That sounds like a resounding endorsement for anarchy. :-) Game theorists will certainly disagree with you that there's no value in group cooperation. It's p

That sounds like a resounding endorsement for anarchy. :-) Game theorists will certainly disagree with you that there's no value in group cooperation. It's pretty obvious that any group that cooperates is more powerful toward almost any goal than any individual or group that does not cooperate. But the question implied by Levine isn't whether cooperation is "worth" more than uncooperation. He's asking whether authority is always good, and hence, whether anti-authority is necessarily bad, or whether it's often a constructive alternative to group-think and submission, given that everyone is inevitably part of one or more groups and thus is obliged to choose a path: conform, change the rules, or quit the group. Levine's implication is that those who choose not to play by the rules, and disrupt the group destructively, are not necessarily pathological. But I think Levine didn't succeed in making that case. He claimed only that some people are labeled as malefactors strictly because they refuse to conform to norms or authority. He doesn't say what fraction of those cases did so unhelpfully. In fact, I suspect all were disruptive to the group's normal conduct, and most in a destructive way. That's not exactly a strong case for singing out, "Viva la difference!"