wuf your post was very long and ill just respond to things that I feel like i strongly disagreed.

"Yes, the private organization can regulate, and it does, a lot. The problem with governance exclusively coming from a private organization (special interest) is that it governs in its own best interest, not the populous' best interests."

Its own best interests better damn be the populous' best interest or they aren't getting any of populous' money. Why pay an organization to do something that you don't support? Oh right, because its the law to pay the government tax money to do x,y, and z, much of which I don't support. It seems to me the simply doing whatever it is is going to make the organization money should be what the people who are giving that money to the organization value.

"What I would like to say though is this: I want to have a wife, but I also don't want to have a wife. I want to have a family, but I also don't want a family. There are many things that I want, but many of them do not support each other, and I could go to great length explaining the reasons and pros/cons for my desires, yet I still have little clue as to what I 'really want' with regards to these decisions."

I think I went too far from my original argument with the post that this was commenting on. All I'm saying is I don't think something should happen for the benefit or non-benefit of an individual unless that individual performed the actions that created those consequences. If you don't have a family, maybe your performing the correct actions and its a matter of time. Maybe your too much of an asshole to ever get a wife who wants a family. I don't think you should get a family just because you want one.

"While I agree that happiness how you have described it isn't really something that anybody 'deserves', I do wholeheartedly believe that happiness on the collective level is a basic human right"

So we will just agree to disagree here. I don't believe that.