When you start from the presumption that cooperation is mandatory rather than co

When you start from the presumption that cooperation is mandatory rather than cooperation is merely one choice among three: predation, cooperation, boycott – you can justify pragmatism, social construction, and religions of all stripes.

When you start from the truth: that we have the option for violence at all times, and that at all times violence might be preferable, you cannot justify pragmatism, social construction, and religions of all stripes.

This is why the philosophical lies and the abrahamic lies are so successful: by the mere fact that we are attempting to cooperate we have already forgone violence, and it is ‘rude’ to refer to that extra-discourse option. But to the man for whom cooperation is no longer preferable, he makes not presupposition, and has not forgone violence, but seeks to negotiate terms under which cooperating ‘might’ still be preferable to conflict, conquest, and predation.

Natural Law: no presumptions whatsoever.