I’m not sure the viewpoints of either of the initial writers has been adequately captured.

Opinion is so often pulled into ‘my life’, now, and bent to suit a personal narrative.

This stems from the notion that every individual has rights. Which today supersede the rights of the majority.

They don’t.

The rights, or for want of a better word, the WILL of the many is what creates democracy. And democracy stretches past politics into all of our daily life.

It supersedes individual rights, although they work in tandem until we have voted. Either in a ballot box, or with our feet or our wallets/purses.

At that point, individual rights are inferior to the rights of the many. Personal rights must give way.

And this is hard to accept today, because we are constantly told our individual rights are sacrosanct. But media and politicians don’t tell the second part of the story - the part where your rights need to slot into a democratic process.

And become “the will of the people.”

In my opinion, is it not possible that both James and Mitch are right. And yet come from different (alternative) viewpoints. Is it necessary to always weaponise a view that doesn’t line up with yours, exactly.

I can’t hate the rich. Most of the things I enjoy in my life today are because of them.

I own a DYSON vacuum cleaner. Sue me! James Dyson is one of the wealthiest men in the world. Should I now hate him because his invention is so successful, he’s made a fortune.

Or flying. Because when man invented flight, the effect on the planet was not a consideration. It was an unknown, mostly.

Is it the fault of the wealthy for enlisting the services of a tax consultant to LEGALLY pay less tax? Or is it the politicians who don’t want to upset the wealthy, by taxing them more?

I suspect a 13 year old could determine how to achieve a more onerous tax system on the wealthy. It’s not rocket science.

But I do also agree that trickle down economics don’t work. I also agree that the middle and lower class appear to be carrying the burdens of the world unequally.

I believe there is inequality in the world stretching far further than wealth alone.

But humanity has never lived longer. Sickness has never been so well contained and dealt with. Our standard of living has never been higher. Who would you thank for this phenomenon?

Differing opinion is vital. Trying to “beat” someone for having an opinion is going to be the downfall of the human race.

I’m reminded of Galileo in 1633. Put on trial for suggesting the earth revolves around the sun. His opinion was not popular.

He was right though.

The current arrest of professors and campus protestors for having a view on Gaza - one way or the other, is in itself criminal.

We are losing the right to an opinion. Free speech is under threat.

That seems a far greater evil than any of what I have read here. Today. Unless what I have read here is more about winning an argument than offering an opposing opinion. About crushing a dissenting view. The single best thing about the Supreme Court, is that the ‘losers’ get to write a dissenting opinion.

This rightly puts an alternative, albeit not chosen view, on the table. Democracy has spoken. But the dissenting view is still regarded.

I encourage the view of both Mitch, and James. I discourage the notion that we need to find a winner.

Sometimes when you think you’ve won, you’ve really lost!