Conflict (AND WAR)
( …. ) Three choices
THE THIRD QUESTION OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
The question isn’t how we get along, it’s Genghis Khan’s question:
“Why should the strong refrain from decimation, enslavement, enserfment, or rule for maximum profit?”
The only incentive for the strong is whether cooperation is preferable to conquest. It is only preferable for conquest if it is sufficiently preferable to conquest to refrain from conquest.
So, as the Great Khan said:
“Given that cooperation is not preferable or possible, and serfdom and slavery are costly, that leaves decimation, or rule for the maximization of profit.”
“We might prefer the former or the latter. However the enemy would undoubtedly prefer separation to decimation or rule under out maximization of profit. And this is the wise choice. Since we can still cooperate indirectly by trade while having no influence over one another within the same polity.”
The problem the Khan faced is that he lacked the ability to produce institutions capable of sustained rule, just as expansionary aryans lacked the ability to produce institutions of sustained rule for maximum profit.
The Indo-Aryans succeeded only under decimation and replacement in europe, not by any other means. The europeans killed the males and kept the females. The Persians stayed insular but were invaded by the Arabs, the indo-iranian’s are gone. The Anatolians are gone. The Caucasians are all but gone.
So the Khan was wrong. Decimation was the right answer.