It is my belief, also, that although both groups are called democracies, group 2 may behave much better in cases of hardship (like natural disaster, poverty, war or some other crisis). Culture, identity and compassion may really play a role in these small democratic nations when they will face hardships. — Eros1982

I agree. In group 2 social cohesion and solidarity is far more easier to prevail. And usually group 2 countries are far more smaller, which makes democracy easier. Small size makes even other systems quite OK for the citizens under them, in fact monarchies like Monaco and Brunei can prevail quite well because it's totally possible for any citizen simply to meet the monarch and confide his or her problems to this. And when the tiny nation is prosperous and the monach isn't a madman, why not sustain that monarchy? Just think about how nice it would be if you have problem and you could simply get a time with the US President and he would look at what he could do to help you.

With regard now group 1, I think if the countries of this group face some kind of hardship, their people will show all kinds of negative behavior just because they were taught that civilization means living well and calling the police every time you have issues with your neighbor. From the moment you don't live well in group 1 and you cannot rely on the police, you either run away or you should watch your neighbor 24 hours a day. — Eros1982

It surely is a thing of simple size matters. Yet there are real differences with cultures and how they approach the idea of the collective and what's the role of the individual towards the nation. The US is highly individualistic and basically doesn't trust it's own government as much as in some other countries. In the US people have guns to protect themselves from criminals (basically other Americans) and value this gun ownership as an example of their freedoms. In Switzerland and in Finland they have a lot of guns too, but in both countries the guns aren't for protecting your home, but for hunting and protecting the state. It's just one example, but the difference is notable because it comes to other things than just the size of the country:



And it's telling that the above documentary gets a lot of flak in the US. But this was just one example how states differ from each other.

At least, I pretend .... You don't. — Tarskian

Nailed it, finally!

Nailed it, finally! — Vera Mont

Eventually, I did end up telling him that I don't like conversing with him. I don't particularly like conversing with you either. You are just like him. You seek to personally attack other people. I don't.

My own hobby is to explore particular ideas, especially on how the foundational crisis in mathematics translates into surprisingly interesting answers to core questions in metaphysics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics

This led, near the end of the 19th century, to a series of paradoxical mathematical results that challenged the general confidence in reliability and truth of mathematical results. This has been called the foundational crisis of mathematics.

The resolution of this crisis involved the rise of a new mathematical discipline called mathematical logic that includes set theory, model theory, proof theory, computability and computational complexity theory, and more recently, several parts of computer science.

For example, the existence of free will turns out to be a model-theoretical problem.

It is actually quite difficult to find someone interested in discussing the metaphysical implications of the foundational crisis in mathematics.

So, my own hobby is not to personally attack other people. I find that a silly waste of time. Of course, as your colleague bitterly complained, if I were interested in attacking other people, I would indeed be better than him at it.

You seek to personally attack other people. I don't. — Tarskian

How odd!

How odd! — Vera Mont

Not at all.

If you were interested in the foundational crisis of mathematics and its metaphysics, you would be talking about that instead of talking about other people.

you would be talking about that instead of talking about other people — Tarskian

Well, it would be boring to talk about myself all the time. Other people are interesting, too.

In a democracy, we would vote on all the issues. For example, whether or not people of the same sex, or different races, can get married. I remember an episode of Different Strokes where the prom committee was voting on which songs would be played. There were two black students on the committee, and three or four white students. It wasn't working out too well for the black students. Democracy doesn't promote freedom or equality. It just gives the freedom to cast a vote that is equal to any other person's vote. (Unless a vote forbids certain people to vote in the future.)

Democracy doesn't promote freedom or equality. — Patterner

Unless the participants want those things. Overall, in countries with a reasonable constitution (no mass exclusions; equitable laws), where democratic process has been relatively uncorrupted (not bought or coerced by a single interest bloc) for a few generations, the trend is toward equality and personal liberty. Because people all need and want pretty much the same things, when we vote for what's good for ourselves, we're also voting for the good of others.

If the majority think what's good for everyone is incompatible with what some minority wants, and they believe they are voting for the good of everyone by outlawing what that minority wants, and "It's for their own good, even if they don't know it, and they'll thank us for it later," or they think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, then we do not have freedom and equality.

If the majority think what's good for everyone is incompatible with what some minority wants, — Patterner

If. But why would the majority think that way? Each person is not voting for "what's good for everyone"; each person is voting for what she or he wants for themselves. If that coincides with what others also want for themselves - and it's quite likely to - than it ends up being good for everyone.
Specific instances: old age pensions, public education, unemployment insurance, public transit.
The needs of the many do outweigh the wants of the few, because the needs of all are the same. But there are always a few who want more and are willing to take it away from the many. That's how democracy is corrupted and freedom is lost.

Oppressive measures tend to be advocated by minorities who want special privileges, rather than the majority who just want security. Of course, I did stipulate a

a reasonable constitution (no mass exclusions; equitable laws), where democratic process has been relatively uncorrupted — Vera Mont

If there is a state religion, military occupation, caste system or ethnic discrimination at the nation's core, democracy cannot work.

If the majority think what's good for everyone is incompatible with what some minority wants,
— Patterner
If. But why would the majority think that way? — Vera Mont

Because they are smarter, and they know best. At least in their own minds. If there was going to be a democratic vote on same sex marriage, I'd bet everything I own that it would be outlawed. "It's not good for society.". "It erodes our values." "It's a slippery slope. Soon we'll have to allow people to marry their dog." "They are equal. They have the same freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex that everybody else has."

About half of the USA is going to be enraged in the next few months by the decision the other half made. Because the two sides have drastically different ideas of what is good for everyone, and many are not as concerned with what's good for everyone as with what's good for them.

Because they are smarter, and they know best. At least in their own minds. If there was going to be a democratic vote on same sex marriage, I'd bet everything I own that it would be outlawed. "It's not good for society.". "It erodes our values." "It's a slippery slope. Soon we'll have to allow people to marry their dog." "They are equal. They have the same freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex that everybody else has." — Patterner

Ah, I see. No, individual people don't vote for "society" or "values"; they vote according to their personal concerns. Special interest blocs, such as business and churches launch propaganda campaigns to convince people that their own interests are endangered by someone else's. For example, drugs were not an issue for voters until after Anslinger declared a crusade against marijuana n the 1930's - because Prohibition was ending, and a new scapegoat had to replace alcohol, for a great big government agency to enforce. Much mileage was got from it by the Nixon administration and again by Reagan. The same kind of things happened with abortion and equal marriage: nobody much cares, until a political faction (to curry favour with a religious bloc) inflates it into a great big bogeyman.

Because the two sides have drastically different ideas of what is good for everyone, and many are not as concerned with what's good for everyone as with what's good for them. — Patterner

Not many people have original ideas about what's good for others. But a very few, who don't give a rat's ass what's good for anyone but themselves control the mass media and sway the populace with vague threats and hollow promises.
Hence my caveat of a robust, well-constituted democracy. What you're describing is neither: it's the result of a fatally flawed foundation, long slow efforts to correct the original mistakes and then massive corruption of the entire structure.

If there was going to be a democratic vote on same sex marriage, I'd bet everything I own that it would be outlawed. — Patterner

The polling on same sex marriage is that it's very popular.