Haiti (Catch all)

[Tom Kratman]

If you believe that to be true, I'm quite happy that I never served in the same units in combat upon which you base that statement. Your generalization applies to very few people in my experience even if it is prevalent thought in a lot of war fiction. I'd also submit that any halfway decent combat experienced NCO -- or Officer -- (that's actual troop leading in combat experience and not just service in the Theater) can look at a roomful of people in peacetime and tell you with ≥90% accuracy which ones will bear watching in combat.

Yes, your generalization does apply to that <10%. Those are the ones who have commitment problems and who bear watching -- and mediocre and better units have fewer than that percentage because they purge them or place them where they cannot damage or infect others (sometimes legally, sometimes not...) -- and yes, there are occasional exceptions to my generalization as well .

I look at it differently, which is to say that an experienced leader can be about 90% certain of everybody, but there is room for doubt with anybody.

Addendum: If there's any source I drew on for that it's Ardant du Picq's Battle Studies, not fiction.

[Ken White]

that's a way to look at it. While it is true that anyone can snap at an unexpected trigger event, low level snapping can be easily precluded by good selection and training. We in the US have only marginal selection and training for most and my observation has been that the figures I cited are conservative, your fight or flight pattern is the exception. A small one at that.

Du Picq is part of your problem -- different time, different training regimen, very different TTP so while he was fairly accurate for France and his time, that was then -- probably up through WW I -- and this is now and it's the US; even our marginal training obviates many of Du Piq's concerns. Plus the US Soldier and Marine have rarely complied with European norms. Nothing wrong with those norms, just that the US was and is a little different. As the COIN fans say, culture matters...

[Tom Kratman]

that's a way to look at it. While it is true that anyone can snap at an unexpected trigger event, low level snapping can be easily precluded by good selection and training. We in the US have only marginal selection and training for most and my observation has been that the figures I cited are conservative, your fight or flight pattern is the exception. A small one at that.

Du Picq is part of your problem -- different time, different training regimen, very different TTP so while he was fairly accurate for France and his time, that was then -- probably up through WW I -- and this is now and it's the US; even our marginal training obviates many of Du Piq's concerns. Plus the US Soldier and Marine have rarely complied with European norms. Nothing wrong with those norms, just that the US was and is a little different. As the COIN fans say, culture matters...

I'm inclined to disagree, in part, and agree, in part. I don't think du Piqc is entirely obsolete, for example, or speaks merely to Europeans. On the other hand, I do agree that we are somewhat different. And I absolutely agree that training and selection in the US Army, and the Corps, too, has rarely been what it could and should be.

By the way, I don't think that's negative, as you characterized it, so much as humble.

[davidbfpo]

Moderators Note

The last few posts have developed a military discipline / legal issue that appeared amidst the comments on Haiti and the thread is now moving off topic. If the legal issue needs further comment I may create a new thread, or you can request one (no fee).

[Tom Kratman]

Moderators Note

The last few posts have developed a military discipline / legal issue that appeared amidst the comments on Haiti and the thread is now moving off topic. If the legal issue needs further comment I may create a new thread, or you can request one (no fee).

Actually, it's drifted even more than that. Ken and I, both, have brought up the subject of training and selection - and it is a subject near and dear to my heart - which might justify its own thread, too.

That said, I have the feeling nobody much wants to talk about Haiti, now, so it's not much a burden to the existing thread, either.

[Ken White]

I read that somewhere. Or maybe I made it up. I'm old, can't remember...

[Tom Kratman]

I read that somewhere. Or maybe I made it up. I'm old, can't remember...

It always comes as a shock when it happens to someone you know.

[Ken White]

him -- but I may...

To return the thread from whence it came, I've been to Haiti, no desire to go back. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment on that topic.

[Tom Kratman]

him -- but I may...

To return the thread from whence it came, I've been to Haiti, no desire to go back. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment on that topic.

I slurped at the Army trough a long time, so it's possible. More likely if you were a grunt, considerably less likely if you were SF, as the nearest I came to that was attachment or being co- / near-located. In either case, though, I'd be very surprised if we didn't know some of the same people, even if we have 10-15 years difference in entering service, which we might. I didn't enlist until 74.

Haitians...you know, I felt sorry for them. Even when they were (incompetently) trying to steal from us, I felt sorry for them. They, none of them, created the world into which they were born and, as Marc pointed out, to act any other way than they do, in that world, would be a kind of insanity.

[Ken White]

...if you were a grunt, considerably less likely if you were SF...In either case, though, I'd be very surprised if we didn't know some of the same people, even if we have 10-15 years difference in entering service, which we might. I didn't enlist until 74.

Both on the jobs, very probably on the knowing others but I retired in 77 with just a tad less than 28 years not counting my year plus of National Guard time before the active bit. Did the DAC thing for another 18 finally totally retired in 95 because I got tired of trying to keep each new General from embarrassing himself trying to reinvent wheels in two year tours...

...to act any other way than they do, in that world, would be a kind of insanity.

True. Little hope for much change IMO; we have to try and I'd love to be surprised. Rarely am.

[Tom Kratman]

Both on the jobs, very probably on the knowing others but I retired in 77 with just a tad less than 28 years not counting my year plus of National Guard time before the active bit. Did the DAC thing for another 18 finally totally retired in 95 because I got tired of trying to keep each new General from embarrassing himself trying to reinvent wheels in two year tours...True. Little hope for much change IMO; we have to try and I'd love to be surprised. Rarely am.

I think I saw a general invent a new type of wheel - that worked - precisely once. But reinventing the old type or creating square wheels? That calc would be X-1 where X equals all the generals I've known. Then again, I've only known a handful of generals that were worth much at all. And even one or two of that small slice had feet of clay.

[jmm99]

Do we focus, in this thread, on the "Harsh" or the "Haiti". I agree that Haiti should be the focus.

from David
The last few posts have developed a military discipline / legal issue that appeared amidst the comments on Haiti and the thread is now moving off topic. If the legal issue needs further comment I may create a new thread, or you can request one (no fee).

As you correctly note, the last part of the conversation has developed some "military discipline / legal issues"; but it also goes to training and education for combat, where the legal component should (but does not always) follow sound operational considerations. It also goes to military philosophy (which some may find as foreign as military music, military justice and military intelligence - and yes Virginia, all exist). And a lot more considerations that affect one eventual product, military law.

Haiti will disappear as a major item from our radar screen, but the issues (both operational and legal) which can arise in a host of "gray areas" will not. Many of those issues come to the fore when we have to deal with irregular combatants in our "small wars" of the present and the future. Many of these subjects are "touchy".

I have no idea where such a thread should go. IMO: Law Enforcement is not the place. I agree on the idea of a separate thread.

Regards

Mike

PS: Kratman, you ain't that scary. Consider what I have to confront each morning in the mirror. Now, Ken White is really scary and you don't need a visual for that. I did have to look up "overbearing putz" (as to "putz", which I find = fool, idiot); and that doesn't fit either.

[Tom Kratman]

Do we focus, in this thread, on the "Harsh" or the "Haiti". I agree that Haiti should be the focus.



As you correctly note, the last part of the conversation has developed some "military discipline / legal issues"; but it also goes to training and education for combat, where the legal component should (but does not always) follow sound operational considerations. It also goes to military philosophy (which some may find as foreign as military music, military justice and military intelligence - and yes Virginia, all exist). And a lot more considerations that affect one eventual product, military law.

Haiti will disappear as a major item from our radar screen, but the issues (both operational and legal) which can arise in a host of "gray areas" will not. Many of those issues come to the fore when we have to deal with irregular combatants in our "small wars" of the present and the future. Many of these subjects are "touchy".

I have no idea where such a thread should go. IMO: Law Enforcement is not the place. I agree on the idea of a separate thread.

Regards

Mike

PS: Kratman, you ain't that scary. Consider what I have to confront each morning in the mirror. Now, Ken White is really scary and you don't need a visual for that. I did have to look up "overbearing putz" (as to "putz", which I find = fool, idiot); and that doesn't fit either.

Putz may mean those, but in context (also more generally, as in the Yiddish saying: "Wann die putz steht, liegt die sinn in die Erde.") it means...err...male appendage. As for scary, leaving aside the somewhat odd eyes, and rather cynical outlook on life, I'm not, particularly. The person who coined it, and the group he coined it for, were fairly far left. Anybody military would be scary to them.

Addendum: The other thing they tend to find scary is that I write science fiction with right wing themes. Liberatianism, that sort will tolerate, because they don't take it seriously. Right wing, in the future when it's prophesied to be dead, is scary and heretical.

[marct]

Addendum: The other thing they tend to find scary is that I write science fiction with right wing themes. Liberatianism, that sort will tolerate, because they don't take it seriously. Right wing, in the future when it's prophesied to be dead, is scary and heretical.

Well, speaking as someone who actualy reads your science fiction and recommends it to my students and friends (), I hate to tell you, but it ain't "right wing" except by PC, parlour-pink Marxist standards . "Libertarian", maybe, although not Randite. Personally, I would classify the political message as "pragmatist" (then again, I'm part of the Old right wing on the [now defunct] conservative party of Canada ).

David, Mike and Tom; the conversation actually hasn't veered that much from the original reason for spinning off this thread. If we consider the initial posts that sparked the spin-off, they have everything to do with how warfare, and "peacekeeping", are construed in a legal, moral and philosophical sense. These conceptualizations get worked into training, ROEs, etc., etc. and then played out in real life.

When we look at a crisis humanitarian mission, such as the Haiti situation, we also have to consider how that is conceptualized in international relations. It is one of the few times when sovereignty is, de facto, abnegated for a limited time due to an Act of God (who in the post-Westphalian concept of Sovereignty is, after all, the source of sovereignty). And on that, somewhat arcane, note, i will return to my bottle of merlot.....

[Tom Kratman]

Well, speaking as someone who actualy reads your science fiction and recommends it to my students and friends, I hate to tell you, but it ain't "right wing" except by PC, parlour-pink Marxist standards . "Libertarian", maybe, although not Randite. Personally, I would classify the political message as "pragmatist" (then again, I'm part of the Old right wing on the [now defunct] conservative party of Canada.

David, Mike and Tom; the conversation actually hasn't veered that much from the original reason for spinning off this thread. If we consider the initial posts that sparked the spin-off, they have everything to do with how warfare, and "peacekeeping", are construed in a legal, moral and philosophical sense. These conceptualizations get worked into training, ROEs, etc., etc. and then played out in real life.

When we look at a crisis humanitarian mission, such as the Haiti situation, we also have to consider how that is conceptualized in international relations. It is one of the few times when sovereignty is, de facto, abnegated for a limited time due to an Act of God (who in the post-Westphalian concept of Sovereignty is, after all, the source of sovereignty). And on that, somewhat arcane, note, i will return to my bottle of merlot.....

So, if I understand it, you're the Viet Cong of the Anthropology field, then? Well, you and Alfredo Figueredo.

There are a number of illusions people have about the political spectrum and their place on it. One of those is optical in that if one is far enough left, everything to the right of center blurs together, while if one is far enough right, everything to the left of center blurs together. I am, and my books are, near as I can tell, right on the cusp of the right edge of the middle third and the left edge of the right third - more rightish in matters of foreign policy, more centrish in matters of domestic policy. Minarchist (no more government than you need...and no less, either), in any event.

Sovereignty...all right...yes...but. It's more a matter of fact, with legal and moral implications, than a matter of morality and law with practical implication. In a place like Haiti, with few of the attributes of sovereignty, anyway, and those weak, a natural disaster can take away what little factual attributes of sovereignty they have. Compare that, though, with a conceptual natural disaster (to the extent they aren't a continuing man-made disaster) in North Korea. A strong (albeit quite mad) central government, with a million man army in 20 corps, backed up by a militia of three and a half million, is still a LOT of sovereignty. The only natural disaster I can imagine that would negate that would be for that whole half of the penninsula to sink into the sea.

[marct]

Hi Tom,

(From Tom Kratman;92241)So, if I understand it, you're the Viet Cong of the Anthropology field, then? Well, you and Alfredo Figueredo.

Well, I can't speak for Alfredo, but no, no Viet Cong. Very much a 19th century liberal with somewhat excessive streaks of pre-modernists role assumptions .

There are a number of illusions people have about the political spectrum and their place on it. One of those is optical in that if one is far enough left, everything to the right of center blurs together, while if one is far enough right, everything to the left of center blurs together. I am, and my books are, near as I can tell, right on the cusp of the right edge of the middle third and the left edge of the right third - more rightish in matters of foreign policy, more centrish in matters of domestic policy. Minarchist (no more government than you need...and no less, either), in any event.

Personally, and this is coming from 6 years as a political "back room" organizer, I have thrown out the supposed left-right spectrum as being analytically and philosophically useless and culturally dangerous. I sometimes describe myself as an anarcho-monarchist, especially when i want to frustrate people . What I try to capture by using that term, however, is the dichotomy that individual free will and responsibility must exist with within a framework of socio-cultural tradition.

One of the things I like about your books, along with Heinlein's and a few others, is that it captures some of the complexity of individuals exercising free will in a socio-cultural matrix, and the limitations inherent in the logics of those matrices.

Sovereignty...all right...yes...but. It's more a matter of fact, with legal and moral implications, than a matter of morality and law with practical implication.

One of the nasty little linguistic points I like to make with my students is that the English word "fact" comes from the Latin factum - made or created . "Sovereignty" gets to be exceedingly slippery, at a conceptual level once it gets abstracted from a cultural matrix. For example, there is often a twinning of sovereignty and legitimacy, but we rarely see a discussion of the cultural meaning of the term; we take it as an axiomatic assumption. A cabal, to use a loaded term, may have official sovereignty, be internationally considered as "legitimate" and, by not meeting the cultural expectations of those they claim to "rule", totally irrelevant.

In a place like Haiti, with few of the attributes of sovereignty, anyway, and those weak, a natural disaster can take away what little factual attributes of sovereignty they have. Compare that, though, with a conceptual natural disaster (to the extent they aren't a continuing man-made disaster) in North Korea. A strong (albeit quite mad) central government, with a million man army in 20 corps, backed up by a militia of three and a half million, is still a LOT of sovereignty. The only natural disaster I can imagine that would negate that would be for that whole half of the penninsula to sink into the sea.

Hmmm, try a new strain of virulent pneumo-coccus with an extended life outside of a host body. Given the general level of both nutrition and health care in North Korea, it would spread like wildfire, lead to an international quarantine and, probably, be seen as a sign that heaven has withdrawn its support for the dynasty.

[Tom Kratman]

[QUOTE=marct;92249]Hi Tom,

So, if I understand it, you're the Viet Cong of the Anthropology field, then? Well, you and Alfredo Figueredo.

Well, I can't speak for Alfredo, but no, no Viet Cong. Very much a 19th century liberal with somewhat excessive streaks of pre-modernists role assumptions.



Personally, and this is coming from 6 years as a political "back room" organizer, I have thrown out the supposed left-right spectrum as being analytically and philosophically useless and culturally dangerous. I sometimes describe myself as an anarcho-monarchist, especially when i want to frustrate people. What I try to capture by using that term, however, is the dichotomy that individual free will and responsibility must exist with within a framework of socio-cultural tradition.

One of the things I like about your books, along with Heinlein's and a few others, is that it captures some of the complexity of individuals exercising free will in a socio-cultural matrix, and the limitations inherent in the logics of those matrices.



One of the nasty little linguistic points I like to make with my students is that the English word "fact" comes from the Latin factum - made or created. "Sovereignty" gets to be exceedingly slippery, at a conceptual level once it gets abstracted from a cultural matrix. For example, there is often a twinning of sovereignty and legitimacy, but we rarely see a discussion of the cultural meaning of the term; we take it as an axiomatic assumption. A cabal, to use a loaded term, may have official sovereignty, be internationally considered as "legitimate" and, by not meeting the cultural expectations of those they claim to "rule", totally irrelevant.



Hmmm, try a new strain of virulent pneumo-coccus with an extended life outside of a host body. Given the general level of both nutrition and health care in North Korea, it would spread like wildfire, lead to an international quarantine and, probably, be seen as a sign that heaven has withdrawn its support for the dynasty.

No definition for such a complex matter could hope to be both comprehensible and perfect. The usual alternative proposed is an X-Y graph, a la Jerry Pournelle's. The problem with those, typically, is that with the values and outlooks they posit for X and Y, there is no one who is not either mad or a moron who can occupy two of the corners. What you end up with, then, is an oval running between two opposite corners, upper right and lower left, say. Turn it 45 degrees clockwise and what do you have? A left-right spectrum with some relatively minor ups and downs. That's why I tend to stick with left and right. They're not perfect descriptors, but they're close while being simple enough to comprehend and explain. There's also the factor that, whatever up down variance there may be, the existence of "the other" tends to organize people along one or another end of the line.

I mean Viet Cong in the "Worm in the wood" sense; the dissenters from left wing, political anthropology, who undermine it from inside the beast.

I was pulling Eric Flint's leg one time, by claiming to be a libertarian fascist. He denied this, insisting I was an anarcho-nationalist. He had a point.

Are you sure they'd be irrelevant if, say, the cultural expectations of those they claim to rule include, "if we do not obey, we will be tortured and killed, our wives and daughters raped, then sold as slaves...." presupposing the cabal has the means of doing that, of course?

Factual may come from factus, and coupled with manu turn into manufacture. What it means now, though, is "real" or "true." You're right, however, that both sovereignty and legitimacy have, in public discourse, become terms fuzzy to the point of near uselessness. It isn't entirely, though, that the words have lost their meaning as that they've been deliberately prostituted to serve anti-sovereignty ends.

[marct]

Hi Tom,

No definition for such a complex matter could hope to be both comprehensible and perfect..... They're not perfect descriptors, but they're close while being simple enough to comprehend and explain. There's also the factor that, whatever up down variance there may be, the existence of "the other" tends to organize people along one or another end of the line.

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head as to one of the main reasons I reject the line or spectrum model; the polarizing effect it has. That polarizing effect, at least in my experience, all too often serves to stifle debate and exert an if-then influence that just serves to make people less thinking and less accountable.

I mean Viet Cong in the "Worm in the wood" sense; the dissenters from left wing, political anthropology, who undermine it from inside the beast.

Ah, you mean like insurgent . yup; I'm just not a populist insurgent.

I was pulling Eric Flint's leg one time, by claiming to be a libertarian fascist. He denied this, insisting I was an anarcho-nationalist. He had a point.

Yup, I can see that. It certainly does come through in your writing ....

Are you sure they'd be irrelevant if, say, the cultural expectations of those they claim to rule include, "if we do not obey, we will be tortured and killed, our wives and daughters raped, then sold as slaves...." presupposing the cabal has the means of doing that, of course?

Well, let's put it this way - if those are the cultural expectations on the ground, then if they don't do it or don't threaten it at least enough for people to believe they can (and will) do it, then they are are irrelevant since some other cabal will come along and say "Look, a real ruler would kill and torture you, but these slobs can't even do that. They're not strong enough to be real rulers; they are sell outs - namby-pamby LIBERALS!!!! - who we have to get rid of for our own good otherwise they will all have us hugging trees, thinking warm and fuzzy thoughts until we all just lie back and spend our days watching reruns of Baywatch! This has to stop! we need to return to the values of our Founding Fathers and restore our greatness as a people!"

So, yeah, under those conditions, the international "facts" are pretty irrelevant....

Factual may come from factus, and coupled with manu turn into manufacture. What it means now, though, is "real" or "true." You're right, however, that both sovereignty and legitimacy have, in public discourse, become terms fuzzy to the point of near uselessness. It isn't entirely, though, that the words have lost their meaning as that they've been deliberately prostituted to serve anti-sovereignty ends.

Agreed on all counts, although I would have added "convenient" to the list. Then again, I don't accept New Speak from my students (or colleagues), so I see no need to pander to the linguistic deficiencies of anyone else. 'sides that, I can be a linguistic SOB and use it to quickly separate people out into those who can think and those who just spout party lines <damn, there ain't an "evil grin" smiley!!!!>.

Seriously, though, just because popular usage of a word shifts, and English is actually one of the worst languages for that, it still retains older implications which usually give away people's agendas.

[Tom Kratman]

(From Marct;92264)Hi Tom,

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head as to one of the main reasons I reject the line or spectrum model; the polarizing effect it has. That polarizing effect, at least in my experience, all too often serves to stifle debate and exert an if-then influence that just serves to make people less thinking and less accountable.

Well...if you mean there's an element of self-fulfilling prophecy to the thing, sure, okay. On the other hand, if you get rid of it someone (me, say) will just come along and reinvent the concept.

Ah, you mean like insurgent . yup; I'm just not a populist insurgent.

There have been right wing guerillas, too, here and there. Until I was effectively barred from speaking to foreigners, I held that job at the PKSOI.

Yup, I can see that. It certainly does come through in your writing ....

Well, let's put it this way - if those are the cultural expectations on the ground, then if they don't do it or don't threaten it at least enough for people to believe they can (and will) do it, then they are are irrelevant since some other cabal will come along and say "Look, a real ruler would kill and torture you, but these slobs can't even do that. They're not strong enough to be real rulers; they are sell outs - namby-pamby LIBERALS!!!! - who we have to get rid of for our own good otherwise they will all have us hugging trees, thinking warm and fuzzy thoughts until we all just lie back and spend our days watching reruns of Baywatch! This has to stop! we need to return to the values of our Founding Fathers and restore our greatness as a people!"

So, yeah, under those conditions, the international "facts" are pretty irrelevant....

Agreed on all counts, although I would have added "convenient" to the list. Then again, I don't accept New Speak from my students (or colleagues), so I see no need to pander to the linguistic deficiencies of anyone else. 'sides that, I can be a linguistic SOB and use it to quickly separate people out into those who can think and those who just spout party lines <damn, there ain't an "evil grin" smiley!!!!>.

Seriously, though, just because popular usage of a word shifts, and English is actually one of the worst languages for that, it still retains older implications which usually give away people's agendas.

Someone, James Nichol, maybe, wrote something to the effect that English doesn't 'borrow' from foreign languages; it follows them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and then goes through their pockets for loose vocabulary. It has unequaled vocabulary, subtlety, scope, and poetry. And it is a Corcyrean Rebellion on the hoof. ("First, words had to lose their meanings...") And there is virtually no other major language in which gender-neutral speech (Gag!) is so easy.

[marct]

Hi Tom,

Well...if you mean there's an element of self-fulfilling prophecy to the thing, sure, okay. On the other hand, if you get rid of it someone (me, say) will just come along and reinvent the concept.

Probably inevitable; at least if you buy into Levy Strauss (Anthropology, not jeans ). Still, I'd rather fight against the self-fulfilling prophecy trend, at least as much as possible.

Ah, you mean like insurgent. yup; I'm just not a populist insurgent.

There have been right wing guerillas, too, here and there. Until I was effectively barred from speaking to foreigners, I held that job at the PKSOI.

LOL - I remember once asking a friend what my security jacket said. his response was that it said "Known subversive, but we don't know what type!". Along the same lines (hey, all anthropologists are story-tellers), I remember spending a couple of hours chatting with Montgomery McFate over cocktails. Part of the chat, inevitably, moved into politics and I told her I was a "right wing conservative". I then had to take about 20 minutes to explain that that meant something totally different from her expectations.

Honestly, a large part of the reason why I reject the right-left binary opposition model comes down not only to the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, and that's a pretty bad one (if we ever get together for a few pints I'll tell you some stories...) but, also, to the implicit metaphysics behind the entire model. That would probably lead us into a really strange turn of discussion...

Someone, James Nichol, maybe, wrote something to the effect that English doesn't 'borrow' from foreign languages; it follows them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and then goes through their pockets for loose vocabulary. It has unequaled vocabulary, subtlety, scope, and poetry. And it is a Corcyrean Rebellion on the hoof. ("First, words had to lose their meanings...") And there is virtually no other major language in which gender-neutral speech (Gag!) is so easy.

LOL. Back when i was teaching Intro to Anth, I used to describe English as a polymorphously erotic language that would roll anyone for anything .

Actually, I happen to really like English as a language - as you say, "unequaled vocabulary, subtlety, scope, and poetry". I have no problems with it mugging other languages for words or just making them up because they are cool and "fit" the concept. At the same time, I get truly pissed with people who treat English as if it was a nickle and dime, statue of Venus hooker and don't realize that they have picked up intellectual clap from their activities (hey, I've had to read a LOT of first year papers.... !).

So, let's get back to that lovely word "sovereignty" for a bit. Remember the infamous, and eponymous, phrase "Let them eat cake" from the French revolution? It plays back into the comments I was making about cultural expectations. In the West, as Machiavelli so astutely noted, our sovereigns are first amongst equals. Other cultures have other models like the God King model so beloved of the Middle east (and didn't Gilgamesh have to go through all sorts of hoops to get THAT established! Three parents?!?!?!).

But there is always a "contract" of some form built in; a "balance of terror" if you will, that seems to go back to well before we had writing and, possibly, to before horticulture (no, not Hobbes, this is from Sahlins Stone Age Economics ). We (as a species) would, I suggest, tend to reify our "contracted wills", for want of a better term, onto something - a deity, a clan, a monarch, a concept, etc.. These reifications, in turn, are the focus (not source) of "sovereignty" and, as long as they follow the cultural rules for reification, including the inevitable changes that happen over time, they are "legitimate" in that culture. If they get too far out of touch with the culture, they will inevitably loose legitimacy and, probably, their lives.