[RealityNow]

This is due to the entrenchment of neoliberalism since the 70s (famously Reagan in the 80s), the ideology that government's sole responsibility is to enforce free markets, any other function of government is bad, and that every aspect of life should be dictated by free markets. Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society, only individuals" sums it up. Rising wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of this.

When we're indoctrinated to suppress our humanity and see each other as self-interested profit-maximizing businesses rather than people, then it shouldn't come as any surprise that we're less cooperative.

[didgeoridoo]

Way to take that Thatcher quote out of context in order to reverse its meaning.

What she really said was:

"No government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

[coliveira]

The full quote only shows in more vivid colors the same regretful idea.

[reactor4]

The full quote doesn't reverse the meaning at all.

[didgeoridoo]

Of course it does. Which part of Thatcher's quote do you see as promoting the idea that we should "suppress our humanity"? Do you see that in there anywhere? And can you imagine why the out-of-context "there is no such thing as society" quote could be construed as a dishonest interpretation of her philosophy?

[croon]

The rest of the quote just describes the same thing in a euphemism. The quality of your life depends on your own responsibility (meaning you're SooL if you have any disabilities or are born poor/with less opportunities). But your quality of life also depends on someone else freely wanting to help you, so government shouldn't bother with it, which is basically just reiterating objectivism. Some people will help others to their own detriment out of the goodness of their hearts. Most wont.

> "There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate"

I think this whole argument is mostly a problem because some people view government as an adversary, instead of the product of populace cooperation. Sure you get "oppression of the majority", but that's what policing has always been. Being free to do whatever you want means being free to oppress others. The only difference with government involvement is that it's using collective knowledge/intellect over individual.

[pdonis]

> I think this whole argument is mostly a problem because some people view government as an adversary, instead of the product of populace cooperation.

That's because government is an adversary to anyone who doesn't agree with what it's doing. There is no such thing as "populace cooperation" unless all of the populace agrees on what should be done. That is very rarely the case; most cases of "populace cooperation" are a portion of the populace using the coercive power of the government to force everyone else to do the things that portion of the populace thinks are good ideas.

> that's what policing has always been. Being free to do whatever you want means being free to oppress others.

But if all the government does is "policing" in this sense--preventing people from oppressing others--then almost all of what governments do today would be off the table.

[croon]

> That's because government is an adversary to anyone who doesn't agree with what it's doing. There is no such thing as "populace cooperation" unless all of the populace agrees on what should be done. That is very rarely the case; most cases of "populace cooperation" are a portion of the populace using the coercive power of the government to force everyone else to do the things that portion of the populace thinks are good ideas.

Cooperation doesn't mean that everyone gets their way. It's rare enough that two people want the exact same thing, even less a group of people. Having a country want the same thing is infeasible. Cooperating means compromising to maximise total utility.

> But if all the government does is "policing" in this sense--preventing people from oppressing others--then almost all of what governments do today would be off the table.

I didn't say that it is all it does, or should do, merely that the alternative to "government oppression" is oppression by individuals/corporations/groups, and you don't get a vote. Personally I think there are a lot more good things than just that aspect that our collective invention of government brings.

[mattmanser]

No, have to agree with the others here, it doesn't say what you think it does at all.

[cat199]

While I don't doubt this contributed, it also presumes that government is the main driver of social interation, which itself implies a non-participatory philosophy of the person..

If you are correct, how then did this philosophy get into place to begin with?

I would argue that it is more likely the rise of corporatism in the post war era which brought massive disruption of 'organic' social networks and through the large-scale transformation of economic activity from small businesses into larger ones removed much of the need for societal participation.

mass media, the decline of religious life, and the entrance of women into the workplace also likely are major factors - we can entertain ourselves, don't hear moral/values in a community, and have fully 1/2 of the house dedicated to matters of societal rather than economic concern

[RealityNow]

I think all those are contributing factors, and you're right - it's not just the result of one thing.

It seems to be the result of a successful PR campaign on behalf of economists like Milton Friedman and the wealthy elites who stood to gain from it. The 1973 oil crisis was a tumultuous time, and so it was a ripe time for a new ideology.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-t...

[brian-armstrong]

You're going to try to point at such a large, complex phenomenon through a single cause?

[schiffern]

Not OP, but the entrenchment of neoliberalism is itself a large, complex phenomenon. https://chomsky.info/profit01/