[FpUser]

I said "independent to the degree possible", not absolutely.

I do not live in a binary world. I accept things in between.

Being part of group should be voluntary, not forced

What I definitely do not want is my life to be dictated by a few imbeciles at the top who are bought by large corps to pretend to be "by the people for the people".

[defrost]

The solution to that is widespread active low level constant community engagement in policy and monitoring the people you hire to debate policy (politicians) and the various silo's created to enact policy (military, civil service, legal, emergancy response, etc.).

Some people think it sufficient to pay no attention and let things slide indefinitely because "ultimately we can just rise up and shoot the government".

Such people have clogged toilets.

[someguynamedq]

Isn't it expected that in a system that favors individualism over collectivism that a few people will be able to amass disproportionately more wealth and power than everyone else with no incentive or societally enforced responsibility to share that wealth and power, thus creating a society were your life is dictated by a few imbeciles at the top, not who are not bought by large corps, but who own the large corps?

[FpUser]

Collectivism has many problems as well including that some are "more equal" and amass the same disproportional wealth (maybe under the cover and not placated but it is still there).

[eszed]

Indeed. It then follows that the optimal arrangement will find a balance, ameliorating the flaws of system each with the strengths of the other.

Several Northern European countries (like the Netherlands, which GP finds congenial) pursue this, though pragmaticism (unlike ideology) never reaches an end-state, and remains a work in progress. The USA, from ~1933 until sometime in the 1970s, operated on this model. It's probably only possible to sustain in high-trust societies.