Ironic indeed.. Then bns and OrangeCrate just made it a little more ironic. Please, next time just ignore it, until you have a real reply, then you can package it along with some content..

@bns: Your pre-previous post sums up your opinion, not the set of possibles.
@seisen,bns: But if you would have to choose between those three points which would you take? I would say sense of community and any other moral can both stem from the imposed(by society) morals of the third point and of the personal morals of the second. (Persons can collaborate voluntarily in that one. This could perhaps even been seen a fourth point.)

I lean heavily to the third option; here is why:

• It seems that historically, rather then help fellow men, people build walls around them so they do not see the suffering. Or more generally, not see the rights violated, they, in their mind, think people should have.(aka being a hypocrit.)

• Quite frankly, if i do not have resources to help others, i will take them.(Preferably peacefully) I will not be rightish when poor and leftish when rich. Edit: Of course, take the resources from those who have a lot of them, not from the poorer. Getting resources to those that dont is the point.

• There is no bounding racism and discrimination by individuals if it is not forced by society.

• Ownership is a concept of man. Not an intrinsic property of things. See no reason why society should not wield it.

That said, there are issues when implementing this, but as in OP, that is not what the thread is about.
But the second one has its merits, and i think it should also be part of society. The three points are not incompatible, you can be between them. The first one, i find unacceptable, except if people clearly can not think for themselves. Like children, mentally disabled. Perhaps i should been clearer about that point, also saying that it is about stuff that do not affect other people.