Comment: alright-I'll address yours and then we can try again

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Structural Damage (see in situ)

alright-I'll address yours and then we can try again

This equality, in a sense, is the establishment of a Socratic Law that demands the philosophical direction lent to national law respects an inherent foundation.":
-Correct, Jefferson's equality statement was squarely aimed at dismantling the England's legal concept of the divine right to rule.

Coin metaphor:
Correct- all value is subjective and changes moment to moment.

"As I mention to the "Anonymous" poster below, the quality and value of any human being is totally relative"
-I would replace "totally relative" with " totally subjective" and my personal opinion being priceless, irreplaceable, and sacred.

"Capacity also varies..."
Correct, Every characteristic varies from individual to individual and differs from moment to moment- Hence, utterly unique.

"What many seem to fail to recognize is that although our pride and passion may drive us into an idealized excellence in our individual fields, and that our physical strength and endurance is an intimate hidden value that can often propel an individual beyond the limits of their neighbors, the collective is also constantly at work around us."
-Many people fail to recognize that one's strengths can propel one beyond the limits of others? Did I get that right?

"We both know that this collective is swayed by promises of superiority"

"it is precisely when the sameness of condition is befuddled that human beings begin to fabricate a responsibility to rule based on superiority"
It is precisely when one loses respect for another's will (for any reason)

"It is a type of structural damage to the integrity of accepted individual freedom."

Why don't we try again. Which one of these three do you find objectionable to individual liberty, doesn't go far enough, or goes too far and how. I'll go line by line so I can get on the same page with you if necessary. This is an important project to me.

As best I can tell, you critiqued the concept that:
1. No individual or group is inherently superior to another
2. No individual or group has the rightful authority to rule another
3. Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred.