Hmm, I am struggling with this a little as being the most basic conflict of visions. It certainly separates a tribal vision from what I think is an uber-tribal vision (government is your tribe, not family), and I certainly would not disagree with that. However, I think there is something else (perhaps deeper) that underlies all of this, and that is an assumption about the nature of human nature. I owe a lot of my thinking about this to Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions, but remarkably enough I clarified it some more for my self while writing a book on Parenting by Temperament. If you have the patience to read through a quote about human nature in babies I will try to carry this forward. "...young children are both loving and cooperative and selfish and demanding--depending on the circumstances. This is not only okay, it is absolutely necessary. Because they really do have to motivate themselves, children also come equipped with determination, perseverance, and a perfectly useful sense that their needs are the most important thing in the world. The screaming newborn is acting from an instinctive reflex that seeks to relieve discomfort, hunger or distress, but the screaming six month old who has just dropped a spoon from the high chair and wants it back--now-- is asserting her absolute intent ( and right) to have it so. Writers may describe this as self-centered, or that even more dreadful sounding word--egocentric. Of course it is. What you may or may not have considered is that this is a good thing. Nature sees to it that children have the tools, first to motivate parents to feed and care for them, and then to allow them to try to master everything they come upon, as fast as their little neurons can get it together. The wet or hungry baby who lay there thinking "oh dear, I wonder if anyone would get upset if I cry?" would be in serious risk of malnutrition or at least a lot of soggy diapers."
Brushing past all the parentese, my point is that for all human beings, regardless of temperament differences, cultural differences, etc. life starts with the self, not with others. If we grow up well and wisely we come to care about others (also) and perhaps even put them first under some special circumstances with children, spouses, close family, but this does not extend to faceless strangers in ever widening circles. Early in his book Sowell makes the point that it would be utterly exhausting and unproductive if we desperately grieved every time a tragedy happened to anyone, anywhere in the world.
We do come to recognize that the limitations on what we can have are built into the life we want to share with others. We learn to cooperate and share, but it never changes the essential duty and desire that we have to take care of ourselves. Friends, families and governments may be able to change our behaviors, but not our inner drive to organize our own lives in pleasing ways, nor our decreasing sense of emotional closeness to others who are less and less known and at further and further distance from us. Socialism/communism ends up having to turn coercive because it assumes that "from each according to this abilities and to each according to his needs" will just naturally happen under the right sort of government. It doesn't and never will, and so government has to give us the ugly boot in the face to keep the state going. And of course that really isn't productive either and it all eventually collapses.
So, for me, the most fundamental difference in vision is that a. human nature is a given and is much as I have described it, or b. human nature is plastic and the right government can get us all behaving as it wishes.