Is it? Do you understand the five first principles? I would argue that given hum

Is it? Do you understand the five first principles? I would argue that given human acquisitionalism that there are no conditions under which cooperation is not enforced by its opposite. And what is the difference if reciprocity is enforced and by what means? It doesn’t matter if you’re acting reciprocally no matter what the incentive to act reciprocally. All it means is that you are prevented from acting irreciprocally. (Again I had assumed this was rather obvious because it’s not the first time we have had the negativa vs positiva discussion in this context. The fact that we state it as cooperation instead of non-aggression, and as reciprocity instead of non-irreciprocity is just because humans are better when working with simple positivas than even a single negativa.

The first question is: “Why not commit suicide?” This question is that of Personal philosophy.
The second question is: “Why engage in cooperation rather than free-riding, parasitism, and predation?” This question is that of Ethics.
The third question – and one that a group must answer – is: “Why engage in cooperation with others, rather than free-riding, parasitism, and predation?” This question is that of Politics.
The Fourth Question a group must answer is: “How shall we organize our people with myths, arguments, and rules to survive and prosper in competition from nature and man?” That the question of Group Evolutionary Strategy,
The Fifth Question a group must answer is “What are the limits of tolerance for life, for ethics, for politics, and for group evolutionary strategy, before we resort to suicide, separation, free riding, parasitism, predation, and the condition of victimhood?” That is the Question of Limits.

Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @Will_of_Europa