I find this intransigent view of what change might look like to be staggeringly repugnant. I think it represents a very staid, limited, unwilling view of how society ought be willing to adapt to conditions it finds itself in. calling modern situations a mob, discarding obvious crisis out of hand: that delegitimizes the trust your post claims is of such utmost importance.

you talk about slow change, but there seems to be nothing at all that society can change. we seem perpetually bound in old grants & fantastic claims. the only suggestions I've heard from anyone are that society must bargain for its basic human rights to survive, in apocalypse situations, that these vast vast vast free grants have caused.

color me very very very skeptical of your so called ideas of stability: I think you have it very wrong. there seem to be no rights given to the future, nothing reserved or allotted to the general population. I've little trust on your claim that that defines stability, that all new comers must fend for themselves amid a situation of dire need: caring only for the getsntocratic olds seems uncivil, ill governed, the very definition of illegitimate.