http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... as-message

For a guy who used to be in PR that's a terrible attempt at it.

Who actually believes that the Big Society is anything more than spin coming from a party that said there is no society only the individual?

The full context of the "no such thing as society", sounds like she had a point.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

It's actually an individualism vs collectivism argument. Whether you consider 'society' to be a loose bunch of people whose requirements and desires occasionally collide (i.e. we all need roads, police etc) or a group who within themselves decide to work together for the common good.

The problem with individualism is it's easy to tip into selfishness and isolationism, just as collectivism can tip into totalitarianism. Enlightened individualism is what we had in some senses during the industrial revolution and the renaissance and, to a degree, the 1960's. It's almost the best realistic case. The problem we have right now is the people who have most of the resources seem to be quite unenlightened individualists. An enlightened individualist wouldn't siphon billions into tax havens, for example.

Jon

Isn't that a bit of an arbitrary list of eras you are citing there Jon?

I believe Thatcher was inexpertly summarizing a corner of the argument presented by Antony Flew in The Politics of Procrustes. She might be seen as making a case for enlightened collectivism that doesn't make decisions for its members based on their presumed choices if only they were more collectively rational, as opposed to inferior humans who could be perfected by benevolent oversight.

Flew was extending - admittedly with severe right wing bias - the argument that Isiah Berlin made in Two Concepts of Liberty, which everybody should read and think about. The individualism / collectivism argument is empty without consideration of this fundamental conflict between positive and negative concepts of liberty. Which is important because as Berlin said:

"pretentious
adjective
1.
attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed."

Thatcher was making a claim of explicit political philosophy. Ok, technically the no such thing quote itself comes via Hayek who was an economist, but that is a diversion, the subject in this instance is a matter of social justice rather than base enrichment. Jon is also presenting an argument from political philosophy. Amnesia is referencing such an argument entirely without contextual understanding. And the original claim of our esteemed PM that started this thread is also a statement of dimly realised political philosophy. Therefore PP is relevant here. Political philosophers are in turn relevant to matters of political philosophy, that being, some might say, their job.

Her choice of philosopher was a severe right winger whose views go too far for me, and are violently unpalatable to virtually every member of this forum. I pointed to another, far wiser one, whose views he was extending anyway, as a more useful source for the sort of argument he was using. It's not a difficult read, no technical terminology is required beyond that which is clearly and easily explained within the text. It's worthy and it's worth reading.