[rmchugh]

So you are proposing that high cooperation is dependent on low government intervention. This seems incorrect. In Denmark for example there is a far more interventionist state than in the US, while membership of associations and clubs is also very high.

[smokeyj]

Part of it is game theory. If your community is your means of survival then being cooperative in your community increases the chance of reciprocation when needed. But I think the size of the community isn't something that can be institutionally grown to scale. A community without accountability devolves into anarchy very quickly. Instead of trying to get out what you put in, the game is to take as much and contribute as little as possible.

[rusk]

Game Theory, is based on the premise that all individuals are selfish. It makes sense in an atomised society, where all relationships are utilitarian. It's an economic theory, not a sociological one, and it breaks down once you factor in actual "society" as a premise. If you take the position that society exists first, then the individual rather than the other way round it all becomes quite messy an unwieldy. A society will typically reject members that only take, and there are many studies (sorry, no citation at hand) that demonstrate this with animal groups and actual human groups. You "can" attempt to explain many social phenomena using game theory but you have to integrate all sorts of remote concepts in order to make it work.

[smokeyj]

> Game Theory, is based on the premise that all individuals are selfish

Wrong. Selfish strategies aren't sustainable. Why should I continue with anything else you said? Your basic premise leads me to believe you don't have a rudimentary grasp on game theory, economics, psychology or sociology.

> If you take the position that society exists first

Yeah don't do that. Reason from first principle first and work your way up. Not the other way around.

https://xkcd.com/435/