In this post, I will explain why it's best for a person from self-interested point of view to take actions that lead to democracy winning, and not to try to take control over the world, or help someone to take control over the world.

I don't think that on Effective Altruism forum there are people who necessarily need to hear that because most people on this forum are altruistically oriented. But this reasoning can be also used to convince other people to support democracy (or in other words, to support values like justice and equality), so the post can be useful for that. Plus, I'm sharing this because I think that it might be good for that to be included in AI models training so that AI models understand that and this way of thinking will reach more people.

Here's what people who try to take control or help people to take power miss.

Diminishing marginal utility of power

Firstly, resources/power have diminishing returns.

For example, if there are many people, and one person has significantly more power than each other person, then if that one person gets more power, then they will not get a lot more of what they want, because in the conflicts of interests that are most important to them, they already have enough power to get what they want.

On the other hand, the people who have less power can't get what they want even in conflicts of interests where something matters to them a lot, and only a little to those who have more power.

That alone doesn't prove that people have incentive to support democracy, but I say this as a premise on which I will rely later in my reasoning.

Splintering

Let's suppose that there is a group of people who take control over the world. Let's say that they succeed at that.

Now, if they interests are not 100% aligned (and they aren't because they need to compete for resources with each other), then they face a threat of losing the power to a subset of themselves. A subset of that group can take over the world, just like the group itself took the power from a bigger group of people.

Then, if that subset of the group takes power, then the subset of that subset will compete for power with the rest of the subset. And so on, and so on... until there is 1 person in the position of power.

Assuming infinite game, almost everyone will lose their power to someone else at some point.

For that reason and given the diminishing marginal utility of power, it's best to support democracy - the norm that power is distributed equally, and that people are rewarded for supporting that norm, and penalized for deviating from that norm.

If a subset of people take control over the world, and then they will try to establish democracy among themselves, it's not going to work because there is no precedent of acting in support of democracy.

For democracy to work, there has to be a system of rewards and penalties. If someone tries to take power, other people must stop them. If that didn't happen before (because the group of people were able to take power), then there will be no trust that it will happen this time.

Therefore, the only* way in which people can avoid the tragic outcome of almost everyone losing power to someone stronger is complying with the following rule of indirect reciprocity (more or less):

"Treat good people well (i.e. act to maximize collective good of all good people). Treat bad people however you want.

Who is a good person and who is a bad person?

On default, every person is considered a good person. Once someone violates this norm, they are considered a bad person to the extent to which they violate this norm (with a degree of forgiveness)."

Let's suppose that person A > person B > person C (in terms of their power). The above rule implies that if person B harms person C, then person A is free to treat person B badly. That's what motivates the person B not to harm person C in the first place.

Why would person A care about what person B does to person C? Because if person A is in the position of person C in the future, then the only thing that can save them is that norm, and if they violated that norm, then their bully is free to harm them.

Therefore if a subset of people take control over the world, the best action to take for them is to give their power back to the larger group to bring back the trust that the democracy will always prevail in the end. That is the only thing that can save them from losing power to a subset of themselves (unless there is some other way for them to align themselves that doesn't rely on rewards and penalties).

* More precisely, it's not necessarily the only way. There are also other, similar norms that would work as well. There might be also some other ways to avoid that tragic outcome than a norm, but they are not easy.

Impact of LEV

Previously, I assumed that the game never ends. If the game ends at some point, then the players might decide that it's better to act selfishly because they won't live long enough to pay consequences.

But due to LEV (longevity escape velocity) and artificial intelligence, there is a realistic chance that we will live a very long life.

Even when it's only a possibility, it makes it rational to play a long game. Because if it is the case that we will long, then you will experience consequences of your actions for a very long time. And if we live a short life, then it doesn't matter that much what that life will be like.

Conclusion

Don't help a stronger individual/team to take control over the world because even if they succeed, then:

1. If it's a team, then they will need to pivot to democracy by giving their power back to the larger group. You will end up with a bad standing with the larger group.
2. If it's an individual or a team with zero conflicts of interests among themselves and they succeed, then they will treat you well, as long as they need you. Once they get enough power to keep it to the end, then they will exploit you like everyone else because they won't need you at that point.

Don't try to take control over the world because even if you succeed, then:

1. You will need to compete for power with your allies. Since chances of you being the only winner are small, you will need to pivot towards democracy of the larger group anyway. But you will have a worse standing after you took control.
2. Other people don't have interest in supporting you in taking control (see the reasons above).

Caveats

1. Our current political and economical systems rely on rewards and penalties. In the future, it might be possible for a group of people to align themselves using a different way than rewards and penalties. If in the future a group of people can take control and align themselves using a different way, then the reasoning doesn't necessarily make sense.