[Kylon]

Do you think control of society will be easier for the ruling parties, or harder post peak?

They may have more draconian methods at their disposal (thanks to a progressive deterioration of civil liberties), but they will also have alot less resources available to handle the populace, and alot more crime and rebellion afoot.

What do you think?

I personally think that in the future, the government is going to shrink away from the un-resource rich regions, and places where the rich don't live, and leave the rest of the territory crime infested.

It will be like the dichomony of any large city. The rich sections get all the police protection, from the best officers. The poor sections get controlled by local gangs, and are only bothered if something happens to a rich kid who happens to be in that area.

I'm thinking it will be like that, but worse, and instead maybe 50-80% of the country will be crime infested gang controlled.

All of the country will be officially "The United States of America", but in reality, it will only be the places that the government allocates military or police resources to defend.

Also, I think the Fed will acquire absolute power, and we will exist in a 2 party psuedo democracy.

THe poorer regions, due to being completely gang infested, may not have any polling places, which means of course their votes are never counted, and so only the places where "it's safe" for polling workers to go (the upper class/rich peoples/elites territory) will be where you can vote (but it will matter very little).

[TheTurtle]

Quite simply, whoever controls the food controls the masses. As history shows us, most people will tolerate almost anything as long as they are fed.

All the PTB need do is control food production and distribution and thereby maintain total control of most everyone else.

[Ludi]

I don't know if gangs will really want to control the countryside. They seem more like an urban phenomenon. I've never seen any hint of gangs out here.

[mmasters]

Harder.

As the system degenerates so does the ability to exercise advanced control features. As a result the control features revert to a more primal form. They will generally become more transparent too which is why people need dumbed down, the media better controlled and our rights stripped.

I agree that the good ol USA will be for the wealthy while everyone else gets the shaft. I would guess it becomes some weird version of Brazil in a matter of years.

The super rich and then a lot of people struggling to eat. Very little in the middle.

[KhanCEO]

Easier,

So long as the government controls the flow of oil, which they will. They will also have control of the food supply. The government also has the means to tax, which means pay for police. You won't have that kind of money. The government will have a monopoly on energy, food, water, heat, etc. They win, you lose.

[evilgenius]

Harder, the systemic shrinkage that wil take place within the infrastructure of capital will make it very hard to maintain control for a long time. The American blessing of unity since the civil war could be challenged. Regionalism could rise and the US could become too expensive for a single central government, or it could experience regional growth because a new idea of critical mass has been engendered in a particular region as opposed to others and it is now harder financially for the regions to copy each other. Either way I think post peek there is an increased risk of heightened regionalism.

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'E')ither way I think post peek there is an increased risk of heightened regionalism.

[EnergyUnlimited]

You have to consider two kinds of control.

1. Government control.
- oil and other energy control
- food supply control

Government will put attention to control countryside.
This may take a form of increased taxation of farmers but adequate policing may also be provided to secure succesful production.
Critical industrial areas will also get increased government protection.
Laws will be simplified and a lot of useless regulations will be scrapped.

2. Gangs control.
- securing profitable unlawful activities.
- coercing peoples to cooperate with gang.

These are city activities.
Sex, Drugs, Rock&Roll will be of gang domain (very much like now btw).
The only difference will be that sex will be $0.2 worth, drugs $1 and Rock&Roll for FREE to facilitate sales of former items.
Gangs will control cities. Governments will have little interest in cities as they will uniformely become inner cities.
"Industrial remnant" towns may be an exception.

Gangs will not bother much about countryside. Low "EROEI", easy deconspiration - you will be immediately recognised as alien, easy to get shot by locals and more police activity there (from authorities securing food supply ).

[evilgenius]

Heightened regionalism is bad in this context. It comes at a time when the unity of the country can least stand it. A regional patriotic movement, in place of what once was a nationwide patriotic movement, could induce a Quebec like fragmentation of the United States. God forbid many regional patriotic movements taking place simultaneously, as would be indicated by a significant US military loss. A humiliating military loss.

The loss of strong central government is a bad thing for the little guy. If you could pare only the corruption it would be a different story. As is, however, only the issues of the rich will dominate the slate of the Congress post peak.

Imagine someone from one part of the country speaking out against Wall-Mart for no other reason than that they come from Arkansas.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', '
')The loss of strong central government is a bad thing for the little guy.

[evilgenius]

Why?

It's simple, the kind of highly organized central government of today is an invention of the middle-class. It is staffed almost entirely by middle-class clerks. It came into existence with the concept of parliament, it isn't the same tyrrany (unresponsive, uni-dimensional governmental servants and the presence of the military in daily affairs) that almost always accompanied monarchy. It is deeply impersonal at the top, but at every level of service delivery (Post Office to food stamp program) the government interfaces well with the ordinary person.

Not only the constitution but the ability of the government to make economic injection happen via spending (don't forget the government's role in stimulating business) insure that the government will remain relevant to the common man. Take away the the spending and you have a recipe for a great depression. Take away the constitution and you cease to have a state.

This is a federation. Take the strong central government out of this federation and the players will seek the security of their own regions. There will be less internal communication because jobs will be regional moreso than now. It would be difficult to do business state to state, for instance, if each state had onerous rules of business in place for out of staters. And again if rules of residency acted to prevent salespersons from trading freely.