This might be one of those chapters that if I had pre-read the book or kept reading before writing that I might lump together with another chapter. From the descriptions of clothes, dress and hair the kids have already been on the island for some time. There is no real mark of time, just that things are frazzled and raggedy.

Clearly, the significant event of the chapter is that Jack and hunters finally managed to kill a pig. This action emboldens Jack and company to display a superiority complex over the others. This activity of course comes at a price. The hunters apparently let the signal fire go out and apparently missed a chance to be rescued by a ship on the horizon.

Last chapter I was talking about everybody doing their own thing and how much I actually support that. It would seem that not all the boys share the same goals on the island. For some it is to ultimately get rescued while others it is to survive. For the hunters, it appears that it is the pursuit of the hunt. Even last chapter, Jack said that he would prefer to kill a pig before getting rescued.

Now, I guess that I would call myself a hunter. I try to make a half-hearted attempt every year. I really don’t like the killing part. I remember my first deer, it was really emotional and not the jubilation type. Of course I was happy, but then I was sad too. A more mature person might say that it was reality. Very rarely is an event all one thing.

To me, it is about continuing tradition, getting out in the woods and pretending that I might fit into the hunter category. A good day would be to say that I saw five deer and believing that it was just not my day rather than I didn’t put in the work in the off-season to be continuously successful.

But the truth is, I am not hungry. My freezer has stuff in it and my bank account is not empty. I might feel differently if I was on the edge of hunger or only eating fruits for months on end. My neighbor exclusively eats wild game. They are in the woods a lot and typically get bear, deer and elk in a season.

There are parts of me that admire that but I just don’t have the time in my life to live that way. Plus, I am not a gambler. I don’t want to be in a position that I ‘must’ punch my tag or go without. The safe bet for me is to buy a quarter steer in the spring and appreciate an extra bounty during hunting season if it happens. Plus, I paid less for the beef than they did in fuel by a long way. That’s OK if it is also your primary pastime, I am not judging. I am just saying the economics of the situation are really smarter the way I am going about it.

That was all a long way of saying that I am not anti-hunting (of course). But, getting back to the story it’s not the hunting that is the problem, it is the mindset. It seems that the act of killing gives the hunter’s power. The more perceived power that they gain, the more careless they become with their other activities. This I think is the message in the chapter.

Maybe Golding is an evil genius and I am just a dope? But again, I think that he touches on a subject that is much deeper than the words on the page. If we take the 3rd party analysis at face value then this is a story of the ills of humanity and civilization. I don’t think that he intended to go this deep so hopefully I am not reading too much into it.

To me, the hunters are a metaphor for societies’ elites. They do as they please without consequences. To be honest, I am not sure what kind of punishment could happen within the book with a group of young kids. Nevertheless, they don’t seem to have any concern about being rescued, building shelters or participating in any other way except on their own terms.

This is where the problem lies within the concept of anarchy and this story. In a proper stateless society, individuals would choose to associate based on their beliefs and values. The shelter builders would congregate and the hunters would congregate and the two would stay their separate ways. I really doesn’t work when marooned on an island with nowhere to go.

Even more so, I think that this speaks to the mentality of the elites. There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with the way things are if I get to do what I want to do. I am going to wade in the water just a little bit deeper now.

Using an example, when someone like a former software founder gets involved in something like estate taxes, he could be all for the 1970s 90% rules. This is because his personal assets are sheltered in some manner. The reality is that when he dies, the likelihood that everything is going to evaporate into taxes are low. Of course, it wont be zero but it will be much less than my second example.

If someone was a successful, sole-proprietor with assets in the $5 million range were to die under the same tax rules it would essentially leave $500,000 to distribute as a result. Why is that? Because the sole-proprietor is not operating under the same rules as my software tycoon above. It is not that the two couldn’t, not at all but that elites have more resources to create hoops for others to jump through. Why do we need estate taxes at all? I haven’t read in the Constitution that the United States is entitled to any portion of my estate.

Hopefully, I made my point using one silly example that the hunters are becoming societies’ elite. When the elite prosper, there is no reason to petition for new changes unless they are to solidify their position. As long as it is no bother to work around, ignore or rules have no consequences then what does it matter?

End Your Programming Routine: I think that I almost got lost on this one. I was trying to get across the rise of the hunter’s social status and how there behavior is a natural consequence of their self perception. Once established, it also becomes self-fulfilling because what is to stop them?