> 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.