To be frustrated that people don't understand that individualism is not compatible with a collectivist mindset?

Yeah, Bhutan is great if we ignore the political prisoners, increasing debt, chronic unemployment, corruption and poverty. And polygamy (for men obs). Ideal society

There is an obvious issue when the benefits of collectivism are judged in terms of how it will benefit me as an individual.

And most people do not see how collective payment of tax and NI benefits them unless it's made personal. I think they'd be shocked to learn that they'd only paid enough in for a couple of years education for their DC and basic healthcare - no emergency care, no surgery, no fire brigade etc if they needed help in their 20s. But older people with no commitment to any idea of collectivism expect full payment of SP as if it's an individual saving scheme (with ridiculously high yield).

I agree, OP. I tried to have this conversation on here a while ago, and almost everyone confused 'individualism' with 'being allowed your own tastes and creativity'. Individualism now is put on the highest pedestal, second only to being rich, and we're told doing what we want (and disregarding the needs and wants of anyone not us, or not in our immediate family) is the pinnacle of civilisation.

It's terrible, and we really need more communal thinking, from making strong social taboos out of littering and dumping to giving much more societal respect to those who do socially-fundamental jobs, like teaching and medicine, regardless of the workers' seniority and pay bracket (particularly over people in finance, whose jobs are basically 'make money for people who already have lots of money' but who get lots of respect because money = human value).

@1dayatatime I agree that most people vote in self-interest now, but a lot of that is to do with the social narrative we live in every day. No one but a few environmentalists talk much about responsibility and connected living. Both politicians and voters like to pretend we live in bubbles, that we can help X and ignore Y, but any historian or social researcher knows that we need the rising tide that lifts all boats, not massive cash injections into bloated billionaires' corporations in the hope that maybe, this time, trickle-down economics will suddenly work. We need to change the story about how we live, why we live in groups, and why helping others helps us at the same time.

I don't think that pausing elections during a war proves the point you are making at all - and the proof that it does not support your point is that we are still in a democracy- the democracy we had was able to survive thw pause in the electoral process due to war and recommenced after.

@maddening

"And your point?"

The point is that all civilisations and order systems collapse at some point and brutal dictarships / kingdoms seem to last a lot longer than democracies:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse

100% this.

And your point?

@maddening

"I would argue that our democracy has held well for hundreds of years and stood the test for example of ww1 and ww2."

The UK suspended all elections National and Local during WW2.

"My personal feeling is that the closer societies get to scarcity, the further they get from civilisation. "
Interesting as I think this is dependant on cultural norms and values to a point, rather than necessarily of the opinion it has to all go to shit. I seem to remember the real life scenario of Lord of The Flies was actually a good sign of collectivism working for a limited period of time, rather than the more dystopian view in the book? Trauma can ensure community - Ireland, Gaza just two examples. People who have struggled tend to be more likely to look after others (possibly why women are more caring as a generalisation? sideline) and I often note poorer areas have better sense of community than richer. The Happiness Index is always interesting to consider when looking at what makes people thrive, rather than what creates wealth and less death.

You threw it in as a bolded quotation with no context or your thoughts about the quote you were using - almost as a fact to dispel my opinion- but it is just the opinion of a man in 1800 and one.held against the backdrop of a v different world to the one we are faced with today.

I agree that scarcity of global resources is going to test all societies - but I would be more scared in a society led.by a dictator or a regime.

I would argue that our democracy has held well for hundreds of years and stood the test for example of ww1 and ww2.

@maddening

"Whilst Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee was obviously a great mind I am not sure that the opinion of a man in 1800 is total fact, your appeal to authority does not make it true."

Ooo I do love an Alexander Tytler quote.

Whether or not you believe in his opinion comes down to the point of whether the average voter bases his / her vote on what is in the best interest of them or their immediate family or whether they base their vote on what is in the best interests of society as a whole.

Although I would much prefer it if people voted on what was the best interests of society as a whole, I am now old enough to recognise that the majority sadly base their vote on self interest. I might not like it but I can see that it is reality.

Which pedants will note I didn't claim it as.

Merely something to throw into the mix. It bears superficial examination. Whether it is "true" or not is another matter.

My personal feeling is that the closer societies get to scarcity, the further they get from civilisation. But in along running theme, I really can't be arsed to put any effort into the rigour needed for serious debate.

Whilst Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee was obviously a great mind I am not sure that the opinion of a man in 1800 is total fact, your appeal to authority does not make it true.

"Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefit from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy."

The point is that talking about ideal forms of any governing approach is irrelevant, as they don't exist for more than a short time, if at all. We have to look at governments as they actually function with all their warts if we want to assess their relative merits.

A phrase coined by a monster.

I think we could argue that a large part of the reason individuals can easily choose not to have children, and indeed find it an economic advantage, is that we have socialized the benefits of children.

So instead of parents raising their kids, and their kids take care of them in their old age, and those without kids need to support themselves somehow (which is risky for all but the wealthy), their kids grow up and pay taxes that support everyone, and maybe even work at jobs that support everyone.

So now we have a class of people who see the "right" to not have children, be they want the benefits of being unburdened by their financial and immediate care - but fail to see that is only possible because others willingly take on those tasks.

Now - society does understand at some level that this is so, which is why we have things like public education. But I find the attitudes of individuals who think this way, often going on about how much better it Is to be "child free," a good example of how some do not understand that their individualism is highly dependent on the collective.

Well a single death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.

A collectivist regime generally leads to the mass deaths of those who are individualistic. Collectivists don't tollerate non conformists.

Democracy is the least worst way of governing people with their consent. As long as they can see it's somehow the legitimate will of many.

Which is all fine and dandy until you start bring deeper issues into the mix. And begin enforcing "the majority" on "the totality".

And then we are back to square one.

At some point, some people realised that it's a total waste of time trying to get majority consent and they may as well ignore the masses and do what they want anyway.

The UK is probably closer to one end of that spectrum than another.

And people can have all the rights they like. Don't mean much when the Romans invade, to use a metaphor. Caesar wasn't stopped because of uncertain pronouns. Despite his reputation for linguistic accuracy.

Arguments are often only as good as solutions that are offered alongside though.

I think we do need to cooperate collectively to solve various problems, but such cooperation needs to be founded on the freedom of each individual. Forced cooperation incites opposition and rebellion and so is ineffective.

There's no shortcut to avoid having to make arguments and persuade people.

I think this is actually just what MT had in mind, so not a "way back" as such?

What she was saying was that it's important to understand that when the state gives a benefit, that is possible because citizens work and pay into the state. It's not actually a faceless benefactor at all, it's real people. Her concern was that people forgot that it was real people providing benefits rather than a kind of abstract source of largess.

No a democracy enables us to peacefully remove someone bad - a dictatorship or communist regime less so - they require brute force (see syria) and even in cases like russia where a leader came to power who was willing to release the countries held capture in the ussr it was still possible for putin to come in and remove the thin veil of democracy that they had managed to get to and place himself as a dictator effectively.

"Because if people don't feel the interest and obligation to help their neighbours, simply by virtue of them being neighbours, why would they feel the need to spend their hard earned money on them, in the long term? They won't."
This is, arguably, where we have been for the last few decades, with other less caring role wages outstripping care/education roles at pace. The lack of investment in structural change suggests it won't be on the list of priorities either. An interesting question is why men in power in particular won't recognise communities need caring roles more than a new car, for example. The way economics is currently structured rewards over indulgent spending, excess and polluting.