Who defends society: socialists or liberals? Although it may seem absurd to somewhere, the greatest defenders of society are liberals and libertarians, although the words "society" are shielded today. Unfortunately.
We often hear this: "it's nice that you care about the individual, the individual, but you also need to think about society!"
A liberal (or libertarian, as you wish) usually says something in the sense that the basis of society is the individual (at best) or that society does not exist (at worst).
It is true that "society" does not physically exist and that the basis of society is the individual, but the core of the argument should be a little different.
What exactly is a "society"? It is a voluntary association of different individuals. Diversity is a condition for the emergence of a society - people specialize comparatively in what they are best at, in what they differ, so that they can then offer the skills to others for exchange (what others specialize in).
We can easily apply the law of comparative advantage to society and its origin. Mises had already done so, calling it "Ricardo's Law of Association."
The catch is that this is the basis of any market. The company is thus nothing more than a de facto market - for example, the interpersonal market. A great "metatrh".
Society versus government
There is no need for a government to form a society. As has been said, it arises spontaneously, through the decisions and actions of individuals. It is precisely voluntary cooperation that shapes society and enables it to grow, ie to improve the lives of individuals living in it. It is an environment of voluntary cooperation, ie a market. Capitalism is then a system of voluntary cooperation - capitalism is a system based on the existence of society.
The only thing the government "can" do is enforce. However, enforcement is the opposite of voluntariness. It is clear from this that the biggest anti-social element is the government.
It was the classical liberals who stood up to the absolutist rulers. However, they did not just defend "the market" or "the freedom of the individual", defended society, a free society.
It is sad that socialists of all colors and kinds usurped that "defense of society" for themselves. It does not matter whether there is one big absolutist or many small absolutist dictators called "people", the essence is still the same - the possibility of enforcing, the possibility of various power interventions to disrupt the structure of voluntary relations throughout society.
It was the liberals who defended society. Under the guise of defending society, socialists form the world of dictatorship, the world of government - a world in which society, that is, the market, cannot function. There is no free society if we destroy the market. It's coming two names of the same.
Society versus socialists
The moment we liquidate the "market", we must bring a new way of organizing that company. However, no new "organization" can be built on voluntariness, because it would be a market. However, if we reject the market, we have no choice but to resort to a directive approach. Make people pawns on their own board. Manage their lives. This is called a dictatorship and is an inevitable consequence of the absence of a market.
It is an inevitable consequence of any social engineering, state interventionism and efforts for socialism. All these systems are based on the fact that some - group A, ie rulers - must impose something on others - group B, ie subjects. These are not progressive, but actually highly conservative directions. They don't want to "move us forward", but go back to the times of absolutism and slavery.
These are the directions they aim for destruction of society. Maybe not directly, but it is clearly a consequence of the efforts of their supporters.
The defense of society was the domain of the Liberals. It is still so - if not nominally, then in reality certainly yes. However, the Socialists have found a new god - a selected group, which according to them is a "society". This group was seated on a throne that once belonged to the king.
It doesn't matter if we call this group "99%", "poor", "sick", "helpless" or "ordinary people".
What they are doing is not "society's defense against individualists," but government defense and coercion against those who call for the opportunity to manage their lives voluntarily and to let society continue to form spontaneously. This is nothing more than a dispute over freedom.
Liberals, take what belongs to you. Explain that it is you who defends society! The name "company" has been stolen from you.