individual choices can change the world for the better in the absence of organised effort.
The problem is we've had organized efforts and those end up devolving into people trying to control others, and when they can't they resort to trying to coerce them by making them believe unless they conform and act as they are told, then they are causing the problem for everyone else.
We can't agree on a problem, how are we going to agree to the same solution?
This is the whole sentence. Like what you've said, I guess this is the reality of the collective. Which is why big governments are not a good idea. Although I'm not big on the idea of nations, something like Switzerland's arrangement with decentralisation in pockets of municipals is actually pretty decent.
This is really true and a big problem in any collective action, across the political spectrum. I quite like a particular approach of ad hoc or "pop up" organization. A benefit of this is that it's easier to form cross cultural / political / whatever groups because you don't have to stick around with them too long to get pissed at them and start trying to retain power.
And in fact, I think this might be a good replacement for government, but that's another story.
I think we can agree on a problem, but not what the entire problem of the world is.