Opinion of this "values" statement

[Democratic Hawk]

It belongs to a political entity (but don't reveal, if you know, what it is)

"It believes that by the strength of our common endeavours we achieve more than we acheive alone , so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect"

Dave

[KEmperor]

Somewhat unfavorable.

[afleitch]

I know where it's from. So unfavourable

[Nym90]

Favorable.

[Frodo]

Strongly favorable

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Favourable o/c

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Unfavorable.

[dazzleman]

Unfavorable.

It is one of those statements reflecting a philosophy that sounds good in theory, but works poorly in actual practice.

[Gabu]

Freedom fighter.

I mean favorable.

[Democratic Hawk]

Favorable - pretty communitarian in its essence

Dave

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Communitarianism is a bad thing. The individual is able to accomplish more if he's not held back by high taxes, regulation or social conservatism.

[Democratic Hawk]

Communitarianism is a bad thing. The individual is able to accomplish more if he's not held back by high taxes, regulation or social conservatism.

Because I'm broadly in tune with a communitarian ethos it does not make me an advocate of high taxes, an avid fan of 'red tape' or some abolutist social conservative

However, such notions as the common good do carry more weight with me than those of the self-serving, self-seeking actions on the part of some individuals

As someone who was part of a committee which organised what was probably the most successful event my village has ever held, I refer of course to our Home Front Recall event last September to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the end of the Second World War, the amount of 'red tape', and hurdles we had to jump through to comply with it, to host the event was a nightmare - but it was well worth it ! Nevertheless, it was enough to put the most ardent of community-spirited people off regulations for life

And what we accomplised was no bad thing

Dave

[Nym90]

There are quite obviously a lot of things that groups of people can do far better than individuals.

For a concrete every day example, consider something like moving a very long heavy piece of furniture. One person alone may not be able to do it at all, or if they can, it will take more than twice as long as it would take two people to do it.

Of course, if something very small needs to be moved, one person will be able to do it in much more than half as much time as two people, in fact they will be able to do it as fast if not faster.

A group can often be more than just the sum of its parts. However, too many cooks can spoil the broth, too.

Clearly for each task, there is an optimal number of people for which to perform it. This statement merely acknowledges this fact, so disagreeing with it on its face seems a bit ridiculous.

A primary purpose of government should be to accomplish collectively that which would be much more difficult and less efficient, if not impossible, to accomplish individually.