[@Iuniper]

For myself I view "disadvantages" and compensation for them too close to [i]actual[/i] privileges, as you likely noted in my musings above. I do not believe the myth that white men are some how privileged and that other races are marginalized into "disadvantage". Are there those who do in fact hold racial biases? Yes, that's no secret. I find that more rare than the reality presented, adding on that I do not believe people need to have added "equality"; the reason why I find modern "feminism" lacking in basis, for example. There is nothing to indicate to me that women are unfairly treated compared to men. 

From my own experiences, the opposite is often true because of the concept of affirmative action or that people are at all "socially disadvantaged". In fact, I myself have been affected by that, where I have been passed over despite my qualifications, work ethics, history and reputation simply because someone else was at a "disadvantage", of which was their gender and skin color. I do not believe in artificially "balancing" the system as socialism so highly vaunts out time and time again. If anything [i]that[/i] example is actual reverse racism and sexism, because they superseded qualifications to fit the desire of "diversity" based on race and sex, rather than allow the diversity to foster naturally.

In regard to the other comment, I assume you are speaking about Thomas' Hobbes and his theories, some of which I do agree with and then those I do not.

For myself, I do indeed conscribe to the notion that humans are inherently selfish, as with any other animal. In spite of this belief, I too hold the understanding that people have the ability to overcome this area of weakness, with examples being charity, compassion, and honor among, many, many others which we frequently view as moral high ground. It takes control, effort and dedication to minimize the weaknesses of simply being, but the truth is, is that those admirable traits only come through one's own volition, and should be nothing less than through that means alone. To further elaborate on what I mean I will use a well known sample; charity ceases to be meaningful when it becomes mandatory as either a person gives of their own desire to do good or they do not at all.

I do concede that life is "... solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” in nature, both that wild and that of which Hobbes meant in the state of man. What I differ on, as with my earlier philosophy, that this too can be changed, as some see view them in "contracts"; you trade something for the other and this happens naturally at all levels. Even earlier I confirmed I believe one at times must trade "liberty" with "safety", but such a process must be carefully supervised and a balance established, let one trade too much. However, I add that there are some conditions that are inherent to all things, such as the right of self defense. In that I mean I do not pity a hunter killed by a rampant boar just as I do not show pity on the criminal killed by the police. To me they are facts of life and essential elements of what makes a living thing just that.

To conclude in brief, as I know little more beyond this about Hobbes, is that I do not believe mankind should be ever managed by any single person or construct and follow it unquestioningly. I believe a system of representatives with varying purposes and objectives and no less duties, is essential. While the United States' system from the base to the top does have some flaws, I too think it a remarkable example of what can be achieved and that it functions so well even in an imperfect and dynamic environment.