Failure of Force

One of the key social observations we've made in the last 100 years is that the user of force on other people is insufficient to get good results.  "Do X or die" results in someone doing X poorly.  Indeed...this isn't even a new observation.  Slaves in America and slaves in Ancient Greece both behaved much the same as Communist peasants:  Do X resulted in X, but badly.  Incidentally...does this make for a full-on gene-complex in the human race?  If forced to do, you cannot do well?  Explains PART of test-score disparity in Indian Dalits, American Blacks, and any other low-status group?

Half-fortunately for the plutocrats...there is a solution.  Positve, rather than negative motivation.  Particularly competent and skilled slaves in both Greece and America were often paid, treated well, and given much freedom.  Why?  because it was the ONLY way that the owner could get what they actually wanted (full, top-end effort) from the slave.

How about despotic kings?  Same deal.  Folks with rare skills either got what they wanted...or the kings didn't get what they wanted.

The Aretae example is the only mining mechanic in an isolated mining town.  He's got more status than the sheriff...because he's the only guy who can keep the town's economy going.  In a conflict between the mechanic and the sheriff with a gun...the mechanic tends to win.

This problem generalizes in governance.  You cannot, in general, FORCE folks to do what you want.  You MIGHT be able to, under limited circumstances, force some/most folks to NOT do what you don't want.  But to get what you really want, you need cooperation.  And to get cooperation, you have to give the other guy what they want too.

Force gives you Communist Russia, where the state pretends to pay, and the people pretend to work...and even then, power was actually a coalitional thing, with the Secretary usually having little independent power.  

How do you handle the power-coalition-issue.  That is the primary/only(?) question in governance.