Actually, the evolutionary landscape is pretty aptly described by energy hills and valleys, inverted that is. Evolution selects toward lowest energy (minimal for survival), but when the landscape shifts, the local minima are no longer minima. Those that can move out of their previous minimum into a new minimum survive.
The problem I have is that the author conflates cooperative societies with societies of creatures that can plan and coordinate in order to cooperate. The former has several cases in nature; the latter has one, us (not technically true, bonobos & al do some sorts of the same but only within small social groups). He's making generalized conclusions on not just cooperative societies, but all complex systems.
There's nothing inherent about a complex social system that necessitates cheating as a viable strategy (see bees and ants), and there's nothing inherent about parasitism that requires security to counter it (snake eggs). The entire phenomenon of security and its enforcement as a counter to cheating in a complex social system is one that I think is highly human. It is an invention of man to have members of society dedicated not toward an outside threat, but one within. Hence, if the postulate of the dishonest parasite is one that cannot be generalized, then it has little explanatory power. Littler still when compared with the existing evolutionary one.
The author could be making a different point though: the existence of a generalized mechanic opens up a niche to use and abuse the mechanic. Everything from ATP generation (whole mitochondria swallowed into other cells as their slaves!) to Jerry and George getting to the Neo-Nazi's limo. But this is not evident from his opening paragraphs, and from the title of his book (The Dishonest Minority: Security and Its Role in Modern Society), I don't think he's exploring that space.