This definition of “social” from Oxford is probably most accurate, to how I am using the word:
needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities.
“we are social beings as well as individuals”
I interact with the government but I would hardly call it social. They send me paper asking for taxes, I send them taxes. I vote but that’s just filling out a form. It’s transactional, the government provides services. In rare cases I do have conversations with people who work for the government but I wouldn’t say Im social with the goverment through them. That would be like saying you’re social with Ronald McDonald by eating a cheeseburger.
I really would prefer the government leave me alone as much as possible and I think most people feel this way. I don’t think people want any organizations bothering them. How many times do you see a sign on someones door reading “solicite please” or see people hanging out down at the DMV talking about rules and regulations, or whatever. Never. People hate going to the DMV, they do it as little as possible.
We’re social with friends (usually people we went to school with), family, coworkers, neighbors, acquaintances, and some people we deal with on a regular basis. Small groups, like Dunbar’s number small.
I think our definitions of social might be the disconnect here, as it seems you’re meaning it in a personal or conversational manner. I acknowledge that by those standards, your point would be correct!
I just think that the term “social” when used in a political context does not carry the same connotation. When you say socialism is the farthest thing from being left alone, it seems you mean that in the sense that you don’t want people bothering you about more than is necessary for you to function as an individual (hence the soliciting or DMV example given). In this case, I don’t think that a more socialist structure would infringe on that at all actually.
Your day to day life would likely not change drastically. It’s not like the government would suddenly be knocking on your door monthly saying “hello would you like to give me your documented monthly contribution to society? Here is your monthly allowance”. In the day to day it would function as it was currently and the government would basically “leave you alone” as much as they already do. The government currently does already take taxes after all on property, income, sales, capital, even gifts! They also require you documents for many things such as driving a car or owning property or getting healthcare.
To continue your point made based on the definition you gave, though: People may have “no soliciting” signs posted, and hate going to the DMV. Yet, I know of MORE people who upon encountering an automated system to reduce the social interaction to be done for government transactions, complain that they “hate these stupid robots and want to just talk to a real person”.
This definition of “social” from Oxford is probably most accurate, to how I am using the word:
I interact with the government but I would hardly call it social. They send me paper asking for taxes, I send them taxes. I vote but that’s just filling out a form. It’s transactional, the government provides services. In rare cases I do have conversations with people who work for the government but I wouldn’t say Im social with the goverment through them. That would be like saying you’re social with Ronald McDonald by eating a cheeseburger.
I really would prefer the government leave me alone as much as possible and I think most people feel this way. I don’t think people want any organizations bothering them. How many times do you see a sign on someones door reading “solicite please” or see people hanging out down at the DMV talking about rules and regulations, or whatever. Never. People hate going to the DMV, they do it as little as possible.
We’re social with friends (usually people we went to school with), family, coworkers, neighbors, acquaintances, and some people we deal with on a regular basis. Small groups, like Dunbar’s number small.
I think our definitions of social might be the disconnect here, as it seems you’re meaning it in a personal or conversational manner. I acknowledge that by those standards, your point would be correct!
I just think that the term “social” when used in a political context does not carry the same connotation. When you say socialism is the farthest thing from being left alone, it seems you mean that in the sense that you don’t want people bothering you about more than is necessary for you to function as an individual (hence the soliciting or DMV example given). In this case, I don’t think that a more socialist structure would infringe on that at all actually.
Your day to day life would likely not change drastically. It’s not like the government would suddenly be knocking on your door monthly saying “hello would you like to give me your documented monthly contribution to society? Here is your monthly allowance”. In the day to day it would function as it was currently and the government would basically “leave you alone” as much as they already do. The government currently does already take taxes after all on property, income, sales, capital, even gifts! They also require you documents for many things such as driving a car or owning property or getting healthcare.
To continue your point made based on the definition you gave, though: People may have “no soliciting” signs posted, and hate going to the DMV. Yet, I know of MORE people who upon encountering an automated system to reduce the social interaction to be done for government transactions, complain that they “hate these stupid robots and want to just talk to a real person”.