azanon said:
You can't separate those two things, chief. Trust me fellow, everyone wants to do what is in their personal interests, and, generally speaking, they don't give a damn how it affects everyone else. Look, that's human nature.
I agree, that's why we have gov as I wrote:Gov. (justice) should ensure that individual rights don't collide-fair trade, not polluting your neighbor etc....
You have to have an impartial third-party group seeing to it, as you said, that individual rights don't collide. That's where government comes in. I think you are a bit unfair to just presume that public servants only make decisions based on votes. If that were the case, wouldn't every politician just be for whatever issue is most popular in straw polls?
Public servants have to follow Constitution, so they don't side with 51% and rob or shoot 49%.
Its also human nature to want to be "cake-eaters". What the "right-wingers" never think about is while they are all screaming for individual rights, it apparently never occurs to them what will happen when EVERYONE ELSE also has individual rights, that won't coincide with their own.
I'm not following here, being right wing, please explain:wave:
You mean forced solidarity...giving money to one big pot, so cake-eaters can get some cakes?
Or do you mean social rights? That is tricky. Having social rights is eroding individual rights, bc you have to use force to have social rights. And you make injustice, bc you give the money to someone only...who cries the loudest...unions etc.
