I would agree that your premis is extremely common. It's that the same as being righteous though?

And the ones that don't follow your shared suffering rule... Well they generally want to control everyone else so they themselves can enrich their lives and live like kings. I'd say that accounts for about 1% of the population.

And stepping up to my righteous podium... I think there's another group who want to control people (via laws) so they don't have to suffer as much as they themselves have, nor as much as anyone has. I'll put myself self righteously into that set.

The thing about controlling righteousness... what if that righteousness is actually morally justifiable and you know.. right?

For me I would make it a law that all laws must have a stated purpose and a well defined objective way of measuring success. For any law to be approved it needs to have timelines to achieve those goals or it sunsets. All laws should be decided either by direct or representative democracy and probably by a super majority (which I think is way easier to achieve with ranked choice voting and without a rigged two party system).

That way that who want to "control" others are really only proposing a route that will be followed in search of a goal. Everyone gets to decide on the route to the goal (or no route at all) and if it doesn't get you there you try something else. So righteousness is shared and automatically nullified of unjustified.

And it is by no coincidence this sounds quite a bit like the scientific method.

Okay stepping down of my righteous podium.