There is a huge difference between the arguments I'm seeing for large groups of people disagreeing completely upon what people have control over, which very qui

There is a huge difference between the arguments I'm seeing for large groups of people disagreeing completely upon what people have control over, which very quickly devolves into what control and rules we should exert upon others. There seem to be thankfully some general ideas about consent that seem pretty obvious like for the most part people don't want to be murdered and dismembered, but the hardest part of the human species IMO is basically cat herding - how do we get collective action performed when both its strengths for evolution (ability to splinter off and form separate groups) is precisely the evolutionary biases that keeps it from achieving higher aggregate functions as a species. It seems kind of unfathomable to me how people do not understand that privatized tyranny is still tyranny by a system that is socially reinforced - it doesn't have to be a government that does it whatsoever and the general rules of power kind of matters more for first principles than some arbitrary definition of "capitalism" or "socialism" or whatnot that may be irrelevant in another thousand years. It's always been about how to organize collective actions compatible with the context of human social development.