More apologies fro the state

1. We "need" government to provide social insurance via redistribution of wealth because it is inefficient. Private insurance providers would only seek to maximize financial gain, whereas I want my social insurance to maximize quality of life. Also, due at least partially to bad lack, some citizens will end up not paying "premiums" on my social insurance but will still get the coverage. That won't happen in private insurance.

2. I think that pointing our a small number of contentious issues around individual rights is not evidence that the majority isn't doing a good job overall at establishing rights. And the bill of rights to protect individual rights isn't hypothetical - we have them in North America already. So to your question of how do we come up with them, I say we already have.

3. I think your concepts of a Majority Group and a Minority Group are too clearly defined in your head. The reality is that there is one big group - the citizens. And they individually make choices. And then you tally up the results and that determines the majority rule. Your flat hypothetical scenarios are based on the premise that a Majority Group with a fixed agenda exists and that a Minority Group with a different agenda exists and that the system is allocating all of the power to the Majority Group. This is only a distorted perception of the democratic process which is to allow all individuals equal power and then tally the results.

4. I do not consider a state that acknowledges the weakness of the human pyschology and acts on our understanding of behaviour is a "nanny state". This is implying that there is a "inferior" group that needs protection from a "superior" group. I reject that, and I think you do as well. But I don't think that should preclude us from having a system that protects people from the downside of variance (poker tie-in!). By protecting everybody from bad luck and circumstances we improve everybody's life.

5. Finally, I reiterate that I don't perceive taxation as "taking something away" from someone. I consider it to be a social contract under which we acknowledge that some citizens will end up with an very low quality of life due to luck and circumstances and that the best course of action is to take marginally less valuable $s from the wealthiest and apply them where they are most powerful, namely in the purchasing of quality of life for the poor.