The Czech Republic needs a concept. Government concepts of education / transport / industry and more. Well, at least some people think so. They defend their planning theses (directly or covertly) with a kind of "public", "social" or "national" interest.
However, I argue that there is no collective interest. There is no "public", "social" or "national" interest. If these interests do not exist, all possible "conceptions of development" have no justification.
What is really hidden under the guise of collective interest is usually just an attempt to enforce one's individual interest through coercion (of the state) at the expense of someone else.
For coffee with Skoda
The crucial question is: is the team without people? And are people without a collective?
In other words: is Škoda (a company) without people, individuals? And are the employees of Škoda (the company, I include the management, etc.) without that company?
The answer is more than simple: employees without Damage are, of course, there are. Damage without employees, individuals, no.
Generally speaking, an individual without collective it still exists, while a collective without individuals does not. There is no humanity if there are no people. Therefore, if we want to understand the essence of the phenomena that we associate with humanity (the collective), we must examine the actions of individuals (people).
If collective entities do not really exist, they cannot act. The premise of action is the expected goal - if the collective entity does not act, it has no goal. The only one who acts and has a goal is the individual, the individuality.
In other words, if we want to create a comprehensive theory of the behavior of collective entities (ergo societies, nations, markets), we can do nothing other than based on the theory of individual behavior. Macroeconomics must be strictly based on microeconomics.
The "collective" does not need a plan, because it has no goal, it does not act, it does not hobbies. The one who plans is only the individual who plans on the basis of his subjective preferences, interests, subjective expectations, information; an individual who plans for himself.
When an individual calls for a "collective plan," he does nothing but elevate his interest above the interests of others and makes his interest a "collective" interest to which everyone must submit. It is therefore clear that by promoting this interest as a "collective", someone will benefit, someone will lose. This means, then, that the "collective" does not gain at the moment, but loses in the long run.
What is a collective?
So what is a collective if it does not really exist? The answer can be found in microeconomics - in business theory.
In general, an enterprise (which is a collective entity) arises when the costs of managing the enterprise are lower than the costs of transactions.
The company is thus a tangle of equal contracts, a system of voluntary cooperation, where people within the company generally have one thing in common: to acquire.
It is, of course, easier for people "outside" these contracts to create a virtual entity, where up to thousands of contractual relationships can be combined into one "company". Since people within one conspiracy of contracts (one enterprise) are usually outside many other conspiracies, people within one conspiracy also perceive other conspiracies as enterprises (collective entities).
If we see many individuals with one skin color (eg black), they will create one collective entity ("black race") for their perception. However, the collective entity is not real, it is not in itself ("race" does not act, it is not real), only individuals (people with black skin color) act.
If we stop perceiving the collective entity as such (eg we stop thinking about races), individuals remain (they will still be blacks). However, if there are no blacks as such (eg there will be genocide of blacks), there will be no collective entity (eg race of blacks).
The team is a simplification that reduces our costs, for example in conversation - try to say "Škoda" instead of "a tangle of voluntary contracts producing cars in a factory in a place where many individuals live at 50 ° north latitude, 14 ° east longitude.
It is a simplification of the same nature as when I say that wooden chairs are made of wood. Of course they are not - they are also painted, metal (nails), work… But try to say "wooden chairs, paint" instead of "wooden chairs"
So the collective does not really exist. There is no collective interest, the team does not act, has no goals, does not evaluate. It doesn't matter if we call the collective "enterprise", "public", society, nation or whatever. Their basis is always the same: it is an individual.