>to be more clear:
>- Assasination politics: easy to compute, easy to apply, globally inefficient.

But you don't explain why it's "inefficient".  You only allege it.

>- Rational anarchy: difficult to compute, difficult to apply, globally optimal.

What is "rational anarchy"?  On Google-search, I see a reference to Heinlein's 

"The Moon is  a harsh mistress".  I read that a decade ago, but I don't connect

 what you are saying with it.  But again, you don't explain why it's "globally optimal".

For that matter, you haven't explained WHAT "globally optimal" means.  You

 seem to be assuming a lot today.

Further, while it's hard to understand, "globally optimal" sounds like it might

assume a compromise, in contrast to equality.    Why should I accept something

 which you call "globally optimal" if someting else is better for ME, personally?

>just because AP is better that Status Quo, does not mean that AP is

>the ideal to strive toward.

Unfortunately, that sounds like a truism.  If you agree that AP is better than

 the Status Quo, then unless you (or somebody else) can establish something

is better than AP, you don't establish that AP shouldn't be the goal, at least

 temporarily.