Wrapping this up.

Seriously. With this being the whateverth post, I've yet to hear from many readers (this presumes more than 4 people are reading this). Am I right? Wrong? A mixture? Have I started out with a fundamentally flawed precept?

Show me where I am wrong. Make your case. Prove it. Any takers?

Ok then, on with the show and the conclusion!

Hokay. I think I finally have this thought out. Try this.

What makes your rights more important than mine?

Say owning TV sets is a right.

You don't have a TV.

I have 2.

Do you have the right to take one of mine? Take implies you will use any and all force necessary, up to and including lethal force.

Do you still have right to take one of my TVs. If I refuse to give one up, do you have the right to kill me to take one?

The item is irrelevant. I use TV here because they are ubiquitous. But you can change it. Make it a house, money, gun, food hat, shoes, air, note pad, camera, free speech, water, self-defense, voting, vehicle, Internet access. Pick one.

The point is: I have it. You don't. I have more than one. You have none.

Do you have the right to take one away from me? Do you have the right to kill me to take it?

Do I have the right to respond with as much force as necessary to stop you?

Sane people will say theft is wrong.

Some insane people will also say theft is wrong but will still try to take my TV.

They try to take my TV through an act of government.

Apparently when government takes action, this makes it legitimate. Another tautology. Government creates the laws and so gets to decide what is illegal and legal.

According to the majority in this case, the rights of an individual are not equal to the rights of a group. The strongest group can then decide the rights of one person are superior to the rights of another person. Slavery, disenfranchisement, separate but equal, government dictating what marriage is.

This is government - deciding your rights are more important than mine. Why?

This is the fundamental flaw and one we cannot escape except by going to complete and utter anarchy. But anarchy brings another set of flaws. Anarchy, by very definition, means no consistency and no law whatsoever. Under anarchy, everything, including murder, is permitted because nothing can be banned.

Just like with government, the strongest get to decide. Hope the strong will be fair, but history shows this has never, ever happened except in brief instances. Long term, we're all subject to the whims of the strong.

There's the flaw. In order to function at an absolutely fair level government must be orchestrated when each person is to be a realistic altruist. And that has never happened that I know of. Even Jesus was not a realistic altruist because He had an overriding agenda.

The problem is you. The problem is me. The problem is all 7.5 billion people on the planet today. As Pogo once said, We have met the enemy and he is us.