I expect people who are not in positions of decision making power to talk about things and complain about things.

I expect people who are campaigning on the basis of those complaints to be able to explain why the problem is a problem and exactly how they plan to solve it along with the expected ramifications of their solution.

Campaigning on complaints without being able to extrapolate those details is essentially nothing more than pandering.

> Complaints about a situation are step one of finding a collaborative solution.

Can parties opt-out of your definition of a collaborative solution, or does your definition of collaborative include forcing people to participate, whether they wish to do so or not?

Of course you can opt-out. But rejection goes both ways: we live in a society, and there are consequences to being asocial and antisocial, and depending on the problem, and the solution, that might be a thing. But you can always leave if something's so untenable, if you can find somewhere with rules more to your liking.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Can I choose not to leave, if I respect other people's natural rights?

My issue about leaving is that if I have done nothing wrong, I shouldn't have to flee from others who wish to violate my rights. Instead, they should respect my right to be unmolested.

Interested in your thoughts, if you wish to expand on this topic.

I tend to fall in line with Rousseau in that "natural rights" are not relevant in a societal context and that what we conceive of as rights exist only in the context of the society that grants them--basic social-contract stuff, subordination to the general will rather than subordination to the will of other citizens being as close to optimal as a practical society is likely to become. I think that the notion of "rights" as something sacrosanct is frankly hilarious and that jurisprudence should not rely on them, but rather build upon the notions of the body politic (and in practice this is what happens; see the contortions in many SCOTUS rulings that are a legalistic form of "yeah, we get it, the zeitgeist has spoken"). This has its drawbacks--demagoguery is a threat, for one--but I contend that there isn't a better method that doesn't enshrine one particular group of people as being Special Enough to enjoy a place of permanent privilege.

To that end, there is no "right to be unmolested", and I would underline that particularly for--given the context of this thread--conceived-of rights that effectively serve to provide legal supremacy over other people. (Of which we have many.) "Done nothing wrong" can mean very different things to very different people, and while I am not in favor of ex post facto convictions or anything of the like, I am in favor of amending the rules to the game to be more equitable and, I hold, thus better for the aggregate of humanity--and enforcing them to that end.

So, no. The general will sets the rules of the road, and dissenters can comply (and seek to change that general will if they so choose; part of the societal privilege to try to change that general will is the societal responsibility to obey it when it breaks against you), accept the consequences of civil disobedience (the abrogation of the aforementioned responsibility in hopes of demonstrating injustice to encourage a change in that general will), or leave (fold your hand). As it happens, there are cases where I'd do the second and a couple where I'd do the third.

Thank you for your detailed comment. I now think I understand where you stand.