3 ms·

> Collectives of people don't work, and it isn't for a lack of trying Countries, companies, armies, sports teams, FAMILIES are all collectives of people. Not a

by herval 6y ago

> Collectives of people don't work, and it isn't for a lack of trying Countries, companies, armies, sports teams, FAMILIES are all collectives of people. Not all of these organizations are voluntary, and not all are “based on self interest”.

WalterBright 6y ago
Ones not covered in other replies: > sports teams Of course they are based on self-interest. Team members all have different statuses and pay. They compete with the other team members to not get cut. They switch teams to gain personal advantage. > Countries are forced collectives. The more the country tries to run the lives of its citizens, the worse the country does.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >are forced collectives You'd be surprised. There are people who would die for their country, and nobody has a gun to their head. Hell, historically people died to BUILD or FREE their countries.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    I know quite a bit about military history. > There are people who would die for their country, We call them heroes and give them a medal and commemorate them with a statue. Because they are rare. > Hell, historically people died to BUILD or FREE their countries. It's pretty rare for people to do it knowing they will die. (People more often will risk death because of the value of the gain they'll get if they don't die. That's selfish behavior.) > and nobody has a gun to their head. Armies historically execute anyone disobeying orders to advance or show cowardice in the face of the enemy. The Soviets had blocking battalions ordered to shoot any of their own comrades who did not advance. Armies are trained and organized around the concept of forcing men into combat. And it starts with conscription. They quite literally do have a gun to their heads.
    - EdwardDiego 6y ago
      > The Soviets had blocking battalions ordered to shoot any of their own comrades who did not advance. Well, yes, but also not that straightforward. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3igu17/on_the_concept_of_soviet_barrier_troops_as/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3igu17/on_the_c...
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        The fact they existed at all makes the point that the army discipline was forcibly applied, including executions for cowardice. Even just a few executions gets the point across to the troops.
        EdwardDiego 6y ago
        Yes, but as the link states, they primarily focused on controlling the penal regiments. And that's one example, from one particular culture. Executions for desertion are very rare in western culture armies. Not that western culture armies couldn't be cruel. Field Punishment No. 1 is culturally engrained in my country: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 That said, you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow. If simply because my step-father, an Englishman touring the world, happily volunteered to fight the North Vietnamese as part of the RNZA, as did many others, all of NZ's troops in that war were volunteers. No conscription at the barrel of a gun. Hell, during WW1 and WW2, people were faking their age to join up. Reality is a lot more nuanced than you're making out. I mean, we're social animals, for millennia we've lived or died by the group.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US. > you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow. There are exceptions. But by and large, conscription is used. Conscription is force. As for retaining soldiers, all of them I've ever heard of did not allow soldiers to desert. Deserters are imprisoned or shot. The US military is currently all volunteer. But they're still not allowed to desert. Being in the military is a good career, and there are many benefits making it attractive. But you can bet if we get into a war where they start dying in large numbers, the government will start drafting. After all, all young men are required by law to register for the draft when they turn 18. Even now. When I was young, I considered joining the Air Force or the Navy. But not to sacrifice myself. I seriously doubt many of those join up, nor would I really want to serve with someone who wanted to sacrifice himself.

by herval 6y ago

WalterBright 6y ago

Ones not covered in other replies: > sports teams Of course they are based on self-interest. Team members all have different statuses and pay. They compete with the other team members to not get cut. They switch teams to gain personal advantage. > Countries are forced collectives. The more the country tries to run the lives of its citizens, the worse the country does.

coldtea 6y ago
>are forced collectives You'd be surprised. There are people who would die for their country, and nobody has a gun to their head. Hell, historically people died to BUILD or FREE their countries.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  I know quite a bit about military history. > There are people who would die for their country, We call them heroes and give them a medal and commemorate them with a statue. Because they are rare. > Hell, historically people died to BUILD or FREE their countries. It's pretty rare for people to do it knowing they will die. (People more often will risk death because of the value of the gain they'll get if they don't die. That's selfish behavior.) > and nobody has a gun to their head. Armies historically execute anyone disobeying orders to advance or show cowardice in the face of the enemy. The Soviets had blocking battalions ordered to shoot any of their own comrades who did not advance. Armies are trained and organized around the concept of forcing men into combat. And it starts with conscription. They quite literally do have a gun to their heads.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    > The Soviets had blocking battalions ordered to shoot any of their own comrades who did not advance. Well, yes, but also not that straightforward. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3igu17/on_the_concept_of_soviet_barrier_troops_as/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3igu17/on_the_c...
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      The fact they existed at all makes the point that the army discipline was forcibly applied, including executions for cowardice. Even just a few executions gets the point across to the troops.
      - EdwardDiego 6y ago
        Yes, but as the link states, they primarily focused on controlling the penal regiments. And that's one example, from one particular culture. Executions for desertion are very rare in western culture armies. Not that western culture armies couldn't be cruel. Field Punishment No. 1 is culturally engrained in my country: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 That said, you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow. If simply because my step-father, an Englishman touring the world, happily volunteered to fight the North Vietnamese as part of the RNZA, as did many others, all of NZ's troops in that war were volunteers. No conscription at the barrel of a gun. Hell, during WW1 and WW2, people were faking their age to join up. Reality is a lot more nuanced than you're making out. I mean, we're social animals, for millennia we've lived or died by the group.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US. > you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow. There are exceptions. But by and large, conscription is used. Conscription is force. As for retaining soldiers, all of them I've ever heard of did not allow soldiers to desert. Deserters are imprisoned or shot. The US military is currently all volunteer. But they're still not allowed to desert. Being in the military is a good career, and there are many benefits making it attractive. But you can bet if we get into a war where they start dying in large numbers, the government will start drafting. After all, all young men are required by law to register for the draft when they turn 18. Even now. When I was young, I considered joining the Air Force or the Navy. But not to sacrifice myself. I seriously doubt many of those join up, nor would I really want to serve with someone who wanted to sacrifice himself.