If people were rational we wouldn't need money in the first place. Everybody would simply cooperate in order to maximize the benefit shared by all. We see this sort of behaviour in eusocial insects like bees and ants.
But bees and ants have genetically determined reasons for their social structures - their genetic makeup is more strongly shared between siblings than offspring so it's in their rational self-interest to be sterile themselves and to farm their sisters (usually just one sister - the queen) so as to maximise their biological utility function - which is usually the greatest number of closely related bees or ants out there.
Most other species don't have this sort of genetic makeup, so it wouldn't be rational for most of us non-Hymenopterae to mimic the social order of such insects.
There are examples of eusocial animals which are not haplodiploidy. Naked mole rats are one example.
I think you're trying to make an argument based on the game theoretic definition of "rational" rather than the common definition of rational which would correspond to game theory's "superrational". That is, a rational choice based on the common knowledge that all others are following the same playbook. Sure, hymenopterans have a better genetic incentive to favour superrational behaviour but that doesn't stop upstart queens appearing in a hive (and often getting destroyed, but not always).
Most other species don't have this sort of genetic makeup, so it wouldn't be rational for most of us non-Hymenopterae to mimic the social order of such insects.