I'll admit my views are extreme, and rarely fully represented. That is to say, I typically hold opposing views on the same subject. Most theoretical approches to any element of the human condition begin with the best of intentions, then, as must unfortunately be the case, they are implemented by human beings. Once humans get involved, we begin to mess things up through prejudicial application of policy and law. I don't believe that the benevolent dictator would be any more just than democracy has been. But I remain unconvinced that western democracy has been any more human(e) than Castro's communism. We place restrictions on the behaviour of our children, and of our citizens. If we agree, and I'm not saying that all of us do, that we are justified in limiting the liberty of some, we must also be willing to submit our own most cherished liberties to the will of a greater purpose, of greater persons. d. Eric: There's a difference between (a) the individual recognition that one's actions are selfish and choosing to act differently as a result of that recognition, and (b) being told by any self-appointed authority that one's actions are selfish and being forced to act differently with the carrot of "moral rights" dangled in front as a consolation. In other words, "the greater good" is so frequently used to manipulate opinion and action, that it cannot be trusted ex cathedra. Remembering that the first law Hitler enacted was a ban on lobster pithing, Eric -- See Exclusive Video: 10th Annual Young Hollywood Awards http://www.hollywoodlife.net/younghollywoodawards2008/