I understand this and agree. But perhaps one can also be dogmatic about not being dogmatic and end up sinking in a quicksand of mutually opposed world-views. — Tom Storm

I guess you are referring to one who is a kind of rebel without a cause, someone who will not compromise at all. I think this can be understood in two ways: One is the irrational nonconformist, the anarchist, and I see no hope for people like this. The burden of living is living with others, and this has a very insistent sense of obligation in it, ethics. The other sees with clarity that these obligations we have are entangled with history and hardened thinking and challenges these to the purpose of better understanding. Here, I find one rule: do no harm (Mill's famous rule). Everything that follows from this is at issue, but this I take as foundational.

I don't understand this sentence. — Tom Storm

I mean, irony is the stuff prose and poetry are made of. It is the essence of entertainment itself, and irony is in its essence opposition, the strain that is created in resistance. Meaning itself, it can be argued, as a play of language in which one thing is not another and in this tension, the singularity is born, is ironic.

This may seem far flung. But Kierkegaard wrote his doctoral thesis along these lines (a have read only parts myself. It is about Socrates and his incessant questioning of everything. The question pierces complacency, stirs the world up. Ironic tension permeates social discourse) and Rorty's Contingency, Irony and Solidarity talks like this. This latter is excellent.

Indeed. And it is the tension inherent in pluralism. It's very easy to have the semblance of order, stability and certainty if we are living in a theocracy. — Tom Storm

I quite agree.

Sure, politics is just ethics recast. Ethics concerns our relation with others, as does politics. It is a misguided emphasis on individualism that misguides folk to libertarianism. Libertarianism is one symptom among many, indicative of the problem of individualism as ethics.

What is it you want? — Banno

Just wondering, really. Cooperation and individuality. Not an easy equation.

Cheers. Further reading on the thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12496/if-men-wish-to-be-free-it-is-precisely-sovereignty-they-must-renounce-/p1.

Stopping at red traffic lights allows one to get to one's destination safely and quickly.

We have worked with a notion of freedom that pits one person against the others by imagining a battle between freedom and sovereignty. Arendt contrasts this with a notion of freedom as satisfying one's goals, achieving what one is capable of, by being part of a social space that not just enables but builds cooperation and capacity.

It would not be difficult to link this to Nussbaum's capabilities approach.

Hence, "If men wish to be free, it is precisely sovereignty they must renounce.” — Banno

So,

This is something to realize if you do plan to rely on others and if you do plan to not be a recluse. — HardWorker

Indeed.

Politics is not ethics recast this is the most pernicious idea in all of philosophy and one day we will burn all of Rawls to the ground and everything will be better again.

But otherwise yes absolutely, the ability to rely on, and work with each other has amplified human ability beyond anything any of us could ever imagine.

This was relevant:

Is The Age Of Individualism Coming To An End?

We are all reliant on many people, every day--all the other people who, along with our esteemed selves, keep the world running. Everything from the sewer system on up to the banking system. — Bitter Crank

:up:

This is false, for the simple fact that authorities rely on those without authority. Short of physical force, no one actually has power over others. A president is only a president because enough people agree that they are a president. It is an illusion, or rather a social construct. Societies are constructed on a series of ideas and agreements, nothing more.

But if you rely on somebody else they do have authority over you in some form even if you think you're the one who has the authority. Lets say you're a boss and you've got people working for you, you've got to pay them otherwise they won't work for you. You might think you've got all the authority since you're the boss but they've got authority too. They've got the authority to get money from you, however much you've agreed to pay them.

You might think you've got all the authority since you're the boss but they've got authority too. They've got the authority to get money from you, however much you've agreed to pay them. — HardWorker

Employees or labor has collective power if they can coordinate. That's why socialism is such a dirty word.

Employees or labor has collective power if they can coordinate. That's why socialism is such a dirty word.

But even without the collective power, even if you've got just one person working for you, you've still got to pay them enough so that they will work for you. So they've got authority over you in that sense.

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you. An advantage of being independent is that you're not giving people power of you, you're not giving people authority over you. This is something to realize if you do plan to rely on others and if you do plan to not be a recluse. — HardWorker

Given that we’re born dependent, and that we rely on so many systems, manufacturers and suppliers in our day-to-day lives, at what point can you claim to be ‘independent’ - relying on no one at all? It seems to me that anyone who claims to be independent is demonstrating ignorance to some extent.

Interdependence is an important aspect of being human, if you do plan to not be a recluse. The thing about giving people authority is that it doesn’t detract from your own. If it’s authority over you or aspects of your life that you’re giving, then you still have the authority to take it back.

But even without the collective power, even if you've got just one person working for you, you've still got to pay them enough so that they will work for you. So they've got authority over you in that sense. — HardWorker

I’m not entirely sure you understand what authority is: the power to give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience. If I pay someone enough so that they agree to work for me, I haven’t given them authority in that sense. We’ve entered into an agreement, and we both retain authority over our own part in that agreement. I give them an agreed sum of money, they give me an agreed allocation of their time, effort and attention. Anything outside of this agreement is subject to further negotiation.

I’m not entirely sure you understand what authority is: the power to give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience. If I pay someone enough so that they agree to work for me, I haven’t given them authority in that sense. We’ve entered into an agreement, and we both retain authority over our own part in that agreement. I give them an agreed sum of money, they give me an agreed allocation of their time, effort and attention. Anything outside of this agreement is subject to further negotiation.

So there you have it, when you mention that you both retain authority over your part of the agreement that means they do have some authority. Im not saying their authority is exclusive or that you don't also have authority, Im just pointing out that if you depend on somebody else that person has power over you in some form or another. In this example it would be the power to get money from you, however much you've agreed to pay them in exchange for them working for you. You have to obediently pay them the agreed upon amount otherwise they won't work for you.

As Obi Wan Kenobi would say, "From a certain point of view."

But even without the collective power, even if you've got just one person working for you, you've still got to pay them enough so that they will work for you. So they've got authority over you in that sense. — HardWorker

It depends on the circumstances. Generally speaking, an employer wants the most amount of work for the least amount of money, and the employee wants the most amount of money for the least amount of work. There are many factors that influence how this struggle is worked out.

If the work for an employer doesn't require much skill or particular ability, and there are many candidates without skill or ability available, an employee has no bargaining power because they are easily replaced. If the prevailing society didn't allow you to force them to do the work, as in slavery, the employer could pay just enough whereby an employee would reliably show up to do the work required for the business to run according to plan. In this case, it is possible for employees without skills or ability to gain bargaining power if they can coordinate, as in worker unions. They can also appeal to the state and its institutions, assuming they exist, to support them in their struggle. Unfortunately, government understandably tends to favor capitalists because they have wealth and the power that wealth offers.