I just copied this from The Lounge post on nudity:

“ The larger and more sophisticated the society, the more stratified it is by status and property, the more severe the customs imposed are out of a need to maintain order.” @Nils Loc

The existence of the state is owed to the mistrust we have of each other — TheMadFool

Is that really the case? It seems to me that the state and the individual are an organic growth of necessity and co-existence.

“ The state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy that controls the state apparatus at a given time.[27][28][29] That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.[29] Wikipedia.”

Don’t you think it’s the governments that can be viewed with mistrust, and government actions that individuals regard as impositions on what they regard as their sovereignty. The middle classes have probably been one of the great stabilising forces of the state with their apparent acceptance and support of social mores and laws. For many they’re regarded as a suffocating force that quells individuality, but I’ve often though it’s their stabilising presence that allows for the existence of the individual who rejects their moral and practical beliefs. But the idea of the middle class seems to be dying, that the gap has put them on either the side of the rich or the side of the struggling . I don’t know if that’s true or not.

Many more people than before regard themselves as individuals, though they are obviously not, it’s really a consumer marketing tool. But it’s a big enough idea to challenge the stability of the state. Society is more fragmented than its ever been.

If, as an exercise, I regard the human body as the state and the organs as the individual then it’s clear that the state/body feeds the organs and maintains the health of the body through the health of the organs. But if the organs reject the body only outside interference can remedy that. So does that suggest then that the state must come first.

surely it is true that man evolved as a social creature before he developed a genuine sense of self? — Pantagruel

Yes, I’d probably agree with that.

So the individual developed from the community/state.

these (struggles) all seem to occur when individual rights have been denied by the state or individuals have overstepped the bounds they themselves endorsed and authorized the state to keep a watch on. — TheMadFool

Yes, once the trust is broken they then become two opposed entities. But how does it start, who makes the first wrong move? It’s true we all often violate the rights we award ourselves. In that case we are reminded by the rule of law on what we agreed to. Coexistence is obviously a very fine balance. Maybe it’s a dynamic situation constantly pushing and pulling. So is it possible a generation may misunderstand just what individual rights are, that there are obligations attached. If they can’t conceive of that then the state will have no other course but to remind them of that.

then community precedes and makes possible individuality. — Pantagruel

I don’t believe that’s true. Surely individuals come together to form communities. Though in the beginning they were not individuals as we conceive of it but people who needed others to survive. Though a strong, secure community may breed individuals.

Individuals are given rights by the state, not because these rights constitute sacred eternal truths but because it’s the best practical guarantee that in normal circumstances the state will not injure the individuals it is there to protect. — Congau

I agree that these rights we refer to are not sacred eternal truths. But if the state gives the rights to the individual then they are something else. If the state can give and take away the rights it is more like a parent who withdraws privileges from children whose behaviour they are unhappy with, because they believe it is disruptive to the household and a bad precedent for the child.

I would not dispute the integrity of the parents in their concern for the child, but the behaviour they expect from the child may be based on another set of precedents and their own upbringing or social milieu.

So there is an arrangement going on but it seems to me it’s about maintaining the status quo and existing paradigms.

That said, what I would like to draw your attention to is the way you've made a distinction between the state and the individual. I find this to be a distinction without a difference: it treats the state as having a life of its own and, like individuals, capable of having an agenda that might on occasion oppose individual rights. — TheMadFool

There is a clear distinction between the two. The state does often oppose individual rights and always has. I don’t think you need me to go back over history to prove this. That seems to be a large part of history. Most things we take for granted now have been fought for and often died over.

While I do accept that many times in history the state has been at loggerheads with its people, I consider these to be cases when either the state or the people have failed to keep their end of the bargain. — TheMadFool

Nor do I agree with your sentiment here. When the individual has been at loggerheads with the state is when those moments in history I referred to happened. I don’t think it’s an matter of each failing to keep their end of the bargain but the natural evolution of civilisation. Would you agree that most, if not all, clashes in the west with governments have been over the rights of the individual? Which suggests a natural antipathy between the two with different objectives.

I just searched biopolitics, specifically Michel Foucault. Interesting.

Actually tim wood has opened up a very interesting angle with which to look at things.

As for how to live the future, just use our brains . . . Put a bit of thought into it and make a decision, — Braindead

Okay, fire away.

That said, what I would like to draw your attention to is the way you've made a distinction between the state and the individual. I find this to be a distinction without a difference — TheMadFool

I need to think about this a bit more before I reply.

But who determines the ideal citizen?
— Brett

To answer your question directly, we do. — TheMadFool

How do we do that, how does it happen?

This is not specifically related to the virus. However, I understand the response of governments to unusual circumstances and the need for restrictions on personal freedoms.

Why complain? It’s not a matter of complaining but questioning. But it’s interesting that you use the word “complain”, as if it’s a big bother, and unwarranted for people to question the government, or more importantly the bureaucracies that recommend the restrictions. Ceding individual freedom to a system is a big step.

Is it the governments responsibility to protect people from themselves? Maybe it is, maybe not. That’s my question; how should we decide to live to survive the future?

It makes you wonder what people expect from elections these days.

[

Were it that we all agreed on what the ideal citizen should be, I see no cause for trouble at all. — TheMadFool

Absolutely, if we could agree on that. But who determines the ideal citizen? What would it be? From a philosophical point of view wouldn’t it be someone like Socrates? Isn’t that the absolute necessity?

For the sake of survival in the future it’s possible we can no longer have that constant questioning of things, that we must accept a set of ideas that gives the most benefits to the most we can manage. Maybe that means the submission of the individual. Would I be prepared to do that? I’m not sure. Would we have got this far without the challenge of people like Copernicus, or is it likely that we have to accept that everything we need to know is known and therefore not challenge or question and become something that seems alien.

You're told and hear what you need to hear, not at all necessarily what you want to hear. — tim wood

You’re actually told what you agreed with during the election and what you expect as a consequence. How could it be any different? The people are quite capable of knowing what they need without being told. It’s the ones who didn’t vote for the elected member who are told what’s going to be, obviously because they anticipated something different, hence the dissatisfaction. But if you can’t accept that then you don’t accept democracy.

I would very much like politicians to pander to their base; typically we call this democracy. — StreetlightX

Yes, that’s the idea we struggle for. Why give it up now? @tim wood can’t see the wood for the cynicism.

One of the problems I see with the state coming before the individual is that it seems to apply more and more restrictions to the individual to protect the health of the state. In extreme times these restrictions become more rigid. And there are obviously times when this becomes necessary. But the example of the over seventies is not that. But if one regards the state as primary then individuals must submit to what might be regarded as the greater good. But then what value is there in a life if a small percentage can be sacrificed for the greater good?

I imagine smaller, ancient communities existed under strict ideas of behaviour and ranking. To go against the community meant being outcast. That’s how it works, how it sustains itself. But the strict laws and application of them suggests a real fragility, that the individual was a threat to everyone. In some ways it’s like that now. If you go against the grain then you’ll find your life to some degree harder than if you acquiesced.

Too, the obese, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups are to be kept under lockdown for their own safety — TheMadFool

This seems to be an increasingly acceptable idea, that the state knows what’s good for you and will impose themselves on you to achieve that. Specifically I’m thinking of those In their seventies and over in relation to the virus who are deemed incapable of making the “right” choice.

You also said “ Ideal citizens - the infected especially - would choose to remain under lockdown”, and the state assumes this to be what people are thinking. So then we have the state deciding, or assuming, what people want.

All in all your position would be that the state comes before the individual. You said you see no conflict between the individual and the state. But is that the case, or is it only the case if the individual accepts the idea of the state coming first, that the individual serves the state. I don’t mean that in a totalitarian way. I’m interested to see how people think we should shape society. As I said, and others have suggested, the idea of the individual is a relatively new idea.

There have been a lot of news reports along the lines of this story;

https://www.9news.com.au/world/britain-obese-people-coronavirus-lockdown-covid19/8338f10f-c31e-4c7c-8f76-466c166d31dc

“ “Britain plans to treat "severely overweight" people as "vulnerable" along with those over the age of 70 and pregnant women, meaning they will need to remain in isolation after general lockdown, the Sun reports.”

It seems to me that this should be an individual decision. If someone over seventy wishes to take the chance then it’s their choice.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-dershowitz-forced-coronavirus-vaccinations-are-constitutional

Not to mention police actions and senseless restriction imposed by authorities.

I'm sure there aren't any people out there who would want things to be different; — TheMadFool

You might be missing something.

The state promotes and nurtures the ideal citizen. — TheMadFool

This is an interesting point.

Life for those who can fit into the state will find their reward. For some it’s easier than others. But going against the grain is not easy and the rewards for the individual are unpredictable.

I guess part of my enquiry is at what stage does the individual put his individuality in check.

we all have an image of, let's call it, the ideal citizen.[/quote]

I’m not sure if we all have the same understanding of a “good citizen”. Though I think there’s a general understanding. But tensions can develop suddenly over who defines it, what it means and how it’s enforced.

The state tends to promote and nurture those who support it.

I think some of the issues that have developed over the Covid virus suggest how the state and individuals can be at odds with each other.

You seem to have become fixated on a small aside I made about irony. Do you want to have a go at addressing the OP?

If individuality is the most important aspect of humanity, moreso than the state then why can’t we submit to another individual?

The problem, or the source of conflict in my question, is the refusal, or inability, of the modern individual to submit. Once they submitted to God, now submission to anything is seeing as some sort of shadow to totalitarianism. The individual does not submit. “I am an individual. Therefore I submit to nothing, even if it’s in my own interests”.

The individual determines his goals and the most efficient means for achieving them. The individual then trades his work for cash if and only if laboring for the company qualifies as "most efficient means". — Tech

This is not true. For the employee “most efficient means” doesn’t come into it. He/she applies for a position. On the basis of their potential contribution to the objectives of the company they’re hired.

You might have to define “efficient means”.

But I am interested in your definition of "submission". — Tech

To agree to put your own interests second to something else.

The irony is that a communal effort achieves success in a capitalist environment.

The employee doesn't "submit to the greater good of the company" — Tech

Of course he does, or they no longer have a need for him. The company has an objective that everyone plays a part in achieving. The employee doesn’t go off on his own tangent or belief in what’s good for the company.

Ideally, the individual because the individual is best informed about their own personal needs, i.e. they are their best personal advocate. The state generally belongs in the background creating and enforcing laws that allow individuals to peacefully go about their daily lives and keep public services running. — BitconnectCarlos

That’s true about personal needs, but are personal needs important enough for the general health of the community and future wellbeing?

The state as you define it might belong in the background creating and enforcing laws but that idea of the state is a political tool, or mechanism, for the managing of the real state, which is the population at large.

The Australian Aboriginal culture is regarded as the oldest culture in the world and yet I don’t imagine they survived all that time through the concept of individuality. But it serves our modern culture to believe in the idea of individuality, it drives the economy.

My question is still, if we can, which should we choose?

The individual suffers for other people's vanity, — neonspectraltoast

Assuming you believe this to be true then the individual suffers through the sense of individuality others have. This is the problem; the idea of individuality means the idea of uniqueness or importance, which translates to lack of compromise. Personally I don’t want to give up many aspects of my life. I might reach a compromise to make something happen as opposed to nothing happening, but it’s rear that I would place myself second to someone else. But I know we can’t live like that and have a functioning community.

The individual does not suffer from the vanity of others, the individual suffers because they can’t have what they want.

Isn’t it an irony that in a place of business or corporation the individual, with their skills, submits to the greater good of the company for its success.

Yes, and this is a decision we have to make. How are we going to live, as individuals, which is very possibly a construct, or as members where we accept the greater good over our own interests?

The rights as an individual are given to us, true or false?

And in many ways, our modern version of "the individual", endowed with unalienable rights, is very much a social construction. It's a result of the way western culture has developed. — Echarmion

Yes, exactly. And I agree with your thoughts on social animals. However was Thomas Becket and individual, Oliver Cromwell? And were they instrumental in who we are now, or, was their individuality disruptive?

Edit: so is this idea of individuality a risk?

The success I speak of is evolutionary and the fact that we’re here and able to ask the question. Maybe it’s a big claim, but we’re here.

But for the sake of drawing out more angles on the question, what is the the social organisation, how is it structured, by random chance or by deliberately chosen steps? Is it of our making?

Is the idea of the individual just a modern notion that our current position gives us the luxury of playing with? Consequently is it a threat to the idea of the community that the individual exists in and is supported by?

Good post. My question then is poorly put, what I mean is 'what' should come first and what is best for the future?

Yes I understand that. For this purpose I’m viewing the state as the people as an entity, as an organised political community.

This is it? This is the level of debate?