THE “WHAT IF” OF UNIVERSALISM What if all companies compete in the market with t

THE “WHAT IF” OF UNIVERSALISM

What if all companies compete in the market with the same strategy? Those with the most credit will eventually accumulate the talent and other resources to defeat the rest. So companies specialize in market tactics.

What if all states compete in the market with the same strategy? If everyone competed on meritocracy, the most technologically advanced state would capture a disproportionate amount of the wealth. If on violence, the strongest would capture a disproportionate amount of the wealth, territory, and control. The most vocal the most influence. This is why states specialize in different tactics. Because meritocracy is only beneficial to the meritocratic. war is most beneficial to the strong. and everyone else engages in criticism and complaint as moral rebellion.

What if all tribes compete in the market with the same strategy? If all compete on meritocracy, the smartest, strongest, most trustworthy, and most technologically advanced will capture a disproportionate percentage of the wealth. If on strength, the strongest, and fastest, willing to make the greatest sacrifices will capture it. The rest will rely on gossip criticism and complaint and negotiate whatever possible ends they can. So tribes specialize in reproductive and social tactics.

What if all families compete in the market with the same strategy? if families competed in the polity using the same strategy the wealthy would prosper under meritocracy and the poor would prosper under communism, and the powerful would prosper under authoritarianism. This is why families politically compete using different political preferences: it is in their interests to do so. Classes vote as classes because classes share reproductive strategies. As much as we do not like it, humans use three different strategies (gossip/criticism/guilt, violence, remuneration) to compete, and they do so because the upper classes are literally genetically superior to the lower classes in both intelligence, ability, and reproductive value.

An homogenous polity, an homogenous moral code for a political system, is a disadvantage to some and an advantage to others. The state isn’t the only monopoly that’s ‘bad’. As an artifact of an extended family of aristocrats, it is adequate for the representation of their interests. A multi-house government is merely a market for constructing social contracts – as long as they are contracts that expire, rather than laws that do not. The mistake we made was in not adding the church as the lowest house of the state, and requiring that aristocracy(the land), merchant and banker (commerce), the common folk (the church and care-taking) were not separated into individual houses. Each with their own requirements for entry, and taxes paid, and all of which participated in exchanges.

Even as such, a division of those preferences does not solve the problem of the demand for totalitarianism on one end and demand for liberty at the other. The problem is that property rights must exist as universally atomic (private) but that we can use those rights under a political contract, to construct whatever political order best suits our reproductive interests.

Any order that constructs a market for exchange between those of us with dissimilar interests and abilities is a moral one. However, any order which favors one house or the other through parasitism rather than exchange does not.

The fallacy of the enlightenment is that of equality, since equality is a code word for monopoly, and monopoly is a code word for tyranny, and tyranny is a code word for parasitism. And under no condition is cooperation rational under parasitism. And if we are not cooperating then violence is on the table.