I realized something today, everyone that argues, whether liberal, conservative, or libertarian. Rich, middle, or poor. We are all arguing about the same point.

One or Many?

It can't that simple, but it really is that simple.

On a side, you have people advocating for individuals defining themselves, their actions, behaviors, and even destinies as they choose. On the other side, you have people advocating for groups whether it is a society, a state, a subset of human beings (gay, black, or whatever) defining their actions, behaviors, and fates as a collective based on whatever measure they choose (majority, minority with power, or even a singular dictatorial will).

We are stuck in that argument, but I want to add a breakthrough point.

To the one's arguing the individual points or "One" point, like Libertarians, tell me, Can a person make a pure individual choice without any input from the outside world or other individuals?

If you say Yes, because everyone has free will and can make their own choices, I have a big revelation for everyone. Each choice is made with conscious effort of other people's actions, direct and indirect, around you; thus, there is never a choice based on "One".

A simple choice like Cereal brand you eat during the morning is made possible by a million other choices from the farmer in the fields, the factory worker on the line, the trucker on a deadline, and the super-market choices of supplier.

I can point to the same factors based on any example you can pick, even choosing going right or left on a road is made possible by a million choices from others.

Causality nullifies choice.

As for the people arguing the point of the society or "Many" point, tell me, Can a group make a decision without a single person making their own choice? Each person has many choices in how they interact, some desire many things, others desire simplicity. However, each person can only hold to certain choices; thus, without individuals, no group can be created.

If a group of politicians need to make a law on increasing taxes of stuffed animals, how does each arrive at their own vote? Each must think about their own experiences with stuffed animals, how fluffy they were as kids or even as adults keeping their childhood toys right next to them. Maybe some have a strong hatred for stuffed animals due to working in a assembly line stuffing these fur balls.

That might be an outlandish idea, but it highlights how individual experience affects the group. All these experiences occured to produce a result.

Causality nullifies goals.

So what does my breakthrough points mean:

I think whether you are trying to seek an individual solution or a group solution, one cannot deny that both sides co-exist on many levels; there can never be an ideal Libertarian solution as long as everyone affects each other in how their choices work, nor can groups effectively create lasting laws if each individual can determine their own choices based on experience.

The problem between the two is a paradox, neither can be ideal and neither are truly achievable in reality.

I have been thinking in terms of Causality a lot lately.