You're the leader of a city under siege. What do you do with those who refuse to fight?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Here’s the sitch. Twenty-five years ago, the zombie apocalypse occurred. You’re a survivor, living in a refuge called simply the City. In its center is a stone-walled fort; surrounding that is a farm with timber stockades. The City is long since out of ammo, so the Citizens have moved on (back) to weapons they can make without modern tech–bows & arrows, spears, etc. There’s about 2000 Citizens, incidentally, a fifth of whom are of the right age & fitness to be hunters & fighters. Such duties rotate among all able-bodied persons over 13, now considered the age of adulthood. There’s an elected, ruling Council of seven with a rotating Chief. Currently, you’re in the hot seat.

Over time, it’s developed that the greatest danger to the City is not zombies but less civilized groups of survivors. Recently a hunting/scavenging party encountered such a band, who attacked and captured most of them. Leading the rescue party, you discover that the raiders are the vanguard of a group of several hundred fighters; they’re much better armed than the Citizens, as they still have assault rifles and plenty of ammo. Having tortured the location of the City out of their captives before killing them, they refuse your attempts at peacemaking. Their leader tells you that they’re going to take the City for themselves, kill the men, enslave the children, and use the women. You and your party barely make it out of the encounter alive.

So now the City’s under siege. You have every reason to believe the raiders’ claims about their numbers and arms, and winter’s coming. Hunting parties are out of the question until the siege is broken, so everybody’s going on half rations.

This is where the trouble comes in. There’s a score of absolute pacifist Citizens who refuse to take up arms against other humans. Their leader, Immanuel, periodically tries to persuade others to take his attitude. For a while now, the Council has allowed the pacifists to make up their fighting time by taking on other onerous duties, but now that’s problematic; there’s a lot of territory to defend and not a lot of bodies to do so. At the same time, Immanuel’s pacifism has grown more extreme. Not only do he and his followers refuse to go on offensive missions, but they won’t do sentry duty or help make weapons, seeing both as indirectly helping to commit murder (his exact words). He’d rather see the City abandoned than go to war.

Which brings us (finally!) to the thread problem. One of the Councillors, Lucy, is tired of putting up with the Immanuel’s shit. If the pacifists don’t want to help protect the city, she says, then they shouldn’t be getting even half rations. At the Council’s latest meeting, Lucy makes two motions. The first is that any able-bodied adult not willing to do fighter, sentry, or weapons fabrication duty should be put on bread & water. The second is that anyone who tries to persuade others to such positions be thrown out of the City.

The Council votes on both motions and splits three to three. As Chief, you’re the tie-breaker. What’s your vote, and why?

2

A score of pacifists, out of a fighting force of 400? I’m not sold on the crackdown being worth it; there have to be crucial non-military tasks these hippies can be set to. (Running the infirmary, maintaining the sanitation system, etc, etc.) In a pinch, older or physically limited citizens can be positioned to sound alarms (but not fight), in the event of an attempted breach of the walls, so you can get at least some of that functionality back. Further, you could require avowed pacifists to submit to some sort of process to vet their moral convictions (just as we do today).

Not a great situation, but the last thing you need right now is to get your own citizens fearing their government; least - bad option is to speak out against the pacifists, but nothing more.

3

Also, recall that the punitive measures discussed would require manpower to enforce - guards, etc. Those are able - bodied adults who could be on the barricades, but aren’t.

4

I find your hypothetical even more unlikely than most of your hypotheticals. I suspect pacifism wouldn’t survive a zombie apocalypse where pragmatism would be the more important skill. And I say this as one who values pacifism (without having the talent for it, personally.)

However, for some reason, I survived the zombies and I am in charge of protecting everyone else. That means my own personal philosophic fondness for pacifism is irrelevant. I have to do what I can to protect my clan.

Nobody eats unless they participate in our defense. Immanuel is the new Ambassador to the Huns and he can go tell them all about his beautiful vision of peaceful co-existence. Who knows? He’s apparently good at that sort of thing. Maybe he’ll make some new friends.

5

Contribute or leave. Then change the defenses so the raiders don’t learn anything when they torture the exiles.

6

I would have nailed Immanuel to a tree 3 days ago, and threatened his followers with the same.

7

Bread & water, plus a side of Heinlein - pacifists no longer have the right to vote in the society.

8

The totalitarianism in Münster was now complete. Death was now the punishment for virtually every independent act, good or bad. Capital punishment was decreed for the high crimes of murder, theft, lying, avarice, and quarreling! Also death was decreed for every conceivable kind of insubordination: the young against their parents, wives against their husbands and, of course, anyone at all against the chosen representatives of God on earth, the totalitarian government of Münster. Bernt Knipperdollinck was appointed high executioner to enforce the decrees.
Rothbard - Siege of Münster.

9

*speaking as poster rather than OP:
*I would imagine that the fighter/sentry duties, in such a small population, would rotate among those capable of it rather than being assigned permanently. That means that every time one of the pacifists opts out, somebody else has to take an extra turn at a dangerous job. Now, it’s one thing for certain persons to be disqualified because of age or because they’re essential in other ways; if the City has but one surgeon, two nurses, and one medical apprentice, I’d doubt any of them are allowed to take on such duties. (And arguably it’s an error for the current Chief to have led the rescue party him/herself.) But for other able-bodied adults to refuse even sentry duty seems egregious. They’re increasing the danger to their fellow Citizens in a selfish way, just as they would be if they were breaking into the buttery and stealing extra food for themselves.

Take that back or Arwen dies. I have written FAR more ridiculous hypotheticals, thank you very much. I just ran this one through the absurdity meter and it only got an 87 out of 100, when the mode is 94.

Nitpick: pacifism and pragmatism are ATTITUDES, not skills.

In the first place, that trick never works.

In the second place, anyone who makes the obvious Jesus/zuvembie joke will be beaten with a stick.

In the third place, Immanuel’s name is not a reference to the Carpenter, but to someone else.

I forgot the fourth place.

10

Altruism is a luxury, not a necessity. The only ones who get a bye on service are those who are physically or mentally incapable. Anyone who simply refuses is shown the way out unless they can arrange for sponsor(s) to split their rations with them.

That way anyone who wants to complain about how mean you are has the option to do something about it themselves. I suspect that there would be remarkably few complainers once they understood that the solution directly inconvenienced them.

‘Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state.’ - Heinlein

11

I voted for “kick 'em out”. There’s the door. I can deal with pacifists in peace time, but I don’t have time to baby them during war, and leaders have to make the hard decisions.

I’d feel guilty about it but I’d do it. Contribute or leave. I have other people to take care of, that are depending on me. Immanuel can go start his own society.

Now gimme some whipple strawberry cake. Teleporter’s on.

12

I’d let Immanuel make his case: if he’d rather see the city abandoned than go to war, why is he still here? If he is doing anything to assist the group, then he is assisting the war effort: even patching up wounded soldiers is a vital military task, as is growing crops.

He ought to have the courage of his convictions. We’ll vote as a city on our course of action: will we leave en masse? Will we stay and fight? Will we stay and surrender? Will we stay and try to persuade the enemy to live a life of peace?

Whatever decision we make will be nonbinding. Even if we leave, whoever wants to stay behind is free to do so. If we stay and fight, whoever wants to leave is free to do so.

But if we stay and fight (and let’s be honest, that’s what we’re gonna do), anyone who chooses to stay must agree to cooperate with the war effort. Any objections they have to how we carry out the war effort should be voiced through the democratic channels we’ve established. Otherwise, their role is to support the effort in the way the council sees fit.

I’d vote against the bread and water proposal because I see no reason to provide bread to someone who’s divorcing themselves from the survival of the city. If he gets any bread, it goes in a package we give to him at his farewell party.

13

Well, the problem is that Heinlein’s scenario doesn’t work in a world where every inch of land is ruled by one state or another. In this scenario, there’s plenty of empty land where the pacifists can go and try their luck.

14

I’ve got to imagine that there are plenty of other jobs I could find for 20 people. Food’s got to be grown and so on. Half rations and an 18-hour work day seem just about right to me.

I’d figure out how many of that sort of citizen the city could support and then hold a lottery to exile however many extras we have.

15

They are alive because of the city, they must contribute or they are dead weight.

No food and exile

Sorry but thems the breaks

Capt

16

I disagree with both motions, actually.

First, if we’re invaded, I bet a lot of the big talking pacifists will change their tune when they’re about to be murdered or raped. Internet tough guys exist in real life also. I wouldn’t want to be party to leaving some of my citizens less able to defend themselves in extremis, even if they take their good damn time about getting there, so short rations isn’t a good option.

Second, I really don’t think we should go kicking Mr Immanuel, or anyone else, out of the city. If he’s that unhappy about the status quo, and society is as small as it is, he’s gonna KNOW a crapload of stuff that he can pass on (willingly or unwillingly) to the Huns outside. I’m most certainly not willing to give them that information.

I’d actually make the quandry public, and make it a vote. I (or someone who is more persuasive than me) will go out for a few days in a row and make a short speech (probably to people at their dinner shifts) about what the situation is. Then I’ll let Mr Immanuel make his pitch to the same crowd. If he can think of sufficient jobs that his pacifists can take over and do until we win or the Huns give up, then this is his chance to prove it.

Everyone has to vote, no abstentions, and as a city, we decide whether or not Mr Immanuel’s propositions will pass muster. If so, he’s fine to continue as he is, as are his followers, with no punishments at all.

If he doesn’t manage to convince his fellow citizens that he’s contributing to the welfare and continuance of society even without “contributing to murder” then anyone who isn’t willing to immediately swear off pacifism and do their jobs on rotation to satisfaction will be summarily executed, and their belongings distributed to the most needy.

Charity and mercy are luxuries, not rights.

17

My vote on the bread-&-water and exile motions depends on whether or not there are harsher options. Bread, water and walls are for useful members of society.

18

Look I’m a much of a bad ass mutha fucka as you’re going to find, but if they don’t want to fight then forcing them to isn’t going to make for good soldiers. If the eventual goal is to rebuild a society it takes all kinds of people. Ask those who aren’t fighting to cook, load ammo magazines, build fortifications, whatever.

19

Skald addressed that in the OP.

It appears to me that Immanuel and his followers have taken the stance that any action supporting the soldiers is unacceptable to his flavor of pacivism. Presumably they would help rebuild once the dieing and crying are done, but he and his followers will simply be parasites until that time.

So, IMO, he get’s to abandon the city sooner rather than later.

20

Maybe. That’d depend on how the city distributes food. Since there’s a communal farm, I imagine there’s also communal storage; pacifists or not, there has to be guards on that during a time of general rationing. If food prep is also communal, you’re right that putting the pacifists on barer-than-typical rations is going to require extra effort. On the other hand, each household may be alotted food to prepare itself, in which case giving less to the pacifists would be trivial.

Do you let them stay the winter?

Also, the city’s under siege. Part of the problem with Lucy’s second motion is that it requires opening the gates or whatever unnecessarily when there’s army outside who have not only killed some of your people but have announced their intention to do more of the same to the Citizens.

The cake is in the outgoing buffer but I need to know if you want whipped cream* (shudder) on your hot chocolate, or a single malt scotch.

As to the exile-option: as I just wrote, I’m not sanguine about exiling them, particularly if they have families or friends who’d be left behind. Seems likely to cause dissension, and a siege is a time when that shouldn’t be courted unnecessarily. And, as I just wrote, I’d be leery of opening the gates. Possibly there’s a hidden tunnel exit – but if that’s the case, I’m not letting the pacifists anywhere near it (unless there’s a mass evac) for reasons left as an exercise for the class.

*The above should not be considered as my agreeing to give whipped cream to anyone but Mika. She’s special, so I am willing to overlook a hypothetical fondness for whipped cream.

But everybody’s already on short rations. In the scenario, you’re the Chief of the Council, so surely you had hand in that decision, and perhaps made it unilaterally; and since you are not an idiot, presumably that means that food is genuinely short. I’m not sure how keeping the pacifists in fighting fettle helps anybody else.

Yeppers.

What jobs are you going to allow them to take? That’s not a rhetorical question. Do you allow them only to take the more unpleasant and onerous jobs?

Ordinarily I am, of course, the champion of bloodthirst hereabouts. But though I applaud you for recognizing that exile is pretty much execution and thus putting it on the table, I wouldn’t want to invoke the death penalty for them yet. Anybody who tried to help the raiders would be put to the sword; any adult who stole food probably would too. But not going on fighting duty? I’m just not sure.

Nitpick: there’s no magazines to load; the Citizens have already been reduced to bows & arrows, spears & axes, and so forth.

Anyway, the pacifists have already declared that they won’t help whittle arrows, carve spear-points, or pound scavenged metal into ax-heads.