Reply #70: yeah but Slack, the deal is

[sui generis]

whatever color we paint ourselves, we can't offer to give up the rights of anyone who isn't us.

So when a social group votes in a constitutional amendment to take away the rights of certain individuals, or when a senator wholesales our individual 4th amendment protections, it's a dysfunctional relationship.

The ground rule should be "and does not impact the civil and human rights of any individual"

So I quite frankly don't want uberprogressive sewage inspectors testing my toilet water to make sure I've been eating enough fiber any more than I want some slack jawed yokel saying that unmonitored warrantless search and seizure is acceptable in the name of their idea of the greater good.

I guess the point is, ideology aside, there has to be a middle for us to agree on.