Only if their preferences are preferred by Gnon. One can desire a commons without its tragedies but people (and populations) are incapable of living in completely mutually beneficial relationships. ‘Free love’ just doesn’t cut it.

Theologically, he believed that it was the anti-christ who was kidding man into thinking there was a one-fits-all mould for the world (fully forgetting that we’re essentially confrontational, ‘fallen’, and fundamentally defined by difference-as-identity). I think Peter Turchin’s work grounds this in reality. Schmitt really believed that ‘fragmentation’ was the natural order of things, and the only way in which the second coming would arrive, is if difference was preserved, that real conflict was always a possibility (not a certainty), and not be reduced to internal cathedral-like squabbling/status wars.

His concept of the Katechon is of relevance here too, because he found that the crucial geo-space of the nomos (the roman/christian centred one), kept the anti-christ from arriving before the second coming. So your disgust and distrust for universalism is (deeply) shared by him. The Schmittian Anti-Christ is really the end-game of Jim’s Left Singularity thesis.

Also, one could bring up the issue of ‘living space’ as another subversion to the libertarians. If a population succeeds it spreads… ‘conflict theory’ is basically the opposite of the ‘non-aggression principle’.