Democracy Workshop Session 2

So session 2 of the Zombie Apocalypse aftermath started with: who's gonna do what? Obviously there were jobs that needed doing: finding food, finding fuel, disposing of zombies bits.

The first part of this sessions was allocating jobs to people, and some jobs were obviously going to be more unpleasant than others.  In a direct democracy everyone gets a vote, so the unpopular guys in class could get lumbered with the nasty jobs. Of course this is the 21st century and persecution is a much more sophisticated business.  I'd had really expected that there would be one or two in the class who everyone else considered weirdoes, who'd get the zombie duty jobs, but no: Everyone realised that a weirdo would probably like the zombie stuff, so they victimised them by putting them in charge of gardening... Anyway, there was always going to be someone who didn't want to do the job they were given, and led us neatly on to the next part of the session:  What if someone doesn’t do?

The group needs to work together to survive, but not everyone is good at working in a team.

If someone doesn’t do their job, the whole group will suffer. In the same way if someone takes more than their fair share – of food, blankets, or tin openers – the whole group could suffer.  So how does a group make sure that people do what is best for the group?

There are two common methods: carrot & stick.

The stick method is usually some form of punishment: either physical punishment (once called corporal punishment), that might include being hit with a stick, or a removing of privileges like food or freedom (like in prison).

The carrot method is usually about rewards, giving people treats for good behaviour (it works on people just as well as on dogs).

Which of these methods would work best in this brave new world?

When you've got a community of twenty or so people, locking one up means everyone else has to work that bit harder, and unless you turn into a monster you have to feed the one locked up.  So they get fed for sitting on their bottom while everyone else has to graft. Encouraging laziness much?

 

The flip side is to reward (bribe) someone to do their job.  That backfires spectacularly when everyone else decides that they deserve a reward (bribe) too.  Besides which what do you use as a reward in a world where all the food and drink's free and none of the games stations or phones work? Shiny pebbles?

Well, someone sure loves shiny pebbles...

 

The general feeling was that if someone didn't do what they were supposed to for the group, then the group wouldn't support them.  Half rations was a good example of how to get a person to play fair.
 

What about the other group though.  The anarchy group. How were they getting on by this point. I think they were hoping anarchy would be a bit "punk vs. metal" instead it was more like an untidy bedroom that no-one wanted to clean.