> The system that we have is what we have because it's what has self-assembled and would self-assemble every time if we ran it again.

But different societies have developed different systems over the course of human history, no? You're probably looking at the "system" from a different perspective than I do, so I'd appreciate if you could describe this in more detail!

> My argument is that we don't have that capacity.

If humans don't have the capacity for long term collective action against individual interests, there is literally no point in trying any other system.

> If we want a system different than what self-assembles, we should first admit what self-assembles, and admit it's not because of individuals not doing their part or whatever. The system is the way it is because the natural laws it follows lead it to that state.

I really think you're reading positions into my initial comment that I've never stated, because this seems tangential to my thesis.

---

Edit: just saw the part starting at "I am tired of the moralizing arguments", not sure if I overlooked it or you edited. Either way I get your frustrations and agree that simplistic answers don't help. My initial comment was not meant as "it would be so simple if everyone just did X", but as a rebuttal to the idea that humans are incapable of long term collective action against individual interests. If humans fundamentally don't have the ability there'd be no point in trying, but I believe that we do have the capacity and should try, just as I understand you do too.

> If I misunderstood and that's not you, I'm sorry.

> I should have been less snippy at the top either way.

No worries, and thanks. I appreciate that you've explained your thoughts further!