his prophet, because they disobeyed the Lord.

          It is hard for us to comprehend that mindset as we are so far removed from those times. I do not condemn those practices since I did not live in those times and if God said do it, you did it.

          As for slaves, they were always slaves when one country conquered another, all through the old testament and there were slaves in the new testament. It was normal then. There are still slaves today; we as a society think it is wrong…now. But if we were sent back to the 18th Century style of living, what would the rules be then? In the Bible, there was a rule that at a certain time, slaves were freed. But if the slave wanted to stay in the master’s household, he put his head next to the doorpost, and an awl was driven through his earlobe (pierced ears, folks!) and he became a permanent member of the household. He still served his master but not as a slave.

          Would I turn over captives to the trafficker? I guess it would depend on the captives’ attitudes. If they were belligerent, untrustworthy, shifty, I probably would. If they were children under the age of say, 7, I would offer to keep them and train them to survive and be a committed member of our group.

          If they had attacked and killed a member/members of my group, they would not be alive. Justice would have been served already.

    • Lurker Judith, I’m not sure where the “mythology” bit came in as I did not mention anything of the sort in my post. Morals, however, never fall by the wayside. There is no reason to lose morality, humanity, or common sense in an apocalypse. Killing every person you come across, including doctors, carpenters, and blacksmiths is not good idea. Sure, if it is apparent they were only stealing because they were too lazy to fend for themselves then go ahead and kill them where they stand, or if they tried to kill you or someone else in your group; however, if they were stealing because they’ve had it worse than most and the crying of a hungry child finally drove them to attempt to steal from another group, then killing them is a cowardly act. Just because there is an apocalypse doesn’t mean all humanity is lost and we can rape, plunder, and pillage as we please. I’m not saying help every person you come across or put the lives of family and friends in danger, but if they have skills or know a trade that can be useful, why kill them if they are willing to contribute or pose no threat.

      • You are assuming that these folks mean no harm and were attempting to steal your groups supplies for strictly honorable reasons? They did not come to you with an offer to work, or trade skills for food and shelter for their families. They came to steal. Would I forgive them at the expense of my family? No. Would I kill them? Not unless they posed an immediate threat to me or mine. Selling them will give them an opportunity to live. They may be able to secure their freedom or maybe not, that would not be my problem, unless they came back to rob us again. Then it would be the three “S’s”.

        • Encourager says:

          The first time I heard about the three S’s was from a state trooper. We had been having trouble with a neighbor’s vicious dogs running loose. He told me to practice the three S’s. Then he had to explain what they were!! LOL. He also volunteered to sit on another neighbor’s barn roof and take out her dogs in their kennels, as he was a sharpshooter. I said no, but there were many times after that, that I had wished I said yes…. those animals were controlled with cattle prods, beaten senseless, starved and neglected.

  8. patientmomma says:

    It would depend; I would have to look into their souls and determine their intent. The Lord blessed me with the ability to discern good or evil in people and this gift has served me well for many years. If their intentions were to feed their children and I felt they were stealing out of desperation, I would not “trade” them, but teach them and make them work to earn their keep as prisoners. (Prisoners do not receive the same privileges as family or group members.)

    But on the other hand, if their intentions were evil and their desires were to harm me or mine, I go along with Lurker Judith, I would have shot them. Such evil people would expend too much time to guard, to feed, and would bring a negative energy to the group. The Lord condemns taking of innocent life; such evil people are not innocent and are those whom the Lord would cast into hell and outer darkness.

    • The Lord blessed me with the ability to discern good or evil in people and this gift has served me well for many years.

      It is a very wonderful blessing. I believe this blessin’ has helped me through so much. That’s why my post below is also an “it depends” answer. Perception made my career.

    • Encourager says:

      Have to agree with your reasoning, patientmomma. You are blessed to have the gift of discernment.

    • patientmomma – During the 14 months I spent in Vietnam, I constantly wished for your ability to discern good or evil in people – I can remember way too many times that it would have saved lives. That’s definitely a gift to be cherished!

  9. I would not have taken prisoners at all, if conditions were that bad they would have been shot in the attempt to loot. the only possible reason to keep prisoners in this case would be with the intent to sell them. if supply and resources are that bad they would not be worth keeping as prisoners. yes I would trade them.

    • Encourager says:

      So, Nemo Seto, what would you have done with the babies and children? Would you be able to kill them, just because their parents did wrong?

  10. Donna in MN says:

    Now if these people had no worth but taking provisions from me as it seems in the senario, what would the traffickers use them for? Torchured slaves? women and children as sex slaves? what would they be worth to them to trade for precious food and provisions? Nothing but horrific conditions of slavery, or make them into peoplebergers to trade for more slaves…..

    It would be against my principles to sell someone, even of they stole food from me. The parents would have a choice, to be diciplined and at a safer time go out with an escort to find provisions to become one of us, or take their families and leave the group.

    I can understand a parent who would do anything to feed their starving children like stealing food, but I would give them a second chance to be worthy and contributing to the group. If they blow their second chance by stealing from the group again, they would have to leave.

    • And if instead of helping; What if they killed or injured some of your group? There are some very dangerous people out there. It only takes one psychopath to kill your entire group as they slept. I would hate selling the children. I would hate worse seeing my family starve or be killed to save them. “The sins of the fathers”. Perhaps they would live long enough to give their souls to Jesus.

  11. I would not deal with slave traders period.For the same reason that I would not deal with drug dealers or pedophiles or pedarests or dog fighters or satan worshipers or any amaligated lowlifes.

  12. Lurker Judith says:

    M.D. Help!!!! Do something!!!! You are the leader and teacher. I can’t stand this talk of second chances. Surely with as clear of understanding as you have of survival you know there can be no mercy about someone stealing supplies. If you give them a second chance next time they will kill you.

    • Lurker Judith,

      I try not to give my view on these because I don’t want my view to skew the comments of other posters. But I can’t say that I disagree with what you’ve said in your comment.

    • precisely!! Why, after catching them looting food, are they being kept as prisoners and fed???? Either shoot them when you catch them, try them then execute them or blindfold them and drive them to the middle of nowhere with no supplies and leave em…

      • SpudWeb,
        When you state, “drive them to the middle of nowhere with no supplies and leave em” I agree, assuming that you have vehicles and fuel to spare, and you can drive them many days walk from your homestead. If not, then they will most likely be back, and will potentially be more successful, since they know the people and the lay of the land. These conflicts are used to make us think and perhaps test our intellect vs. our ethics and morals, and so far seem to have been doing a good job.

        • Good points. There are dangers inherent in Driving all prisoners “to the middle of nowhere” the least of which is wasting gas if it becomes a recurring theme with prisoners. There is also the possibility of encountering aggressive/hostile people or groups, that’s why I listed it last in my options of dealing with looters…..

    • Donna in MN says:

      Lurker Judith,

      A second chance is my choice, not yours.

      You can kill those women and children on the spot when they are hungry, trying to feed themselves as you said you would do if caught stealing food.

      I would not and would NOT have anyone in my group doing this either.

      If that upsets you, I suggest you find kindness in your heart if someone killed your children and husband if they took food because they were hungry.

      • “If you give them a second chance next time they will kill you.

        This is so untrue. I agree with you Donna.

        I was tried as an adult at 16 YO and suffered childhood abuse from a drunk dad and two brothers dead at the wrong end of a gun. I went on to become an Army warrant officer with a 3.96 GPA as I received education at night and I’ve personally briefed the Secretary of the Army twice on several issues. I escaped an environment and overcame. It is about instinct in ascertaining what is in front of you and all the bravado in the world will not prove to me that someone will do what they say they will do when TSHTF. I say this with no malice toward the other opinions as I’ve learned that simply writing your belief can be misconstrued.

        • Donna in MN says:

          You are right. You turned around with your second chance and had much to offer in return. I also want to thank you for your military service. We all have redeemable qualities. It is the choices we make that makes a difference how we turn out. I am glad you had that second chance to make something of your life, despite your surroundings and influences.

        • I agree as well. Killing children, sins of the father. Really. I am not killing children, and I am not eating people. Those are my two absolutes.

    • Lurker Judith,

      I would grant people a second chance if they were attempting to steal supplies out of desperation. We may think we know what we are capable of but when we look at our hungry children we may be moved to steal. I prep because I don’t want to be put in the position where I have to decide between my family and my principles.

  13. I am increasingly concerned that the common guiding principle here seems divided along 1 premise: morals disappear when you get hungry. Grid-down, TEOTWAWKI, EMP, WROL or EROL, etc does not absolve you of your personal morals. Right and wrong remain. Yes, there are some that will act out of fear, anger, animal/survival instinct. But as the prepared community, we should be ready for, and expect, those who are unprepared. Welcoming every stranger into your house isn’t a good idea now, and it won’t be a good idea then. Shooting someone who steals 3 tomatoes off your garden isn’t a good idea now, and won’t be a good idea then. Self defense and security are one thing, planning to become a slave trader or offing people that look sideways at your can of beans is a completely different ball of wax.
    I feel that these horrible (and hopefully forever fictional) situations are a lot like money. The do not necessarily change the individual, but reveal who they really are.

    • Encourager says:

      +10 Dave!

    • Dave,
      When you state, “offing people that look sideways at your can of beans is a completely different ball of wax.” and is not what I understood as the description of the scenario that states “the husbands and wives tried to loot your camp”. You also state, “Shooting someone who steals 3 tomatoes off your garden isn’t a good idea now” and I totally agree. Being prepared, like getting a good education, having savings, and paying off my house, and doing that by skipping the new cars, vacations, and the latest gadgets, and in general,, doing without does not however, obligate me in any way to take care of those who do not. Wealth redistribution is something that happens naturally and if you’re willing to work hard, make do, and save, you can get your piece of the pie. Taking my pie at gunpoint however, is as equally immoral as allowing someone to do without. While I savor my fresh cooked meal, they can savor their new car and vacation to Disneyworld.

  14. I’m no good at this game.

    I can’t honestly say what I would do and not sure most here can either although I do believe you have a belief. No offense. Just saying that I served in the military for 22 years and I have seen some whom were viewed as real leaders or others who conveyed what they would do but when “in the field” they totally broke down. I’ve seen men and women cry under less stress than actual combat. You’ve likely seen movies or instances of the same.

    Yet, I’ve seen, and heard of, the considered meek stepping up. Actions speak louder than words and I’m spontaneous in emotional issues. Yes, I prep but I have not been tested under a myriad of conditions so…I’m no good at this game.

    I believe in the Almighty and my confliction would be between rendering unto Caesar and turning the other cheek. I would not turn them over; I’m quite confident. I believe in protecting my family but not so afraid of death. That said, I only have a wife left as family…both my murdered brothers were tough and rough, albeit dead, so I’ve seen bravado and I’ve seen talk. Wife is not dissimilar in attitude. That is a true conflict when confronted with other hungry people but I can’t honestly say. I do have great instincts that have made up for other shortcomings though. On some things, I fail at being prepared I reckon.

  15. Far too simple a question. I would have decided the fate of the three families when they were caught. I would use the same logic humans have always used: familiarity, similarity, proximity. If I knew them and anticipated potential positive interactions, I would “tit for tat” and take something of value from them. If they were strangers, not like me in most ways and from more than a day’s walk away, I’d evaluate our needs and the members. If we needed beasts of burden, I would cripple the men and keep them to work. If we needed breeding stock and the women were of child bearing years, we might incorporate them in to the group. The female children would be integrated if we had enough food. The young males we probably don’t need. In past collapses, people dug up long dead corpses to eat. I suppose if we were that hungry, the young men would go to the spit. Life is more than just survival, we need morals and mercy and all the trappings of civilization when we can afford them. When we can’t, life is nothing more than survival. It’s not a view I enjoy, it’s one pushed on me by the situation. One might suggest that enslaving the men and killing the young men might engender revenge, but that isn’t what history shows us. History shows that survivors are glad to be alive and will cooperate with what seems to be the best bet in the new reality.

    • Encourager says:

      Good Lord!!! If I had reached the point where survival depended on
      1. Using people as “breeders”
      2. Digging up corpses to eat or killing and eating another human

      I would choose not to live. Period!

      • Nebraska Woman says:

        That is exactly the way I feel, Encourager. No one is going to rob me of my basic humanity and decency.

      • Well, many times in history societies have collapsed, and many times, if you read your history, cannibalism was practiced. I guess it depends on how badly you want your children to survive. Having never actually eaten anyone, I can’t guess how hard it would be, but starving to death is also very hard. Jamestown; the Donner Party; the Maori of New Zealand, the people of Meso America; Polynesian societies; the Anasazi; and many more besides have, in hard times, eaten others. How bad is the collapse, and how much do you want to live, and how serious are you, really, about surviving?

        • k. fields says:

          I’ve always found discussions of cannibalism to be very interesting, as I have many times held the animals we normally use for food in much higher regard than some humans I have met.
          Most religions seem to feel that once the eternal spirit has left the body upon death, the body is just flesh to be disposed of, nothing more one might argue, than the flesh of any animal.
          In a situation of probable starvation, would it be “proper” to waste such a source of valuable protein? Would you actually know the difference between “long pork” and regular pork if it were properly butchered and served in the same manner as any other meat?
          I think most would agree that killing a human for the express purpose of using the body for food is morally wrong – and there lies, I feel, our real fear of cannibalism. That once we have eaten the flesh of the dead, our attitudes may change enough that we would begin seeing living humans as possible prey.

    • WOW…that post is F#@ed up!!!!

  16. My response: Shoot the folks engaged in human trafficking.

    • +100

      • That should have been my answer! Ther can be no good or redeeming qualities in someone who would do that. you could understand a desperate act driven by hunger and a desire to live,but human traffickers should die first. the more i read your comments and see a bit of your character,the more i like you bam bam.

        • Thanks, Brad. There are some things that are just wrong. And selling children into slavery, probably into the sex trade, is just wrong.

          • Donna in MN says:

            In a severe food shortage senario as this one suggests, who would think these traffickers are not killing the people they acquire, and selling them as food …………..to make more trades for more peoplemeat? How does one know if they traded food supplies aren’t getting their old neighbor Joe wrapped as a NY strip steak?

            Ever watch “the Road”?

          • mom of three says:

            Yes, selling children into the sex, trade is just plain evil.
            Where we live the creeps cross a boarder and come through our city, and state, on to the next state just below us. Many have been stopped but it still goes on. Our church, is helping and is educating us all. It’s sick, twisted, wrong to abuse kids like this.

      • exactly i agree take out the trafficers because they know where you are and they will return to get everyone and supplies

    • Good response but you still have a problem – what do you do with the prisoners. The food stolen from the traffickers will allow you to put off the decision but only for so long.

      • Good point. I would have to make a judgment on their character: Are they looting because they are low life scum who pray on others or are are they stealing food because they are tying to feed their children? There’s a big difference here. If the former, they would be executed. Let me quote Kant:

        “Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members- as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island resolving to separate and scatter themselves throughout the whole world- the last murderer lying in the prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain upon the people; for otherwise they might all be regarded as participators in the murder as a public violation of justice.”

        If the latter, then I would have to decided if they were willing to work for their keep. If they were willing to work (like the rest of us), they would eventually be assimilated into the group. If they are not willing to work, they would soon be too weak to travel and die from starvation.

        • I can understand the reasoning behind the Kant quote, I thought about following it up with one from another German philosopher, but remembered in time a prior discussion we once had ;-) .

          But thinking in terms of Kant’s ideas of categorical imperatives it seems you will be willing to treat prisoners (those who are NOT scum) better than you would someone, even a friend, who would come to you ASKING for help. Those folks you’ve stated, you would send on their way.

          So if I attempt to STEAL from you (I’m an otherwise good person, just out of options) and get caught, I will be fed and eventually taken into your group if I work – but if I ASK for your charity (because I am again, out of options due to circumstance – not because I am scum), I will be sent away to starve?

          What type of society does such thinking lead us to?

          • k. fields,

            I will have to think about the contradiction you’ve noticed. In the former scenario I said I wouldn’t share food, even with a friend, if that meant putting my own family at risk. Yet in this case I said I would be willing to let them in the group, provided they had the right attitude (and they were willing to work). In the present case I was imagining them being able to work for their food–by helping with the farming. I guess it does matter what we read into these scenarios.

    • patientmomma says:

      Great response!

    • Winner winner, chicken dinner Bam Bam!

    • Excellent!! If they are offering trade they probably don’t have the force to overpower you, or they would have already to trade you later. Shoot the scum traffickers if it is possible or say no and then round up some help if possible.
      As for the prisoners yes it is a good idea to not take any and send them on their way.
      These scenarios are just vague enough to draw out some of your deepest thoughts and to really ask yourself just how far would you go…

      • George,

        “These scenarios are just vague enough to draw out some of your deepest thoughts and to really ask yourself just how far would you go…”

        You caught me… That is the point with these Conflicted postings…

      • George,
        You state in part, “If they are offering trade they probably don’t have the force to overpower you”, but I disagree. Simply having force is not enough. It is said that the amateur talks weapons and tactics; but, the professional talk’s intelligence and logistics. Intelligence would mean that they have taken the time to assess your strength, including resources (such as weapons, people, hidden over watch positions, etc) that you do not openly display. Additionally, attempting to overpower someone will still result not only in casualties, but a reputation that might get you shot on sight or sniped at in your travels. Trading for resources that have already been acquired without firing a shot might well be the best thing for the caravan in this future world.

    • Bam Bam,
      While I agree in principle, it would depend a lot on the size of their force, its strength, and communications ability. You could be biting off more than you can chew, or end up as merchandise yourself. The problem with all of these scenarios is that they just give enough information to allow the conflict between intellect and ethics / morals.

      • Note also that the scenario states, “A human trafficker’s caravan“. Caravan suggests to me that attempting to simply shoot them might end badly.

      • OP,

        The attack would have to be done intelligently or not done at all. Once traffickers are permitted in the community, no one’s children are safe. I would think there would be enough good people to stand up to those who would abuse children.

    • Agreed! Who is worse the traffickers or the wanna be looters? One is trying to survive, the other is pure evil. I agree in swift lethal force to protect my property, my loved ones and my group, I just don’t believe in making generalized statements, and can’t honestly say WHAT I would do, I pray I never have to.
      We all need to hold tight to our humanity and keep looking up to God for guidance. If you trust in him you can’t go wrong.

    • Standing ovation

    • axelsteve says:

      Bam Bam I agree with you.

    • Yup. Absolutely- ‘cuz if you don’t, the next group they take as slaves will be you and yours.

  17. I see this a bit differently. It looks to me that in this scenario (human traffickers moving freely through the communities) the society has returned to a state where slave holding is once again accepted.
    Personally, I would not sell my “slaves” – there is always plenty of work that they could be put to to earn their keep.
    I would set-up goals for the slaves that, if met, they would be given a small poke and allowed to go on their way. If they were caught looting again, they would be killed.
    The continuing theme, “You can’t replenish your supplies at this time without placing people at considerable risk” seems only applicable if you were living in an urban environment and in that case, I would not be taking any prisoners of those who attempted to steal from me.

  18. Quite the dilemma… I do not see this as a realistic conflicted scenario.
    How is it that three families that ‘tried’ to loot your supplies remain as prisoners that are now consuming 30% of your time and supplies to begin with? Why are they even still around to be prisoners? IMHO they should have been banished long ago by leaving feet first… on their own accord or otherwise.
    Since I do not believe this to be a realistic scenario, I would accept whatever the traveling caravan had to offer just to get them off my hands and recover at least some of the 30% of supplies they ended up with anyhow. I have no validation the caravan is of human traffickers, for all I “know” they could be regional authorities looking for people that have been captured by ‘stand up citizens’ for unlawful acts to bring them to the regional “prison.”
    Some of these “Conflicted” scenarios just do not seem very realistic. I am glad I did not spend any of my money used for preparing for these specious situations.

  19. Patriot Dave says:

    I am with Bam Bam and Axle Steve. My first reaction is: I will not trade with these pukes. If I have the manpower, I will destroy them and take their stuff. I don’t even care why they are trafficking in humans – slaves, sex, human food, barter, forced army, canon fodder. Free the slaves, give them some of the bounty and send them away. I’ll take my chances with the ex-slaves. Selling prisoners is as bad as exile for the reasons below.

    I don’t think we would have prisoners in the first place. At least right now in my comfy chair. We played this game recently and the question was posed: What NEW crimes would garner the death penalty. Two I added would be: 1. people inside the group stealing from the group and 2. looters.

    I explained that having prisoners takes up food, water, space, supplies and manpower for guards. They still defecate and need baths. You can’t lock them up 24/7. That is cruel too.
    (The exception is: If you can sentence them to hard labor in the fields or something to earn their keep. If you have a large enough space to need the help and have enough people to supervise like a chain gang. Group members would serve a ‘sentence’ and then could be re-instated, on parole or something).

    Exile of looters and former members would invite further attacks from them or destroy OPSEC if they joined up with a larger more powerful group. Once inside both types possess too much information about your group, weaknesses and strengths, you can’t let them go.

    Third, Swift and deadly justice would be a great deterance. Plus, the dead bodies hanging from light poles and trees with signs around their necks would not hurt.

    Fourth. There is nothing un-Biblical about the death penalty. If it is justice and not vengance.
    BTW: Walking Dead chose exile of Carol after murder. That is a whole topic in itself.

    But, what to do with children of looters? They did not steal. Leaving them orphans could be a slow death. Bringing them in may be a strain on resources. They may hold a grudge and knife you in the dark. So none of my answers are yet in concrete. I am open to argument and good ideas. I am sure a lot will have to be dealt with under the particular and peculiar circumstances as the case arises.

    One final note. I read enough westerns in my younger days to know you don’t waste a good set of clothes, boots, hats, etc. on the dead when there are no stores around.

    • Patriot Dave,
      When you state, “Plus, the dead bodies hanging from light poles and trees with signs around their necks would not hurt.” Not always true, since decaying human corpses can be a pandemic just waiting to happen. We humans have buried or cremated bodies for millennium for good reason. While perhaps a good movie plot topic, it’s really a bad idea in real life.

  20. To me human trafficking is right up there with pedophilia. It is vile and one of the most contemptuous actions humans can take against each other, especially against children.

    I would hope I would simply execute the slave traders. Then give the adults a choice, stay and work or be sent away without the children. If they return they will be shot. If they were simply desperate to feed the kids then they will stay and eventually become a part of the group. If they choose to leave because they were simply thieves, then our group could raise the kids and instill better values than their deadbeat parents.

  21. I’m not so sure I would have the prisoners in the first place. Whatever their reasoning, they “broke the rules” first. They chose to live outside of “societal norms” buy stealing. Therefore the adults I have no problem trading off. They have earned their treatment.

    The children are another issue. How old are they, because after a certain point, they will just do what their parents have shown them to do. How do they feel about what they were involved with. Hard choices are ahead, most that our current society would condemn from afar, without having to make the same call in involving their family.

  22. GoneWithTheWind says:

    Prisoners? Seriously! No prisoners. Either kill them in the fight or let them go.

  23. The scenario states the the Human Traffickers arrived at a “local trading post”. I take this statement to infer that the overall situation is “post SHTF” and sufficient time has passed that some small semblance of normalcy, communication, and trade has been established. How did I find out about the arrival of the traffickers? Word of mouth, radio coms, reported by a neighbor, etc.? If these traders are preventing me from free movement or trading at the post then they are the root of this problem and should be dealt with first.

    Under no circumstances would I “sell or trade” another human! If we, or anyone else, condones Human Trafficking by trading with the slavers ……. then all is lost. What good does it do to survive if you’ve lost your soul? I would contact neighboring survivor groups for help and, if at all possible, try to kill the the Human Traffickers. They are scum and deserve to be put down. Besides, it would be just a matter of time before the traffickers were looking at our group as their next target. And if the local trading post has permitted these traffickers to operate at their site with impunity then it’s time to have a serious heart to heart chat with the trading post owners/operators.

    The fact that our group has “prisoners” is a different matter and must handled without regard to other issues. There will be no prisoners held by our group. It’ll be a “catch and release, join our group and work with us, or face death” policy that guides our actions.

    Good people can be driven to do bad things for a lot of reasons. I believe that the vast majority of people and families driven to theft in order to survive deserve a second chance. Any children belonging to the prisoners are guiltless and to be given shelter (no matter the cost). I would have to evaluate the reasons these adult prisoners acted as they did towards us and decide if these adults are redeamable. If they are, and can contribute to our group, then we would give them that second chance . If not, they would be given several days worth of food and escorted down the road with warnings of severe consequences if they return or be taken into the forest and eliminated. SSS

    Toughest decision will be the “elimination” aspect for those people that mean you harm. It’s one thing to kill in the heat of battle but I imagine quite different to coldly execute a person. In order to survive we must become hardened to the facts of life as we find them post SHTF!

  24. Going strictly by the scenario presented, I’d trade them. And to agree with others, that scenario, as given, is awkward at best.

    If this were “real life”, there are a few other factors to take into account.

    First, these folks were caught looting from me and mine. I can’t see how they were caught, and not shot on sight, unless my club jammed, I grabbed a toy ninja knife, or my dogs decided they wanted belly rubs. But assuming I have prisoners by whatever means, I would be finding myself in a big moral dilemma. I would NOT devote 30% of my resources and manpower to guarding prisoners, and that means I would have to find another solution.

    Second, these people may have been really desperate, or really stupid. If desperate, I can understand their motivations and see if maybe they could be added to the group. Maybe they have skills we need or can just perform grunt labor. Whatever. If they can contribute, they’re in, until such time as they may decide to leave on their own. But staying a prisoner is out. If stupid, they’re gone. I may give them some food and water, maybe treat any injuries, but end result is they’re gone, and if they try to come back again, then I have to assume they have a secret death wish.

    Third, some folks say that their actions warrant the death penalty, meted out however they feel just. I have never killed anyone in cold blood, and I don’t intend to do so just because times are tough. So execution for me is out.

    Fourth, human trafficking. I had the dubious pleasure of having to deal with a “suspected trafficker” of some social standing while in Iraq. One day, we received sniper fire that seemed to come from the direction of this individual’s compound. We called in an airstrike, and 2 Apache’s later, no more problems. And surprisingly, the neighbors were a lot friendlier too. Just saying. I would never, ever deal with human traffickers. Like others, if there was a chance I could destroy them and free their “cargo”, I would. Poison, ambushes, booby traps. No holds barred against this kind of scum. If I couldn’t at this time, there’s always a next, and lots of little things to do to harass them in the meantime. Their former “wares” would be well taken care, to the extent I would be able, and maybe provide a recruiting pool.

    Anyway, just my two cents worth.

  25. Encourager says:

    Love the comment about these scenarios making you look deep into your soul…

    I agree with executing the Traffickers. I imagine they began by raiding homesteads, killing the men and taking the women and children for their own use, and built on that beginning. Wrong, simply morally wrong.

    A problem I see with giving the thieves another chance – how would the rest of society know that they had been caught stealing before? Perhaps a brand on the back of the hand? Thieves used to have their hands chopped off, but that would guarantee more thieving as how could they do any meaningful work with only one hand?

    I would have marked them, given them a few days supplies and escorted them away from the area with the promise of shooting them on sight if they came back to my area.

    I could see a family loosing everything to a raid (by the Traffickers??) and fleeing with what was on their backs. If, in that case, they tried to steal from my supplies, I would do what I said above. If they came to me, told me what happened to them and ASKED for help, I would do what I could to help them and send them on their way. If the surviving were children, I would take them in. God has always provided for me when I have done the right thing.

  26. Wow.
    A lot of people who are viscious here, and a lot of others who base their morality on church or book in which any number of things can be found.
    Reading the scenario it states that keeping the prisoners has been done. It might not have been your choice at the time, but it has been done and would likely cause an uproar if you were to just execute them out of hand. That a trader who trades in humans would come to your door shows that trade (aka some sort of surplus) is possible. Which means simple theft – likely in order to survive on the thieves part- is not an executable offense.
    Can you trust these prisoners? NO.
    Can you trust a SLAVE TRADER? HECK NO! (what’s the likelihood that one of the more attractive juvenile females of your group will go missing if the slave trader gets that chance?).

    MY resolution? heh, YES sell the prisoners to the slave trader, use this as proof of an executable offense and ambush him as he begins to leave. collect all his goods, give the thieves the skills and tools to make a go of it (and maybe a few trade goods that can be spared) and send them forth on the understanding that their return will be punishable by death – and that your mercy and viciousness can not be doubted.

    Then make certain that in your territory the rules are clearly posted if they weren’t before- Slavery (the trade in humans) is not allowed. (it always sets a bad precedent and leads to abominations). Theft or taking via fraud or force is also not allowed. These crimes punishable by death – or worse when applicable.
    Heck that can be the last service of the prisoners – to spread that word.

    But slave trading or killing those just trying to survive will hurt not just your ‘soul’ but the morale and integrity of your group, and when word gets out you will be on the side of villains in the eyes of all others- and word WILL get out such things are impossible to hide.

    • Grey,
      You mention “the slave trader” while the scenario mention a caravan, not a single punishable person or a one on one fight. This may be a stickier situation than you’re imagining.

  27. Hunker-Down says:

    It depends.
    If our community had 100 days of food, that means we would loose 30 days if all 3 families stayed. I’m not ready to tell my children that they will starve in 60 days unless something unforeseen happens before then. Is there a possibility that the 3 families are willing to help us increase our food supply?
    How much of a physical threat were the thieving families? If they had no guns, maybe they were just desperate to feed their children. Since ‘we’ were attacked, we know if guns were fired, or not. If there were no guns, we may consider forcing them to work for their keep. If you call that slavery, that’s your problem; I don’t. Those who show by their actions that they are willing to work for food, shelter and safety would be protected by our community from slave traders by not exposing them as ‘outsiders’. The individuals that wont cooperate with our work rules will be individually banished. If that breaks up a family, it’s the family’s decision, each member to decide to stay or go. But if our community is too small to oversee them, they have to go immediately.

    OTOH, if guns were fired during the attempt to steal food, we must consider such a mind-set to be a current and future threat. We would have immediately banished them from our community after taking every type of weapon they had, long before the slave traders arrived. That includes the children, we don’t break up families. If we have them, we may give them enough beans and water to get out of our area, and openly follow them until they are.
    If our group is strong enough, as others have suggested we may plot to eliminate the slave traders, after we have developed a positive solution for their captives. Having no other solution other than leaving the captives to starve would require that we did not attack the slave traders.

  28. Wow, lots of polar opposite views from folks…I wonder what would happen if some of you with opposite views were in the same bugout group and this actually did happen. This is something that could very well divide a group in a very BAD way….very important to discuss this prior to SHTF and have a standard operating procedure in place.

    • Was thinking the same thing man.

    • Alex,
      That’s a good point. Perhaps any groups SOP should include a discussion of all of the cards in the Conflict deck.

    • patientmomma says:

      The makeup of a good team includes those with ideas and skills different from your own… in order to consider all angles and cover all bases. Such diversity allows you to do something you are good at but which I hate to do, but it is something everyone needs. A group made up of people with the exact same background, skills and thought processes would not last very long.

      That said, on the other hand, I think people within a group do need to have a similar belief/value system. That could be rule based, religious similarities, or family bonds. That doesn’t mean group think; it just means they have something that commits them to each and the group.

  29. Here’s my additional two-bits worth:

    I see a lot of people are saying they would execute the traders. This leads to a bit of a quandary. Are you executing them on moral grounds? Based upon your faith? Here’s the problem I have with that. According to Scripture, you were not to abuse a slave, but it was not illegal to have or trade them. It is against Scripture to steal. Yet you would execute the traders and forgive the thieves? If you are doing this on moral grounds, don’t you have it backwards?

    Some will say it’s not the same thing, but here is the way I look at this. I don’t like yellow pickup trucks. I abhor them. Yet I would not kill or condemn someone to death who owned one or sold them. I would simply not trade with them.

    I agree with Gray on possibly posting your “values” as needed. Make the “rules” of your area abundantly clear. Otherwise you are simply guilty of murder, based upon your “opinion” that the goods these people trade in are an “executable offense”. If they are an organized group, it must (should) mean that it is legal else where.

    Also, if you just start executing traveling traders, the word will get out and none will come your way. Just in case you change you mind on what is “permissible trade goods”.

    IMO

    • It isn’t the ‘traders’ who are being done away with, it’s the slavers. There’s a difference. Honest traders don’t trade slaves (I hope! God, I hope!).
      But it isn’t religious or moral grounds upon which I base my decision: it’s practicality.
      The slaves had to come from some place- and guess where that place is? Slavers have no concern where the slave came from and certainly no compunctions about using their time with your group to assess and decide upon a plan to add to their growing number of slaves and supplies.

  30. Rob in Ontario says:

    Not sure what I would do but fairly sure would not hand them over to traders. Like said above maybe shot the traders as thats just wrong. As no one knows how things will unfold , no on has an idea what they will do . The people of the “Donner party ” were good people until placed in their situation also .

  31. We played this game over the most recent holiday and this card came up. The table was conflicted, the men all felt they should give the family over but the women felt morally they could never do something like that.

    Overall playing the game, these cards don’t give enough information to make good decisions. Almost a little too black and white and they need more detail, in reality it would be a lot more gray area. Like a profile on the people involved would be nice. Also having a panel of people judging your decision didn’t really make for “fun” gameplay.

    That being said I won, by one point… Even with my questionable decision on this card.

  32. I played this game with my parents while driving up to Georgia. My dad kept getting mad because my mom and I would answer the question before he had time to think. (We didn’t really “play” the game–I read the card and they we talked about what we would do.) It is interesting to hear people’s motivation for doing what they would do. It is also interesting to see how people fill out the details when they hear the scenario. We unconsciously add in details so the scenario makes sense to us. What’s interesting is to see how the details we add in are different from the details others add in.

  33. riverrider says:

    “the hell with them pilgrims, buzzards gotta eat..same as worms.” if in doubt i ask wwjwd? (what would josie wales do?)

  34. Just an observation and mind you this is from some one very new to this blog, the mere fact that one has taken prisoners in the first place suggests that you have a since of morality in the beginning. I can’t say for sure what I or mine would do but if the prisoners were shot on site then dealing with “slave traders” becomes a mute point anyway. The mere fact you would have prisoners seems to me that they either become a burden or an asset in the long term. That of course would have to be determined on a decision made from an entire group and not from a single individual. People are going to look to certain folks for leadership but are we not looking at this from a stand point that we are not sheep? I would like to believe that the individuals in the group I have chosen to be a part of would see it as a decision that would not be made by one but by a group as a whole and not leave the decision to lie on the shoulders of one person’s convictions. Ok that being said…I am in agreement that the slave traders are scum and should be removed from the equation if at all humanly possible.

    • I always seem to be having folks wanting to stay at my homestead so I have posted a sign listing some rules for visitors.

      Rule number 1: This farm is an absolute dictatorship – democracy is way too time consuming. If you want to stay and be of help, you must follow directions to the letter. I don’t have time to do my work and re-do yours as well.

      After a collapse of society, I’d imagine many places taking up this rule.

  35. For me, it would have to be a “See the event as it occurs” type situation. I dont know now what I would do, but in the moment,it would have to be gut reaction. Depends on their actions to know my re-action. Very deep & disconcerting thoughts. I feel if the right situation developed,I could pull the trigger,but never on a child. No matter what!

  36. I would not trade with the traffickers, and would hope to avoid even having any contact with them,or them knowing the location of my camp. Since it states a caravan, I would think that there could be quite a large number of armed guards overseeing their slaves and goods. Overtaking them would likely be out of the question,and I would not want to be their next victim. But, I surely would want to see an end to their trafficking.
    The Bible does speak of man servants, maid servants, bond servants, slaves, and slave traders. It does not condone slavery and lists slave traders with sorcerers, soothsayers, idolaters, murderers and such, as an abomination to the Lord.
    So as far as my prisoners are concerned, since it states that they tried to loot from us, but not try to murder us first and then loot, I would have separated them from each other long enough to question them all individually, and do my best to assess their situation, and possibly offer them a chance to help the camp. Yes a second chance, just as every one of us has had at some point in our lives. Jesus said more than once ” I seek mercy “, and we will receive from the Lord what we have offered to our fellow man.
    What if you were in the shoes of your prisoner? What would you hope for?
    Mercy

  37. The prisoners would have to make a choice. Either be sold, or put themselves at considerable risk to replenish the group’s supplies. If they succeed, they get a little redemption from the group, and their lives back. Plus, my group now has supplies. Not sure what the considerable risk is, but if they fail, I doubt they will ever be seen again.

    • But how can you make sure that these prisoners aren’t going to turn around and come try loot you again? Especially after being kept prisoners and learning more than they knew about your retreat.

      • I don’t, but I am playing the game and the scenario that was given to me. Also, if your prisoners learn more about your retreat while being captive, you need to question your containment and SOP’s.

        In real life, I would be more concerned with the human trafficker’s caravan. But with this, I take no prisoners. At the point of contact, in this case a non volatile theft, I confiscate everything they have, record what I can about each individual, and escort them out of my camp. They have less then they had, and believe nature will takes its course. I then address how they breeched camp security.

        If it is volatile, they die, and hope my camp does not suffer casualties.

  38. For starters I would not have prisoners in my camp. They would either be people that our group allowed in and they learned to be a productive member of the group or they would have been sent packing. That being said, if we happened to have prisoners I would probably send them with the traffickers. I would hate it but then I did not like having to keep them a prisoner either. Since they were looters, if the shoe was on the other foot they would probably do the same

  39. To start with the decision would have been made at the time of the theft. There is only two options. They become part of the group if they can be used. You cannot send them away. If they will steal from you they will steal from others and when they are in trouble again they will use the information about your group to help them out of trouble. They will bring a larger group and give them the needed information to take you over. If you sell them they will give the captors your location and your weakness for there freedom.

  40. I don’t think I would have prisoners, I would shoot those I saw as a threat and send the others on their way.
    I also don’t think I would let the slave traders get close enough to offer me a deal.
    I would not likely be trusting enough to make any new acquaintances…misplaced trust is deadly to my own family.

  41. There should be no prisoners to sell. I think I would attempt to determine what motivated the three families. If those people made a living attacking and pillaging think I would strip the adults, beat the hell out of them and put them on the road. Without shoes, clothes or weapons they won’t be back, nor will they last long. Their children would stay and be assimilated.
    If those three families were only trying to feed the kids and were willing to work I think I would put them to work and assimilate them. They’d still be on a short leash as far as trusting them.
    You have to wonder about the mindset of a group willing to capture prisoners and simply hang on to them. What was the point? They didn’t know the slavers were coming, so I’m not too sure what their endgame was going to be.
    As far as attacking the slavers, well, they’re probably heavily armed and have been attacked before. Without recon to see what you’d be up against, that idea might be better left alone. Additionally, it’s a mobile caravan. You’d have to follow it for a few days to get an idea how to attack. How many resources would that endeavor cost?

  42. This question as with I would guess is very loaded. We all want to think we will never be the “RAIDER” in this scenario, but you don’t really know the situation you and your group are in. In pre white man times in this country, raiding of tribes for food, women, horses was a given and a standard practice. And all the major wars in Europe at this time were basically large scale raiding missions. If another group tried to raid your camp and you retaliated does that make it more palatable? I likely would not have had surviving adults to “trade ” in this scenario taking the John Matherson in one second after, no surprises, from wounded and left -overs approach but the children don’t deserve that fate. They can be raised and become useful and productive why pay for the evils of their parent’s as it were. Just my take as I sit here now but I truly don’t know how the environment will change my views. And to think that we will all stand steadfast in times of trial is a wonderful ideology but reality can be vastly different.

  43. I guess I read this differently. As we all do. Someone above mentioned that we each bring our own twist to the scenarios, and I agree. Were the families together when they tried to loot? Were they already part of our community and wanted to strike out on their own and got caught looting as they snuck away? That seems more likely since I can’t imagine any other way I would have prisoners or any other way they as families got close enough to loot and get caught versus shot.

    No matter what the traffickers are not an option. I would rather be dead than sold into slavery, and I will never condone it by being part of it. I am with Bam- Bam and would hope the larger community would band together to kill them.
    The prisoners need to be banished, executed, or helped sooner rather than later. If they were moving on, and took the cowards way out by sneaking off, we would help them be on their way. If they were sneaking off and taking what we needed and they hadn’t helped accumulate then we would likely take the men and perhaps women into the woods where they would have a tragic accident.

  44. Tomthetinker says:

    Ok… after several days to mull it over… none of us have had that period of evolution needed to actually ‘see’ the answer. Lot of good ‘thinking’ going on here… lot of ‘gut’ reactions… lot of male ego exercise… mine included.

    Would it be safe to say that what would be needed is that period of time it took to get to just that ‘period in time’. The time and the hard knocks we would suffer to prevail to the point of ‘slave caravans’.

    I wonder if it is ‘Hope’ or ‘Fear’ that makes us try to see that far into the bleak future this ‘card’ proposes. If anything this card suggests the importance of community and long long term preparations… the need of organization on a scale that would motivate a ‘slave caravan’ to make a wide detour of the area… anything less… puts you on the menu… or list of trade goods offered the community that warrents that kind of respect.

    Yepper…. ‘Dickens’ could have done a lot with this card.

  45. NWGhostRider says:

    First of all I would not have taken prisoners, If people are looting to feed their families I do understand that, there isn’t a person here that wouldn’t do the same thing if they had to. Instead of taking prisoners the group should have seen if the people had something to offer and worked out a deal with them, if they didn’t have something to offer tell them not to come back. As far as slave traders go, they are the amongst the lowest form of human life and would do everything I could to end their existence.

  46. ChandlerX says:

    This is my first time adding to this site. I really admire that all of you are answering this as honestly as you guys can at this moment. That said, this is my response to the situation given us:

    I am the leader of a survival group who has prisoners… persons (adults and children taken in combat (essentially)) whom I am now responsible for. I will not kill them; they tried to steal from me and my group but they did not kill anyone in my group. I would foster the kids and women out to my group and allow the prisoner men to be held seperate and used as legal labor for the duration needed to ascertain if the people can be integrated in our group.

    Now, do I sell them off to our local slave driver? Hell no! If I was the leader of my like minded group I would not have a choice. Everything that that slave driver group has would be ours. The men and women comprising that group would be decorating either the local hanging tree or would be helping plot of vegetation grow (not that I would eat off that plot). Slavery is morally wrong. If that slave group had kids with them….. that is going to be harder. But you have all that that group possessed to bolster your own groups resources.

    So to answer the situation as it was asked with the givens that were made: No, I would not sell the prisoners into slavery.

    To give a differing view of the question and to respond to some of the comments above…

    I would hope, given that my hypothetical group is a reasonably knowledgeable and alert group who have put a lot of skull sweat planning and rehearsing security (life, liberty and happiness) for our apres WROL life, we would not allow a group to attempt a raid. If such raid was unforeseen or Uncle Murphy banging on our door… prisoners would not be my choice. If an external group is willing to try raiding for survival once they will do it again… If it were a single family and desperation was the name of the game it would depend on that family. Sheep or wolf…. the sheep will get shorn, paddled on the backside and maybe integrated if they have needed skills; the wolf add its pelt to the pile needed to make warm clothing for my group.

    Now last: morality and civility… I read that you will have no need for etiquette during that new age and moralist people will have to change with the times. What a load of ……… . Etiquette will be such a large portion of our lives it will make our head spin. Do you really think that, even in your own group, you are going to allow a 12 year old to mouth off to you or that if, as a leader, you are going to continuously allow someone to question your actions and berate you if you are wrong?
    Will you allow someone to eat as much as they like from your shared resources?

    The smaller the tribe the more intricate the civil interactions and the higher morality is held. Go from a big city where everyone is on a first name basis to a smaller town, does not the local banker rate a Mr.? And do not the children living in those small towns get brought up with a please and thank you sir/madam on their lips? [I know that this is a simple example but it works] I hate the total informality of today’s society.

    Be warned: if you think that civility/etiquette and morality will be less needed in your new society and you allow your own morality to be fluid… no one should trust you and no one will respect you.

    • Encourager says:

      Welcome to the Wolf Pack, ChandlerX. Thank you for your well thought-out reply. I understand exactly where you are coming from.

      There is nothing that riles me worse than watching/hearing a young child or teen call his/her parents names like stupid, moron, and the like, or sassing them and walking away when the parent tells them to do something. Worse, the parent stands there helplessly, letting the brat get away with it. Many parents today want to be their child’s friend, and not their parent. The kids have friends, what they need is a parent that teaches them right from wrong, not to sass, to be obedient, teaches them manners and to respect other people, including themselves. Sigh. I know, I know…I am old-fashioned. But funny thing, my grown sons would never call me names nor be disrespectful to me. I taught them consequences when they were little.

  47. I very much enjoy reading everyone’s responses to this, but one thing I have noticed as a huge trend is the Christian faith is heavily engraved into many of you. I ABSOLUTELY respect that! :) I am christian myself. However… There is a saying and a truth, “war makes sinners of us all”… And in a post apocalyptic world, survival is war, and war is ugly…

    My response to the question, I would sell a few of the families for sure, maybe all of them! It all depended if I had a use for some of them or if some of them had been taken into my group and accepted. But overall, the food and ammo are most important.

    However… depending on the traders I was dealing with, I may give the “slaves” a fighting chance and slip a few knives onto their bodies. But over all I would not feel guilty about my decision to sell off a group of thieves who were out to take from me, my friends, and my family!