I don't believe we should consider Leaf and Uplift separate issues. Our goal should be to convert Leaf to the ideology of Uplift by working with our neighbors rather than effectively bullying them into following Uplift. To all of the ninjas of the world who only value strength if we come in as an S-ranker and demand they implement our policies they will do so as long as they think we are watching them.
This seems like a limited view of how personal power affects the interplay between Leaf's success and Uplift as a whole. What I was thinking of was less going from clan to clan saying 'swear that you will follow Uplift or I punch you' and more, well, Tsunade got to make her hospitals and revolutionize Leaf medical policy and nobody even thinks of getting in her way. A large part of Uplift is measured not in culture but in actually saving civilian lives that are dying as we speak, and there's a much clearer throughline between personal power and saving them.
Moreover, we have heard time and time again that Leaf culture
reveres S-Rankers, like, unless you turn that reverence into fear like Orochimaru did you become one of the top ten most beloved people alive across all of the civilians and most of the ninja. The cultural sway that a clan of 3-5 S-Rankers would have cannot be understated even abstaining from 'follow Uplift or we punch you' methods that as you say would just encourage people to work around us.
I also believe you're overlooking or undervaluing how important being the guy who won WWIV would be.
Why are you still on this? I already told you,
FOOM will not win WWIV. Point blank, that's just not gonna happen. It might win us WW5, but it is of
negative value during WWIV since the first part of FOOM is spending a year or so grinding Resolve and nothing else. I don't know how you still think that this is a solution to WWIV, and it's very important that you
stop thinking that because the whole reason Asuma cannot choose Hazou over Orochimaru is because Orochimaru is Leaf's only shot at winning WWIV and
we don't have anything to replace him.
How can we sincerely preach cooperate-cooperate when we do not have Hazou proactively go out of his way to begin cooperating-cooperating? To convince a world that has mostly seen defection rewarded and compliance enforced at sword point that improvement is possible requires taking a risk by trusting people outside of our family. However, we do not have to make tough choices on who to trust based on how strong they are. FOOM allows us instead to select those who are trustworthy and make them strong. By selling FOOM properly we will never have to make decisions like Asuma had to, of choosing the strong yet wicked over the loyal yet weaker in the face of annihilation.
To me, to achieve the end goal you have set out (and for what it's worth 90% matches my own preferred outcome) we must share our light, not just enlarge our own. No one fire, not even the sun, can dispel all shadows. It is by giving our gifts to others that our light spreads, not as a bonfire soaring higher but as a sea of torches banishing the darkness.
One man with one million branches can only hoard his light in one fire or die as he tries to spread it around himself. One million trusted men each with one branch can light up a whole country. As the light spreads some of those still in the darkness will look in to see how much better the people in the light live and choose to offer their own branches to join the light-bearers. Others will sneer at the fools making themselves easy targets and strike from the shadows just as they have been conditioned to do. Those defectors will become the minority in time as those within the light identify the malefactors and then erase them.
One million can become one billion in time.
I do like the sentiment, but this feels like an isolated demand for rigor. Only now, when you think cooperate-cooperate would be in our best interest, do you start speaking platitudes about how we should always and only cooperate no matter the context of the situation.
Tell me, where was that sentiment when we were talking about cooperating with Orochimaru? Is your plan not to cooperate with Asuma to together defect against Orochimaru, expel him from the village and/or this reality against his will? I'm sure you can easily come up with a twist of wordplay that neatly slots an Oro-shaped exception into your 'always cooperate' platitude, but at that point I'm no longer interested in hearing arguments from that kind of model because it's obviously just rhetorical trickery. Naturally the spread of Uplift will involve us engaging in and advertising cooperate-cooperate relationships, but Uplift, not cooperate-cooperate, is our true goal, and our choices should be weighed against that. We are not a deontological saint trying to exemplify the ideal Uplift person, we are a ninja in a deathworld trying to leave the world better than we found it, and that means we should cooperate as much as we can afford to and then no more.
More like (from my point of view), based on your prior paragraphs, that the wallet (FOOM) has an indeterminant value (when sold to Asuma). However, I argue that we have a way of possibly estimating the value of our wallet since our sister Kei has an understanding of how valuable obscure products can be, doubly so because she learned Wheeler-Dealer while Hazou does not know such a stunt. If the surgeon does not accept Bitcoin as currency then Kei can help us find a proverbial moneychanger service (Bitcoin -> actual coins -> surgery (FOOM -> actual goddam help from Asuma -> eventually killing Oro)). Furthermore, there is no downside to consulting with her because she ultimately wants what is best for us as our sister and she is already conditioned to entertain outlandish ideas. Letting the trusted consultant have all of the information she can is just good business sense. Discarding one possible solution because we think we might know better than her when evaluations are what she was created to do, is not.
And for all that I've said up above, I do agree that asking Kei wouldn't harm anything. I don't think I agree that it's of indeterminant value unless if I average out my opinion with yours, and I have spent a decent chunk of this post making a case for why I think my priors on key points of this issue are more accurate than yours, so all told I still feel confident enough in my own opionion to say 'probably low value' with the same degree of confidence I talk about other ordinary topics I am relatively confident in.
Put another way, the 'indeterminant value' framing can be seen as a call to discard all current priors and defer to Kei's opinion, and I... kinda don't see why I would discard priors that I believe are well-founded? Moreover, while I do expect Kei to be experienced and knowledgeable about the topic, I also don't expect her to exhaustively cover every point in the argument, so even if I was willing to subordinate my priors to hers I expect to still have leftover priors that are not overridden by Kei's evaluation. This, of course, assuming Kei does in fact give an evaluation greater in accuracy than anything we can come up with, which is plausible but not a certainty, especially now when she is so emotionally distraught by like three different things which would each be a gut punch to her psyche.
So I still agree that asking Kei won't be harmful, but I cannot extend all the way to 'discard your priors and let Kei decide', both because I do not expect Kei to solve the entire debate for us and because I am not actually that confident that Kei at this point in time is a better arbiter than us. (This all is also under the supposition that our actions are symmetric, you discarding your priors to the same degree that I do, and naturally assymetry is possible in such an arrangement if one of us fails or declines to properly subordinate our priors, which adds another layer of uncertainty.) All in all I'm afraid I will have to decline the offer and continue approaching this argument from the priors that I currently have, with respect for Kei as a meaningful but not necessarily overriding information source should we end up consulting her.
(Also the metaphor is dead at this point, so I won't beat its corpse by trying to stretch it any further)