Your entire political theory rests on the notion that everyone is going to act completely reasonably and somehow always come to an agreement no matter what the nature of the dispute.
The mere existence of emotion or stubbornness completely overthrows your whole political system.
So I'll restate my test. Start listing historical precedents, or go back to the kid's table with the Reds who also think their ridiculous philosophy can work in the real world.
>t. Projecting autist
no, my entire theory rests on the notion that people are egoistic and will always try doing what's best for them. any mutual agreement means that both sides benefit.
But I could benefit more by screwing over this guy instead of coming to an agreement! Ah ha!
Said half the world leaders ever.
Whether you are RIGHT or not that both sides will benefit, the question is whether the people living in your system will actually behave that way.
Saying "My system is perfect, as long as everyone acts perfectly moral per my definition" is the same as saying "My system is dog shit"
>any mutual agreement means that both sides benefit.
what are you smoking
Remember kids, there's no government like NO GOVERNMENT!
Hoist that black flag.
I mean, he is TECHNICALLY correct.
You can just refuse to agree until you benefit.
The problem comes when you reach an impasse. If one side says "I think you will benefit by not being shot, and I will benefit by getting all your stuff." then that doesn't fit the definition of a mutually beneficial agreement for any sane person.
Basically he is relying on magic fairy space magic to make everyone reasonable and eliminate greed.
but this guy could benefit more if he screw me over! if i screw him over, he might get butt mad and never deal with me again! but wait! if i give him a teeny little bit more, i still get a profit and he'll be less likely to screw me over!
(repeat until both sides agree)
people already behave that way *today* - it's called capitalism and it obviously works.
black and gold flag!