Re-replying because I deleted it because I figured what's the point with the Trump-wave-riding, but... that's not right either. You're a person with varying different sides and you're exploring and taking sides and I like that. That's what I do and have done. You've shown me you can dig deep and fly all over... so here is the addendum I replied earlier and I've PM'd you a link to a real time collaboration tool if you're interested. I feel this format here is hurting way more than helping. Yes we get to think and mull, but it's also too narrow and lacks expression...

"So, two things, first what drives this mechanism, what is the justification for the "weakness", how could it be made to work; and then what are the consequences of it that aren't addressed... what is the ultimate flaw in this? If we look at any society as a group of people who's intersection of activity and interests create a synergy ("whole being greater than the sum of the parts" effect from specializing in tasks/cooperation (whether it be cultural or economic/capitalism etc)) then security or knowlegeability is conceivably one of the specialization tasks. Synergy in basic form is: If we both need to make A and B, and I'm better at making A and you're better at making B, We'll get both of our needs for A and B filled better/faster if I just make 2 As and you make 2 Bs. That's where profit comes from and why when we buy something at a store, both the purchaser and the seller say "Thank you". The seller made a profit selling, but the buyer also made a profit buying instead of making. Similarly, defense is saying, "you're better at using a gun, dealing with stress, etc, you take care of the security while we make stuff, and we'll pay you the benefits of not having to make things." Tech savy types, similarly in technology. Using the formula above, in the ideal situation, the security and technology, in terms of raw productivity, is always better addressed at those better at addressing security and technology, while the market of the society takes care of the rest in kind. The problem is both the non-ideal and the necessarily individualistic. It's like the irony right now where the same people that protest police violence and unaccountability, are also the ones saying that the police are the only ones that need guns. But in my opinion, the technological side is just as important as the right to self defense being foundational to all other rights: technology and science is a language of truth. It's like people not learning how to speak English and then voting. A prerequisite for making informed decisions about a system of government is to know first How and Why it works the way it does... an uninformed decision is not a decision at all... It's a nothing. I mean, if you're hungry, but you don't know what food or eating is, voting while uninformed is like going to the store and throwing donuts at the wall, you just leave a mess while still angry and hungry. Rights and Responsibilities are both two sides of the same coin. The only valid construction when we give up the responsibility to be informed, is that we give up the right to make decisions. We cannot make decisions without being informed, we cannot claim a right without speaking the language... we can only act in a way devoid of connection to the issue. It's not so much who's responsibility it should be, more a consequence of: if you make yourself a child in depth of action and give others the responsibility, you also give away your right and claim as a sentient, mature agent in reality."