The natural evolution of humans from dependant childhood to adulthood is one of increasing independence to the point of self reliance. This is the case with all mobile living structures.
An extension of this is the powerful emotion of “contentment”. This is a foundational driving force of humans. Its converse “discontent” might be even more powerful.
Contentment is closely allied to a sense of security and control over “own affairs”. That is why humans collect about them object of “ownership”. Primarily humans need to own “space”. This need is well rehearsed in the psychological literature.
Shelter, and the accoutrements of marriage, are part of this special requirement. In ever-day terms humans, male and (particularly) female need ownership of a home. (See the essay on marriage)
Once a home is acquired, sustenance is demanded. In the “modern” world this has been transmogrified into “money”. (See the essay on economics and money). Hence the importance of money and the importance of the ownership (which means control) of money in the fulfillment of content (See the essay on the usurpation and control of money by governments, and the great importance of this in allowing contentment of the group)
One of the strategies by politicians in both democratic and totalitarian societies is to lure the approval of their populations for the “controlling forces” (governing authority) by the philosophy of “gifts”. In reality these are “pseudo gifts”, a crude and misleading deception (which is mostly successful).
In the crude way of all confidence trickery these “gifts” are supposed to provide contentment. This naive ploy plays on human fears, combining the “gift” with a pseudo assurance of protection against the fears which are incumbent in humans.
In the Western world, where the governments have conjured a significant “disposable income” (largely borrowed) this trickery takes the form of Industrialised “compassion”. Examples are national health services, and grants for those who fall, or chose to fall, outside the behavioural norms.
Using the British as an example the result is a complex of a defensive unhappy, isolationistic, insecure society. It is a society which now (in strong contrast with the past) peers at visitors through small openings in doors, it frightened of the legal repercussions of any societal interaction, and ultimately hold “society” to blame for their individual inadequacies. A markedly obvious “responsibility shift” has occurred and all individual failures are imagined to lie with society or “government institutions”. Ironically it is the “bite back” that governments have originated themselves. The tragedy is that these governments now try to repair that damage by the same approaches which caused them in the first instance.
The breakdown of communal society is the ultimate outcome, in a self inflicted perversion which counters all the evolved mechanisms intrinsic in humans – who have evolved sophisticated behavioural strategies which allow (small) groups to function successfully – as illustrated by the testament of human survival.
See “taxing the Internet: Protection denied”