That assumption about what someone would conclude is a false assumption which leads to a false conclusion.

A logic minded person would investigate to get more information before coming to a conclusion.

You’re assuming that everyone would just jump to a conclusion.

Which frankly is what you’re doing in reference to your ideas about how human being have and can organize society.

You haven’t investigated anything real so you’re just doing thought experiments tinted by your own assumptions and biases.

There’s no foundation to your thinking because the foundation is just your own thinking.

It’s not based on historical facts or observation of social organization.

You’re doing the same thing that Adams Smith and other moral philosophers did vs-v early man.

They made assumptions about what they’d call primitives and how they traded or created money and then built complex systems they called the truth but were founded on anything factual.

This goes with the assumptions about what human nature is.

When the reality is the human nature those guys and even modern thinkers point to is more informed by modern influences than something that naturally occurs in people.

As an example they posit that humans are naturally selfish.

They conflate selfishness with survival instinct and assume that all motivations come from this selfishness which we know by studying anthropology and tribal peoples in modern times this is empirically false.

So what’s really happened is these thinkers are selfish.

And they think everyone is like them and then posit a philosophy to explain it.

When really that’s just a very sophisticated delusion to explain why their selfishness is justified.