Western culture delivers to our door various kinds of information. This information is embedded in a context of commercialism, and it is mostly propaganda that we receive at our doorstop. In the form of its books and other learning materials, what the Western culture delivers is propaganda, and the reason I say so is that all the stories always focus on the extremely rare cases or great success stories. Who are presumably happy or something? So, that's the famous stuff; that's what we hear about. We focus on the few persons that become famous. That is the focus of the commercial propaganda delivered to our door.
What the Western cultural system does not focus on is the misery and frustration that persons have felt for a thousand years, yet that is what most persons are actually experiencing----misery and frustration.
So we get the wrong information; and we are hoodwinked.
What do you see around you? What is the truth? Do you see "achievers" and success stories? But they are the ones the cultural machine tells us about. So, you are tricked this way. We only hear about the "greats," like "Lou Gerhrig." Then we find out he has a disease. Named after him, of course.
Of course, one might suggest that this is normal, since it is the job of the state, or maybe the economic leadership, to promote the society to itself. So, we display our successes, not our failures. All right. Everyone knows that certain persons get fame.
There are two theories on the relationship between the state and the people. One of these is adopted by the persons on the so-called "Right," who constitute a kind of propaganda machine. It is that the government should just leave the individual alone. The other theory is that the state, or the institutions of the society, kind of like Kings in certain social systems, have a responsibility to uplift the people. As for the first, it really needs to be stated that nobody really goes it alone. They use the culture, of course, if there is one. They may say that they aren't using it after all, but white persons are members of the dominant cultural paradigm anyways. Except for certain truly hardy individuals they are for the most part not going it alone, so the idea of "less government interference" is really a big deception. These persons are at the helm of the "Right" propaganda industry; this is not for real. These persons are not genuine cultural actors. Like the great entertainer Limbaugh, whom we all love, they are phonies. As for the second theory, out of all of earth's cultures, the white or Western cultural group in particular has a quite difficult time in uplifting or providing guidance to anyone.
This is why capitalism is such a viable solution: it allows a society to exist, but it does not give a lot of state guidance. Still, things have got to somehow hold together. It is not just a matter of a lot of people going it alone. That is just not true.
The correct arrangement, therefore, would be a sort of reciprocal give-and-take, between any persons or groups in the society at large, and the rulers. In Amy Goodman's great phrase, these groups could occasionally "take exception to the rulers," through their own activities as outside, democratic agents. This would allow for some relationship between individual persons, and authority.