I see. Ok. Two goals. One is to decide in matters of conflict (law, decidability

I see. Ok. Two goals. One is to decide in matters of conflict (law, decidability) and the other is to advice in matters of opportunity(philosophy, advice). I’m emphasizing the former and you’re emphasizing the latter. As such both are correct. In the judicial context the former matters but not the latter. In the political context both matter. And if a people legislate their CHOICE (philosophy) then it is decidable in court under the law that includes both decidability and preference (choice).
This is a great subject for exposition because I think it would clarify why so many people want us to produce effectively a philosophy for our people, and i’m trying to develop a universal law of deicidability for all.
Now you might counter that well, it’s good for everyone, but is it? (I just talked myself into your position). Well, there are groups that are better off living among other groups, and groups that cannot survive unless they can integrate into other groups – even at the loss of their identity. Because it is the only means of preserving their genes.

Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS