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

[User09678]

Which we need to solve most of our most critical and existential issues?

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.

A phrase coined by a monster.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

@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.

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.

"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.

@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.

And your point?

100% this.

@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

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.

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.

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).

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

We have these things in the UK too. It's also the ONLY carbon negative country. It might not still be. But it certainly was. The only one.