But that just brings us [okay, me] back to the actual political contraption that any particular community employs in any particular historical and cultural context.
1] Might makes right. Those in power are able to enforce a set of behaviors such that the outcomes that they favor prevail. Either because they are convinced these outcomes reflect “the right thing to do”, or because these outcomes sustain their own selfish interests.
2] right makes might. Folks in the community come to agree on a particular outcome as the embodiment of an enlightened human morality.
3] Democracy and the rule of law. Folks have conflicted assessments of the optimal outcomes but through moderation, negotiation and compromise different sets of political prejudices rise and fall depending on who is able to convince the citizens to vote them into power. The idea being that they are then willing to step aside [peacefully] should the populace come to view them with disfavor.
My argument here is basically that the outcomes that individuals prefer given a particular frame of mind in any particular context, is rooted historically and culturally in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
And that the manner in which I have come to understand the existential interactions of these components out in a particular world have precipitated my dilemma above.
How, then, I ask the objectivists, has it not precipitated the same dilemma regarding their own conflicted behaviors with others.