Comment: I did.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Fine...Nihil Ultra. (see in situ)

I did.

We do agree on a lot, but Michael Moore and Ron Paul also have a lot in common regarding their dialectic approaches. If you think that having something in common should necessitate an acceptance of something I know for certain is a refracted distortion of reality, you are neglecting the issue.

Thomas Jefferson used this reasoning to abolish the right to rule, yes, but it was not simply rhetorical usage against the crown. It had such a lasting merit because of its truth, its ability to establish a rhetorical tone itself against any relative human lordship. Yet, even those who do not believe in God can assert that Nature gave them a right to rule, even if they do not make this assertion openly. Is a group of clever bankers really much different than a king? Too many measures to prevent totalitarian authority over personal life - in anticipation of changing mindsets - were put into place by US founders to the effect of equality. The ontological differences could then be assessed by the individual, but the tone of philosophy - and especially political philosophy - could be free of these perceived differences and establish a healthy collective order without tipping any balance.

We are never going to find a society where every individual is able to view every other under the exact same scrutiny of value. I too have spent many years believing in the essential fallacy of "equal", knowing that some are naturally "better" or "worse" than others, but I now understand that this inequality only comes from an individual assessment. The human condition is across-the-board.