I think our arguments actually agree with each other: back then (and I concede now, to some degree), it was in the interest of a few to subjugate the many (as i

I think our arguments actually agree with each other: back then (and I concede now, to some degree), it was in the interest of a few to subjugate the many (as in, nobility carving out a political ruling class for their own advantage): if you could be rich and powerful, with little to no consequences, why wouldn't you. That's certainly in your individual interest. Collectively, though? It could be argued that, because the powers that be willingly prioritized their individual interest over their subjects ' collective wellbeing (be it intentionally "Let them eat cake"-style or because they were just dysfunctional rulers who couldn't keep their subjugates from starving, it doesn't matter; either way they dedicated more resources to themselves at the expense of everyone), these rulers were overthrown: the United States Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, etc. were all products of the elite few irresponsibly divvying up resources for themselves to the point where their subjects decided en masse it would be better to fight to change the system and possibly die rather than live under present conditions; regardless of how each of those revolutions turned out, what is clear is that if the government (or whatever powers that be) prioritizes its own interests too much over those it supposedly represents, it, too, will be overthrown (or at least, changed by external forces). Modern day governments have an intrinsic interest in making sure that doesn't happen, and a big part of that means making sure society is collectively content enough to not pull the plug. But now I'm just philosophizing.