Every individual knows or has an idea of what an individual should be like - we all have an image of, let's call it, the ideal citizen. The state promotes and nurtures the ideal citizen. I don't see how individuals and the state 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?

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.

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

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 don't see how COVID-19 has changed anything with regard to the relationship betwixt the individual and the state. None of the measures put in place by the state to stop the contagion from causing more havoc than it already has is arbitrary or unreasonable. It's my understanding that states are doing nothing beyond implementing recommendations made by experts in the field of infectious diseases and epidemiologists. I'm sure there aren't any people out there who would want things to be different; after all that would lead to a far worse situation for us. Perhaps I'm missing something.

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

You might be missing something.

You might be missing something. — Brett

Do you mind elaborating?

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.

Ideal citizens - the infected especially - would choose to remain under lockdown. The state assumes that to be the case and acts accordingly.

Too, the obese, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups are to be kept under lockdown for their own safety since they're the ones most likely to end up in a coffin. I see no state-individual conflict at all unless of course the individual is an antisocial.

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.

I think it's not the question. The state is there to provide for the individual as well as the group. In this case we can say that the state has to protect the freedom of each individual, as long as it does not hurt the group or other individuals.

The state serves both. In democratic countries, where the state is elected by the people, we are lucky to benefit of as much freedoms for the individuals as it is possible.

In regards to today's crisis, I think it is indeed a mistake of the state to impose who is allowed or not to go out. I think it should do recommendations instead. Each citizen's duty is to follow the guidelines as religiously as possible. But we should be free to weigh the risks ourselves, so long as we are not hurting anyone in the process.

It is clear the state today is protecting the group from a more massive outbreak. It shouldn't punish a 70+ year old who needs to go out for his own reasons, as he is only putting himself at risk not the group...

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.

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. — Brett

I agree that there are occasions when individual interests come in conflict with the state interests. However these are simply times when the notion of the ideal citizen is distorted either by individual or the state, resulting in friction between the two. Were it that we all agreed on what the ideal citizen should be, I see no cause for trouble at all.

That said, the relationship between the individual and the state is asymmetric - the latter has more power than the former - and this might lead to state domination over the individual at times.

[

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.

One of the biggest issues of the U.S. is space. The U.S. is enormous, enough to fit in multiple other countries. Prioritizing the individual or the state? There’re so many people, with so many sub-cultures, it’s basically impossible to keep everyone happy and we knew that from the beginning. When faced with a virus threatening the entire world, the U.S. not excluded, the government has greater worries than complaints on individual freedom. Sure, it’s important to enforce basic human rights, but if a giant bomb was scheduled to hit the country and the only way to avoid it was to stuff everyone in their basements(we’re assuming the basements are sturdy enough), the government would do it in a heartbeat, regardless of what idiots think they’d rather hang around outside. While the real life situation isn’t the same, it’s similar in regards to how the government should react. It’s the government’s duty to protect its citizens, and that’s exactly what it’s doing. Why complain?

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?

As a government with officials elected by the populace, it is theoretically acceptable to trust the government. Unfortunately reality is different and the election process has its own flaws so that isn’t always the case. However, when it comes to more specific questions like how to handle a virus pandemic, I think the current response is simply a logical decision. After all it is only natural to avoid people during a pandemic while understanding viral infection is spread by people. As for how to live the future, just use our brains. No one said to trust the government unconditionally, nor did anyone say the government is absolutely untrustworthy. Put a bit of thought into it and make a decision, isn’t that just life? Once again, however, it is unfortunate that not everyone puts thought into it, leading to many unnecessary issues.

But who determines the ideal citizen? — Brett

To answer your question directly, we do.

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. 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.

But who determines the ideal citizen?
— Brett

To answer your question directly, we do. — TheMadFool

How do we do that, how does it happen?

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.

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: 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.

The purpose of the state is to benefit the individuals who make up the state. If the individuals have rights that make it difficult or impossible for the state to benefit them, then those “rights” are not really for the individuals.

During this virus crisis the state restricts the movements of individuals in order to protect those same individuals. The state does it for the individuals only, so the individuals still come first. No one imagines that they are in lockdown to protect the state.

Now, of course it’s legitimate to ask if the state is going to far. Maybe the measures that are taken cause more damage to the individuals than they benefit them. In that case, it is bad policy, but not because it violates some preconceived principle. 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.

These are not normal circumstances and it would be bad if the rights that normally exist to protect individuals from injury are now used to injure those individuals. The individual always comes first.

Well, you phrase the question as the individual or the State, but the State appears only late in human history. If instead of State we substitute community or society, then community precedes and makes possible individuality.

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.

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.

You're on the money regarding history being riddled with struggles between the state and the individual but what you seem to be missing is the fact these 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. This of course raises the question as to whether a body/organization that violates individual rights can be called a "state"; these bodies/organizations that have been presented to the people as "states" are simply entities that, for whatever reason, fill the vacuum of authority, the authority people want to empower and subsequently entrust their rights to. Likewise, people, some of us, often act in ways that are clearly in violation of the very rights we awarded ourselves and then the state steps in with corrective measures.

Well, surely it is true that man evolved as a social creature before he developed a genuine sense of self? That at least is George Mead's hypothesis, which is the basis for my reasoning.

Think of a lone individual - how would the process of self-identity ever develop? Life would be nothing but an unending series of environmental interactions. Conscious, maybe, but not self-conscious. Self is a social product.

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.