One Hierarchy to Rule Them All

I want to suggest a singular moral assessment hierarchy to rule them all, one whose boundaries will not move because of leverage from other redeeming qualities: a trump card that renders all other labor invalid. Before we get to that, let me explain what I think we should optimize for in our economy. This essay is aspirational. It is completely unrealistic in real life as humans are today. With that in view, this is what utopia looks like.

In this world view we enforce:

• Game-theoretic realism

• Virtue-based moral hierarchy

• Long-horizon cognitive selection

• Zero-tolerance human trust failure architecture

  
  

High trust societies require reduced defection in cooperation due to the learning that reduces openness on follow on rounds. Higher throughput communication increases innovation. To maintain high throughput communication there needs to be no defectors in the ecosystem who poison it and cause people to invest energy in defending themselves from being cheated as a result of being too open. The lesson learned is not to. be less open. The lesson learned is to make no room for the participation in the economy those whose brain's and behaviors reduce trust by a lack of long-term planning.

Think of it like planning for the winter. In primitive times winters were harsh and required thinking ahead and not indulging in the present, conserving resources and applying calculations, thinking critically. These behaviors create ordering functions that naturally result in humans capable of a cognitive load that accounts for future consequences of behavior today. We require to optimize our innovation economy around those who demonstrate these innate characteristics in the way their minds work. Those who lack these natural or learned long-view thinking because of blindspots or cognitive shortcomings are pushed out of the economy in the world I am imagining.

We eliminate the pathogen in the innovation economy that lowers trust and thus reduces information throughput by way of incentives and peer-pressure so steep it grinds those who do not abandon their trust-disrupting behavior to a complete life halt, with no way to make a living. We do this by empowering the masses from youth in education the basic principles of game theory and stir up a contagion of rage towards those whose behaviors do not built permanent trust. We make it so that no one can breathe who is not a naturally honest person, authentic, and winter-planning thoughtful person.

Then, we again focus on the youth and work towards enforcing a single hierarchy to rule them all. In this framework, originality and rigid principles of doing things honestly without deception in the least, that are not waived or made exception for because of hardship, are non-negotiable. If success is achieved through copying rather than creation, through deception at someone else's expense, it signals that the person values the result of success more than its purpose. We discourage these values and punish them by denying the person employment if they cannot meet these standards. We eliminate this personality from the innovation economy.

This standard exists to make behavior predictable over long-scale horizons. Small actions are leading indicators of intent to discard a mask and change behavior later. This is unacceptable behavior in game theory. A person who bends rules by being unclear about their future plans, or who pressures others to accommodate their ego is signaling how they will behave once leverage is available. Those signals forecast behavior volatility by placing more focus on their place in the world than being the custodian of it all together. When personal desire—for status, recognition, or control—starts shaping decisions, outcomes are no longer driven by something bigger than the self. This is the behavior we exclude early in my model society.

We should optimize participation around those who demonstrate long-view reasoning, principled behavior under pressure, and non-defection across time. Those who lack these traits—whether due to blind spots, incentives, or cognitive limits—should not be accommodated inside systems that depend on permanent trust. Trust is fragile and once broken, it forces defensive behavior that reduces information throughput for everyone. High-trust systems therefore require explicit standards that filter out behaviors that reliably undermine them. There can be no hidden aims that if not hidden, would change the behavior of the counterparty long in advance of any future moves. This slow burn change is defection. Defection lowers trust. Everything then must be so direct we lack any capacity for soothing insecurity and those whose insecurity leads to less honorable behavior.

Education should teach basic game theory early so the consequences of defection in repeated interactions are understood before adulthood. From there, a single hierarchy governs participation. In this system we enforce a moral hierarchy that ranks the worth and status of a person exclusively by their ability to contribute to high trust ecosystems through internally controlled behavior that does not stimulate distrust. We enforce that:

• All results are null and void without honor

• Behavior that builds trust (not track record, success, or wealth) determines social status hierarchy

• Structural principles define identity—not narrative, intention, or self-description

High-trust innovation economies cannot survive without exclusion by standards. The alternative is gradual decay through tolerated defection. Clear boundaries are not cruelty. They are the cost of sustained openness, speed, and creation.

---

Further Readings:

1. Game Theory—Repeated Interaction Framework

   Rooted in repeated games where defection degrades future cooperation. Trust is treated as a throughput variable, and not some moral concept with good and bad. No moralizing. System survival is the priority goal once direction is set. System survival depends on excluding behaviors that poison future rounds. Strong overlap with the work of Robert Axelrod, extended from description into enforcement.

   
   

2. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics (Method Over Outcome)

   Human worth inside the system is revealed through consistent action under pressure and hardship. Character is exclusively defined by demonstrated conduct and treatment of others. Outcomes without virtue are treated as nonexistent and unworthy of reward. This aligns directly with Aristotle, stripped of mercy and softened cultivation.

   
   

3. Confucian Moral Hierarchy (Moral Rank Precedes Status)

   Respect from moral conduct precedes outcome results when establishing social hierarchy. Predictability, internal discipline, and internal locus of emotional, cognitive, and focus control determine eligibility for authority in hierarchy. Social harmony depends on exclusion of those who cannot self-govern. This is Confucian hierarchy without traditional rituals.

   
   

4. Protestant Work Ethic / Northern European Winter Planning

   Long-horizon thinking, delayed gratification, restraint, and planning under scarcity are treated as moral signals that the person can be trusted. Discipline towards these traits is proof of worth in society. Wealth, status, worship, fame, is not virtue; interpersonal and mission behavior is. This tradition runs from Calvinist Europe into early American productivity culture.

   
   

5. Nietzschean Selection Without Nihilism

   Rejection of excuses, resentment, and soothing. Contempt for weakness masquerading as morality. However, unlike Friedrich Nietzsche, this framework imposes absolute standards rather than dissolving morality. Selection is moral, not aesthetic.

   
   

6. High-Trust Systems Theory

   Trust is fragile, cumulative, and asymmetric in damage. One defector forces many defenders. The system must be designed to preserve openness by filtering participants, not by increasing surveillance or controls.

   
   

7. Exit-Based Selection, Not Coercion

   Enforcement occurs through standards and exclusion, not force. Participation is conditional. Dignity is not denied, but eligibility is. This sharply distinguishes the framework from authoritarian or totalitarian models.

   
   

8. Anti-Meritocratic, Anti-Outcome Moral Accounting

   Results do not justify methods. Success achieved through copying, deception, or asymmetry invalidates itself. Method defines legitimacy. Honor outweighs outcome.

   
   

9. Internal Locus of Control as Eligibility Requirement

   No soothing, no excuses, no externalization. Failure to self-regulate disqualifies participation. Circumstance does not waive principle.

   
   

10. Structural Identity Over Narrative Identity

    Identity is defined by principles adhered to under pressure, not by intention, story, or self-description. Moral structure coherence as a rank in hierarchy completely supersedes all needs for personal narrative and self-esteem, identity, etc.