But what is might here? Historically, "might" correlated near perfectly with "population size". From Sumer onward, the size of your army & slave count determin

But what is might here? Historically, "might" correlated near perfectly with "population size". From Sumer onward, the size of your army & slave count determined right-making (in the UN sense). Exceptions due to technology innovations were sparse and short-lived. Therefore subsequent evolution has been mostly around how to manage large groups of humans, through "social contracts" and various domestication measures. The social configurations that managed better, won over those that did worse. In other words, huge centralized states have been a huge evolutionary success. There are pretty much no independent ("sovereign" when it comes to right-making, UN or otherwise) small groups of humans any more, they got all gobbled up by superstates. But I wonder if our institutions have fully caught up to the fact that the number of humans is near-irrelevant now. With the right technology, a small group can dominate millions, billions. And their necessary supply chain is tiny, relative to the purported UN jurisdiction – by a factor of at least 1000x. So "democracy as right making" is at DIRECT ODDS with "might as right making". I wonder how this clash between where the power resides (technology and its homeostatic supply chain) and where people think it resides (themselves and their divine individuality) will play out. The emperor has no clothes.