If we had a militia system, and allowed the states themselves to arm and war-game
I'm imagining a world where instead of football being the american pastime, it's having militias compete against one another. I'd watch it if it didn't have announcers. Tailor the competitions to promote skills that are widely beneficial for american militia. Don't give them a damned salary, that shit brings in people who just want money. Possibly don't even name specific men because that'd be a draw for fame-seekers.
We can argue on the logistics of it, but war-gaming is basically how you continue a marshal society. The reason English longbowmen existed is because the King mandated that children learn how to use longbows and there would be games at festivals for everyone to practice and compete.
Basically you'd have competitive 'muck-runs', 3-gun competitions, and even competitive artillery speed drills and air-force strafing runs.
You'd have to turn Marshall prowess into a profitable sport, and that profitable sport could then be re-mobilized into standard warfare practices if the militia's need to be called up.
It doesn't annihilate the military-industrial complex, it just re-orients it so that it stops being directed at causing wars by pursuing government contracts. You can't destroy the profit motive to end war-profiteering, so you have to turn it into war-game profiteering instead.
Basically you'd have competitive 'muck-runs', 3-gun competitions, and even competitive artillery speed drills and air-force strafing runs.
These sound pretty simple to do, but I was originally thinking of something like more of a direct skirmish. Thinking about it now, though, that's basically just forcing militias to play paintball, so I'd rather go a more creative route. Like, whatever things an urban militia would need to train for are probably different from a militia whose territory includes a lot of wilderness, so you'd have different types of mock-manhunts or terrorist suppression.
You'd have to turn Marshall prowess into a profitable sport
I think I understand your point about why this would be beneficial, but I'm very wary of things getting corrupted. Taking profit out doesn't make it immune to corruption, of course, but what do you suggest for minimizing the risk of corruption in militias?
I was originally thinking of something like more of a direct skirmish. Thinking about it now, though, that's basically just forcing militias to play paintball
I think there have been historical instances of things like that, and they just devolved into actual battles.
Like, whatever things an urban militia would need to train for are probably different from a militia whose territory includes a lot of wilderness, so you'd have different types of mock-manhunts or terrorist suppression.
Right, and that would mean that each state militia could specialize in specific fields and operations.
I think I understand your point about why this would be beneficial, but I'm very wary of things getting corrupted. Taking profit out doesn't make it immune to corruption, of course, but what do you suggest for minimizing the risk of corruption in militias?
The purpose of corruption is to make bypassing a strict regulation easier. Over-stringent bureaucracy and regulation actually promotes corruption. You would basically want a system that incentives profit based on merit. Western militaries, particularly Anglo ones, are all descendant from the English "New Model Army" which explicitly focused on the importance of Meritocracy, at least within the Enlisted ranks. The Federal government, wanting cheap, but highly competent troops, would be the major enforcer of meritocratic focus. They have enormous incentives to maintain meritocracy over corruption. An incompetent, but politically appointed General, incompetently leading his own troops into disaster, is so well ingrained into the average soldier that "fragging" became a thing.
I could talk to you about the long history of political "Modern Major Generals" who are nothing beyond intellectualists & aristocrats that have no purpose on the battlefield going all the way back to Carrahe, but the fact that the enlisted ranks are prepared to execute incompetent officers says probably everything about the meritocratic focus.
So, that takes care of the external pressure to be meritocratic over corrupt. To avoid systemic corruption, the biggest factor is simply: pay. Well paid soldiers, like cops, are corrupt. Personal finance problems is one of the leading causes of corruption. Over-burdensome regulations incentivize the corruption, and poor pay & benefits nearly guarantee it.
What about internal pressures? Well, wealth, prestige, and status as an excellent niche in your particular field is critically important. Again: meritocracy over protectionism and corruption every time, and pretty much everyone is incentivized to want the highest competency in their soldiers.
There may be a threat for corruption with the feds favoring some states over others, but this is why you have to have each state excel at particular things. California might be producing great pilots, but Connecticut isn't. Instead, they need to focus on cyber-warfare.
The overall point here is not to prevent corruption, or even police it. But to use selfishness as a weapon to re-enforce meritocratic institutions.
The overall point here is not to prevent corruption, or even police it. But to use selfishness as a weapon to re-enforce meritocratic institutions.
I was having a hard time understanding til this part. I'll be thinking about it for a while in the back of my mind, thanks. I basically started slipping into a stance of pushing negative reinforcement when I know only positive reinforcement works.
The purpose of corruption is to make bypassing a strict regulation easier.
I hadn't thought of it like this.
Well paid soldiers, like cops, are corrupt.
Also I assume you meant underpaid instead of well paid here.
I'm imagining a world where instead of football being the american pastime, it's having militias compete against one another. I'd watch it if it didn't have announcers. Tailor the competitions to promote skills that are widely beneficial for american militia. Don't give them a damned salary, that shit brings in people who just want money. Possibly don't even name specific men because that'd be a draw for fame-seekers.
We can argue on the logistics of it, but war-gaming is basically how you continue a marshal society. The reason English longbowmen existed is because the King mandated that children learn how to use longbows and there would be games at festivals for everyone to practice and compete.
Basically you'd have competitive 'muck-runs', 3-gun competitions, and even competitive artillery speed drills and air-force strafing runs.
You'd have to turn Marshall prowess into a profitable sport, and that profitable sport could then be re-mobilized into standard warfare practices if the militia's need to be called up.
It doesn't annihilate the military-industrial complex, it just re-orients it so that it stops being directed at causing wars by pursuing government contracts. You can't destroy the profit motive to end war-profiteering, so you have to turn it into war-game profiteering instead.
These sound pretty simple to do, but I was originally thinking of something like more of a direct skirmish. Thinking about it now, though, that's basically just forcing militias to play paintball, so I'd rather go a more creative route. Like, whatever things an urban militia would need to train for are probably different from a militia whose territory includes a lot of wilderness, so you'd have different types of mock-manhunts or terrorist suppression.
I think I understand your point about why this would be beneficial, but I'm very wary of things getting corrupted. Taking profit out doesn't make it immune to corruption, of course, but what do you suggest for minimizing the risk of corruption in militias?
I think there have been historical instances of things like that, and they just devolved into actual battles.
Right, and that would mean that each state militia could specialize in specific fields and operations.
The purpose of corruption is to make bypassing a strict regulation easier. Over-stringent bureaucracy and regulation actually promotes corruption. You would basically want a system that incentives profit based on merit. Western militaries, particularly Anglo ones, are all descendant from the English "New Model Army" which explicitly focused on the importance of Meritocracy, at least within the Enlisted ranks. The Federal government, wanting cheap, but highly competent troops, would be the major enforcer of meritocratic focus. They have enormous incentives to maintain meritocracy over corruption. An incompetent, but politically appointed General, incompetently leading his own troops into disaster, is so well ingrained into the average soldier that "fragging" became a thing.
I could talk to you about the long history of political "Modern Major Generals" who are nothing beyond intellectualists & aristocrats that have no purpose on the battlefield going all the way back to Carrahe, but the fact that the enlisted ranks are prepared to execute incompetent officers says probably everything about the meritocratic focus.
So, that takes care of the external pressure to be meritocratic over corrupt. To avoid systemic corruption, the biggest factor is simply: pay. Well paid soldiers, like cops, are corrupt. Personal finance problems is one of the leading causes of corruption. Over-burdensome regulations incentivize the corruption, and poor pay & benefits nearly guarantee it.
What about internal pressures? Well, wealth, prestige, and status as an excellent niche in your particular field is critically important. Again: meritocracy over protectionism and corruption every time, and pretty much everyone is incentivized to want the highest competency in their soldiers.
There may be a threat for corruption with the feds favoring some states over others, but this is why you have to have each state excel at particular things. California might be producing great pilots, but Connecticut isn't. Instead, they need to focus on cyber-warfare.
The overall point here is not to prevent corruption, or even police it. But to use selfishness as a weapon to re-enforce meritocratic institutions.
I was having a hard time understanding til this part. I'll be thinking about it for a while in the back of my mind, thanks. I basically started slipping into a stance of pushing negative reinforcement when I know only positive reinforcement works.
I hadn't thought of it like this.
Also I assume you meant underpaid instead of well paid here.