4 ms·

Does this mean that the US is populated by people who don’t mind leaving the weaklings to die on the way?

• pseudoanonymity 8y ago
  They probably minded terribly. Grief, though, didn't end their lives.
• bitwize 8y ago
  Absolutely. It's a little-known and oft-overlooked fact of history that wagon trains headed west would draw up a "wagon train charter" before setting off, under which the exact responsibilities of each member of the expedition were carefully delineated. All but the youngest of children were expected to carry their fair share of the load; and the punishment for shirking was abandonment, being left in the wilderness to die. The pioneers could ill afford slackers, and wouldn't hesitate to leave them to the wolves and the buzzards. This is why the American ideal of "rugged individualism" is a myth: like any group of humans in life-or-death circumstances, American pioneers became collectivists. Failure to do your part for the group jeopardized the entire group, and was met with harsh punishment.
  • hajile 8y ago
    Would you call 100 devs "collectivists" because they work together? A definition that broad is meaningless. Even if such a definition had any validity, the group was voluntary and was small enough that individual accountability was immediately enforceable. Deviation from the contract once signed was punished by death (effectively). In addition, failure to sign on didn't have a group hunting you down and punishing you. As a final note, those groups were temporary -- a means to an end at which point the individual family unit again reigned supreme. To be comparable with the common political view, every person would have to agree to join, he arrangement would be temporary, the punishment for violation would be death, and choosing not to join would not be a disadvantage.