[cmurf]

No.

Read Hobbes' Leviathan, it discusses this. A prerequisite for success the sovereign must establish a state religion, subjects comply or are executed.

And then John Locke, with emphasis on consent of the governed.

And why not the Catholic Church? The pope is essentially what you describe but they have been many bad Popes. Nevertheless as an institution it endures, with and without justice.

A sovereign who is completely selfless would not be a human. So you're necessarily searching for deities or an off worlder. And when they're done? Who then? Sounds chaotic and capricious.

[buvanshak]

>A sovereign who is completely selfless would not be a human.

All human beings have survival instincts. But we manages to build soldiers that are willing to risk their lives for random stuff. Right?

In such way, it might be possible to build, or grow, generations of such people, completely selfless..

[mtreis86]

Random stuff isn't what soldiers risk their lives for. Many see their community as an extension of their family. Others are idealistic. Some didn't realize the risk. It isn't random though.

[buvanshak]

> Random stuff isn't what soldiers risk their lives for.

I mean orders from higher authorities. Are the soldiers given reason or entitled for one? They are just supposed to obey, right?

[mtreis86]

Yes they are given reasons, volunteers tend to fight better that way. They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution.

"They suffered and they did their duty so a sheltered homeland can enjoy the peace that was purchased at such a high cost." Eugene Sledge

[buvanshak]

> They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution...

Are you seriously saying all the troops deployed in Nam and the middle east was protecting US constitution..

[AnimalMuppet]

No, mtreis86 is saying that, if US troops are given orders to, say, occupy Washington DC and arrest the members of Congress and the Supreme Court, on orders of the President, they're not supposed to do it, even though doing so would be obeying orders.

[mtreis86]

Not at all, I was specifically responding to "what soldiers risk their lives for"

That said, according to the UCMJ, the orders given to slaughter civilians in Vietnam were unlawful and a soldier refusing to obey them would not have been prosecuted.

"Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful."

http://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/MCM2016.pdf?ver=...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120324030925/http://www.usna.e...

[freeflight]

While it might not have been your intention, you pretty much described the Hitlerjugend there, indoctrination of children for a "bigger cause".

Even if the cause might be a good one, we still value our individuality over mass enforced and indoctrinated conformism. It might be anything but harmonic, and quite chaotic, but individuality gives us a diversity of ideas and views, thus enabling adaptability, which is one of homo sapiens sapiens biggest advantages.