Those same people could hold up in a compound today. But they like the nice things, restaurants, social events, football games etc. They better start liking the locked down life now, because if things go bad their 20 security detail won’t protect them later.

> Those same people could hold up in a compound today.

If they did that, you'd be outside being happy or something happy-adjacent.

> if things go bad their 20 security detail won’t protect them later.

That's... very optimistic, to say the least. Historically it's not been the case.

20 armed men vs. their beach houses sinking into the ocean, forest fires burning heir land, hurricanes throwing everything every which way, and potentially nuclear hellfire... IDK, I'm betting on Nature (and man's folly wielding nature) on this round.

Which is why they build massive compounds both onshore and on various islands, and acquire the means to move between them unimpeded.

I don’t know if they’ve considered all the logistics but they do rather seem to be at the point where society’s ability to either ignore or impede them is to be done away with.

> means to move between them unimpeded

Which means are these?

> That's... very optimistic, to say the least. Historically it's not been the case.

if things go bad, what is the dork zuckerberg going to pay his burly security force in?

facebook stock? dollars?

not exactly useful

> if things go bad, what is the dork zuckerberg going to pay his burly security force in?

Same as every other autocrat: food, housing, not getting shot yourself.

> not exactly useful

And yet it usually works.

Zuckerberg will pay his burly security force by providing a better future for the security force’s family. Like fresh water and golf courses. Security forces will not leave the compound at the end of their shift-they will live there with their families.

(Edit fixed a typo in a word. Sorry I am on mobile)

OK but why should the compound be run by Zuck, and not e.g. the security force? Why not cut out the middleman?

Well, I am not an expert in governance. I just offered an example to how security forces would be compensated when there is no currency. One could imagine multiple layers of security forces... or some resources under the direct control of Zuckerberg and his direct reports, etc.... Granted, it would be a more dangerous and less fun world for Zuckerberg to live in, but I answered a hypothetical question.

Billionaire bunkers are just billionaire tombs - the only reason billionaires are in charge is the very society they plan to hide from in their bunkers. They have plans for bomb collars, but someone has to maintain them and they could deactivate them, and if your bodyguards want you dead then you're dead.

It doesn't have to be literal bunkers. Just look at the structure of your average "third world" city -- glass towers and luxury condos ringed by miles of shanty towns and slums -- and then a barrier and villas and luxury estates out in the countryside.

This is, in fact, how the end of the western Roman empire looked. No bang, just a long series of whimpers as the elite retreated to armed estates with private armies, taxes stopped being collected, overall trade declined, cities declined, and the agrarian peasantry became bound to lords and estates out of need of protection, etc. etc.

When civic institutions and the taxes that support them are openly attacked and predated upon, weakened and then combined with environmental, disease, or security crisis, one needn't think hard to picture the kind of eventual world that results.