> self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest

Often, but not always. Successful societies amplify that exception. The whole notion of non-kinship based societies rests on mastering this alignment. When it collapses, so does the civilisation.

> 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone

The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age.

> The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age.

The problem here is that it's true of specific things, not specific epochs. If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive. Meanwhile in reality the government takes billions of dollars from ordinary people and gives it to the likes of Lockheed, Oracle and Microsoft.

For the amount of money the US government pays Microsoft for Office subscriptions and the like, it could pay to have an office suite developed and released into the public domain many times over. Instead it uses the incumbent, in turn requiring others to do so in order to have formats compatible with the what the government uses. Who benefits from this other than Microsoft?

Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation. Not only is this demonstrated throughout human history but holds true to this day. Go ahead and show me a more profitable industry than diamonds or anything that runs on exploitation even to this day.

How do you come up with this math?

> The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me.