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?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Cooperating means compromising to maximise total utility.
I don't think this is a useful definition of cooperation, because "total utility" is not measurable, and might not even be well-defined.
I would define cooperation as people working together towards a common goal.
> It's rare enough that two people want the exact same thing, even less a group of people
It's rare for multiple people to want all of the same things, yes. This is why collective action should be limited.
But it's quite common for multiple people to have some common goal, in which case they can cooperate to achieve that goal, without having to share all of their other goals.
Your definition of cooperation appears to be all or nothing: either everybody agrees on everything, or people have to compromise. But if people don't agree on a particular goal, they can just choose not to pursue it together. They can go off and pursue their own goals separately. Nothing requires everybody to agree on a common set of goals and only pursue those.
> the alternative to "government oppression" is oppression by individuals/corporations/groups
No, the alternative to government oppression is voluntary choice. You can't be oppressed by individuals or corporations or groups that don't have power. And who gives them that power? Governments. Individuals or corporations and groups get to oppress others because they have bought the privilege of doing so from the government--which was supposed to protect people from oppression.
> you don't get a vote
My vote doesn't make any difference anyway; neither major political party in my country (the US) is willing to touch any policy proposals that I would advocate. The best I can do with my vote is to choose the candidates that I think will do the least damage. But I would be glad to trade the loss of that dubious privilege for a much smaller government that didn't try to meddle in so many things.
> I think there are a lot more good things than just that aspect that our collective invention of government brings
Governments do do good things. But that doesn't mean all good things get done by governments, or that governments doing them are the best way to do even those good things that governments do.
