> I would not want to live in a society of these kinds of people.

of course not. Nobody does.

However, what happened to your civic responsibility to keep such a society to make it function? Why is that not ever mentioned?

The fact is, gov't regulation does need to be comprehensive and thorough to ensure that individual incentives are completely aligned, so that law of the jungle doesn't take hold. And it is up to each individual, who do not have the power in a jungle, to collectively ensure that society doesn't devolve back into that, rather than to expect that the powerful would be moral/ethical and rely on their altruism.

▲

wewtyflakes an hour ago | parent [-]

I agree with the sentiment that we should not make a habit with resting on our rights and that government has an important role to play. However, I do not think we (society) necessarily deserve our situation because others are maliciously complying with the letter of the law and we should have just been smarter about making laws. At the end of the day we are people interacting with people, and even laws can be mere suggestions depending on who you are or who you ask. Consequently, if someone 'needs' the strictest laws in order to not be an ass, then I just do not want them in whatever society I have the capacity to be in; these are bad-faith actors.

	▲	chii 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> these are bad-faith actors. what i'm trying to imply is that every single actor, as an individual, are "bad-faith" actors. That's why it's only when collectively can each bad-faith actor be "defeated". But when society experience an extended period of peace and prosperity brought about by good collective action from prior generations, people stop thinking that such bad-faith actors exist, and assume all actors are good faith. > I just do not want them in whatever society I have the capacity to be in and you dont really have the choice - every society you could choose to be in, with the exception of yourself being a dictator, will have such people.