6 ms·

Fielding a viable military, as one example, does require some amount of discipline in your troops. Fielding a 21st century military will require even more of it

Fielding a viable military, as one example, does require some amount of discipline in your troops. Fielding a 21st century military will require even more of it, if the model predicted by the Rand company I read about in a book on Special Operations is anything to go by. (Small teams that group together to complete objectives and then disband to avoid becoming a target.)

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Except that society doesn't need every single citizen in the military. Even we Israelis only need most people in the army for a few years rather than going to total war.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  It's true in lots of work situations besides the military. Also, taking turns to let other people speak and doing things in an orderly fashion is the basis of legislative and court proceedings, as well as more basic things like not driving your car on the sidewalk or ignoring red traffic lights. My personal opinion is that humans in groups tend to engage in lowest-common-denominator behavior by default, and hierarchical structures are useful for preventing crowds from degenerating into mobs.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    I don't see any actual links between being able to run a competent government, being able to drive properly, and being inculcated to have "sit down and shut up" as your chief response to most of life.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      You can't say that living in civilized society doesn't require [the ability to sit down and shut up] at times. ...is a far cry from 'as your chief response to most of life.'
Zigurd 13y ago
Many nations cannot "field a viable military." We'd be $2Trillion richer if we lacked the ability to go on military adventures on the far side of the planet. Orienting education around such a goal seems misguided.
- ars 13y ago
  > We'd be $2Trillion richer No we wouldn't. Where do you think that money goes? Salary to Americans. The money moves in a circle. We would be somewhat richer (broken window fallacy in play), but it would be a small fraction of the nominal number. And the fraction is even smaller if you realize that in some cases you are taking people who are doing nothing, and giving them a job (so the broken window fallacy doesn't apply to them).
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Let me put it in concrete terms: 1. The wars were 100% borrowed money. Every dollar spent was borrowed. 2. The wars produced nothing. Zero value. Not even any cool technology we overpaid for. A complete waste. The wars literally increased the debt and associated economic drag on us and our children and their children by $2T in debt. We would, therefore, be literally $2T richer. Not all of it was paid to Americans, but of the amount that was, every penny will be taxed out of us and paid back with interest. Pure drag and deadweight.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

Except that society doesn't need every single citizen in the military. Even we Israelis only need most people in the army for a few years rather than going to total war.

anigbrowl 13y ago
It's true in lots of work situations besides the military. Also, taking turns to let other people speak and doing things in an orderly fashion is the basis of legislative and court proceedings, as well as more basic things like not driving your car on the sidewalk or ignoring red traffic lights. My personal opinion is that humans in groups tend to engage in lowest-common-denominator behavior by default, and hierarchical structures are useful for preventing crowds from degenerating into mobs.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  I don't see any actual links between being able to run a competent government, being able to drive properly, and being inculcated to have "sit down and shut up" as your chief response to most of life.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    You can't say that living in civilized society doesn't require [the ability to sit down and shut up] at times. ...is a far cry from 'as your chief response to most of life.'

Zigurd 13y ago

Many nations cannot "field a viable military." We'd be $2Trillion richer if we lacked the ability to go on military adventures on the far side of the planet. Orienting education around such a goal seems misguided.

ars 13y ago
> We'd be $2Trillion richer No we wouldn't. Where do you think that money goes? Salary to Americans. The money moves in a circle. We would be somewhat richer (broken window fallacy in play), but it would be a small fraction of the nominal number. And the fraction is even smaller if you realize that in some cases you are taking people who are doing nothing, and giving them a job (so the broken window fallacy doesn't apply to them).
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Let me put it in concrete terms: 1. The wars were 100% borrowed money. Every dollar spent was borrowed. 2. The wars produced nothing. Zero value. Not even any cool technology we overpaid for. A complete waste. The wars literally increased the debt and associated economic drag on us and our children and their children by $2T in debt. We would, therefore, be literally $2T richer. Not all of it was paid to Americans, but of the amount that was, every penny will be taxed out of us and paid back with interest. Pure drag and deadweight.