Reciprocal communitarianism is probably how altruism evolved.
Some mammal started running TIT-FOR-TAT, the program where you cooperate with anyone whom you expect to cooperate with you.
So let’s talk about how beneficial game-theoretic equilibria can come to exist even in the absence of centralized enforcers.
I know of two main ways: reciprocal communitarianism, and divine grace.
So then I try to destroy the hated Protestants using the government.So maybe a ‘no malicious lies’ amendment to the Constitution would work if it were enforceable, which it isn’t, but just asking people to stop spreading malicious lies is doomed from the start.The Jews will no doubt spread lies against us, so if we stop spreading lies about them, all we’re doing is abandoning an effective weapon against a religion I personally know to be heathenish!No one can securely practice their own religion, no one can learn about other religions, people are constantly plotting civil war, academic freedom is severely curtailed, and once again the country goes down the toilet. I won’t use the apparatus of government against Protestantism, you don’t use the apparatus of government against Catholicism. Like maybe the Protestants could stop saying that the Catholics worshipped the Devil, and the Catholics could stop saying the Protestants hate the Virgin Mary, and they could both relax the whole thing about the Jews baking the blood of Christian children into their matzah.The specific American example is the First Amendment and the general case is called “liberalism”, or to be dramatic about it, “civilization 2.0” Every case in which both sides agree to lay down their weapons and be nice to each other has corresponded to spectacular gains by both sides and a new era of human flourishing. “But your two examples were about contracts written on paper and enforced by the government.
In other words, if a fight is important to you, fight nasty. But in a way, that would be assuming the conclusion.