[TigerTale]

I'll say it slowly, for the Constitutionally impaired. There is no such thing as 'collective interest'. There never has been, and there never will be.

...

My interests are not, and only occasionally will be the same as yours.

So, in a case where our DO interests coincide, why is it unreasonable to call this circumstance a "collective interest"? You are quibbling over definitions--making a distinction without a difference.

When the British attempted to enforce their will upon the American colonies, did the colonists opposing them not have a collective interest in securing their liberty?

While the "General Welfare" clause in the preamble to the Constitution has been abused almost beyond recognition, it is not irrelevant. It is present precisely because there ARE collective interests--specifically the natural rights to which all persons are entitled. The Constitution is necessary and efficacious because of these interests. If there were no such thing as collective interests, then no social contract, no Constitution would be possible.

I think your Swiss watch is broken.

[max61]

When the British attempted to enforce their will upon the American colonies, did the colonists opposing them not have a collective interest in securing their liberty?

Not all colonists sided with the Revolutionaries, ever hear the word "Torie"?.

"Collective interest" is the underlying rationale for communism, socialism, fascism, etc.

Which are you, that is, if you are a collectivist?.

---max