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.

Maybe you meant to word your concept differently? "Authority" means they have command over you. But if a person you rely on does not live up to your expectations, they don't have command over you. You're forced at that point to rely on someone else, or yourself. Someone with authority can punish in a way separate from your reliance, like putting you in prison or harming you in other ways.

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you — HardWorker

Only if that's how you construct your worldview - in terms of power relations. Personally I see reliance as an issue of mutual trust and positive regard. But it may depend upon the context. The notion of 'rely' and 'others' needs further clarification.

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. — praxis

You sound like a defender of anarchism (not anarchy, which is very different). These people say there is no authority above the individual. I may yield to your authority only if I choose to do so, and set the standards for compliance, given the obvious need for a deference to representative and delegated offices in a complex government.
They are keen about things like direct democracy rather than having a bunch of elected officials making decisions for us. Lately, I lean toward Plato's philosopher kings democratically elected. And for this we need a very educated society. One day.......

Maybe you meant to word your concept differently? "Authority" means they have command over you. But if a person you rely on does not live up to your expectations, they don't have command over you. You're forced at that point to rely on someone else, or yourself. Someone with authority can punish in a way separate from your reliance, like putting you in prison or harming you in other ways. — Philosophim

If only life were that easy. Authorities get very entangled in human affairs, politics--in government, at the office, at school, and so on. Such a mess.

Only if that's how you construct your worldview - in terms of power relations. Personally I see reliance as an issue of mutual trust and positive regard. But it may depend upon the context. The notion of 'rely' and 'others' needs further clarification. — Tom Storm

It is a fuzzy term, I think, in the extreme. The concept of an authority is not simply a fiction, I would argue. Any social concept you can think of has some hierarchical feature built into it, even if not explicitly so.

Any social concept you can think of has some hierarchical feature built into it, even if not explicitly so. — Constance

That's probably true. But I tend to work to minimize the inclination by not reinforcing hierarchies unless I can't avoid it. :wink:

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you. — HardWorker

In most organizations, management has the authority and power, and that is the power over subordinates. The manager who died not rely on others is the worst manager of all because he can't figure out that his role is to oversee the operation and not to work the assembly line.

It depends on the person. But I would guess that the majority of people who have someone that relies on them sees that as an opportunity for exploitation. I've seen a lot of that in my years. Again, depends on the person. I think women are especially vulnerable to this type of exploitation.

That's probably true. But I tend to work to minimize the inclination by not reinforcing hierarchies unless I can't avoid it. :wink: — Tom Storm

Yeah. That's the spirit. One has to know when one is simply going along with the climate of thinking. But philosophy attempts to take this kind of independence to its extreme end, which is why it is not well received, because no one wants to think that hard about what is there, at hand, and familiar. Philosophy is a radical extension of what it means to question an authority. Foucault: Am I being ventriloquized by history? Ever word I speak, after all, is learned, but have I assimilated language, or has language assimilated me? Assimilation here means in authority.

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

Oddly, you are interpreting "rely" as a vertical relationship where anyone you rely on has (up down) authority over you. True enough vertical reliance/authority relationships exist. However, most o the people rely on are in a horizontal relationship, where authority over doesn't play a role. 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.

The postal worker, bank teller, grocery store worker, and everybody else I rely on for bits and pieces of everyday life, have no authority over me, even though I rely on them.

That said, I don't like other people having arbitrary or extensive control over me (though one puts up with it because total avoidance is not possible), and there is a large set of relationships (work, law enforcement, medicine, public health, etc.) where control and reliance are paired.

In the old forum, back in the days when philosophers were ...

{10 pages later}

... and the button that here is labelled "Post Comment" was more accurately inscribed "Submit". You submit your ideas to the online community; and they put you straight!

The postal worker, bank teller, grocery store worker, and everybody else I rely on for bits and pieces of everyday life, have no authority over me, even though I rely on them. — Bitter Crank

So you don't have to pay for your groceries or buy stamps for your post? You pay whatever you like?

Unfortunately the kind of independence you ask for would be illegal, fatal, or at least require being dropped off in a fire station baby box.

You could continue on throughout stages of life, each progressive hypothetical becoming less and less ridiculous and relevant to your point I'd assume you'd think. But at the end of the day, it's the same dynamic. There's someone who can protect you either by declining to harm you simply because they could (be it a larger person, random criminal, government, alien race, what have you) or to do so directly out of benevolence when you have an active and unaddressed need. In an open and free society where you can address your own basic biological needs (food, water, shelter) this is pretty much true. With the one caveat of the fact if your governing bodies military were to become defunct others would perhaps come in and change what they please, and of course due to your alliance toward said government would offer resistance, and in such a scenario would result in.. a few things. None which one would call "good", based on widely accepted standards and definitions.

So, at the end of the day we're all connected in a society, and this connection is a dynamic relationship that may result in one being "receiver" or "supplier" or perhaps both at any given moment in time. Unless you're literally on a remote island or jungle, forging your own resources to address your needs from the surrounding environment. In which case we wouldn't be communicating.

Reliance tends to be mutual. A web of interdependence that permits us to collectively do far more than we could individually.

Your recluse would be doing well to build a hut.

You might have done better to use the word "dependence" in the place of "reliance". You can rely on one person, but have the option of moving on to another if they let you down or make too great a demand. Being dependent implies that the option of working with someone else is removed. Dependency perhaps lacks the mutuality of reliance.

So you have presented a case against monopoly. I won't disagree with that.

But I do think that individualism is harmful, indeed, emphasis on individualism is one of the nasty things lurking in the background of much of the demise of what we might loosely call western culture. Failing to acknowledge our mutual interdependence has led to the peneary of our common wealth.

We are in this collectively. That involves giving up some part of your autonomy. Get with it, or go live in your grass hut.

Philosophy is a radical extension of what it means to question an authority. Foucault: Am I being ventriloquized by history? Ever word I speak, after all, is learned, but have I assimilated language, or has language assimilated me? Assimilation here means in authority. — Constance

I can't disagree with this sentiment and it has, without the benefit of reading much Foucault, been my general approach.

But I do think that individualism is harmful, indeed, emphasis on individualism is one of the nasty things lurking in the background of much of the demise of what we might loosely call western culture. Failing to acknowledge our mutual interdependence has led to the peneary of our common wealth. — Banno

:up:

But it's interesting to see that

But I do think that individualism is harmful, indeed, emphasis on individualism is one of the nasty things lurking in the background of much of the demise of what we might loosely call western culture. Failing to acknowledge our mutual interdependence has led to the peneary of our common wealth.

We are in this collectively. That involves giving up some part of your autonomy. Get with it, or go live in your grass hut. — Banno

Individualism killed western culture? Quite a thing to say. What part of western culture are you talking about? Given that culture is literally built out of dissent.

Most of politics since Thatcher and Reagan. Trumpism. Neoliberal economics. The failure to invest in social capital, such as education and health, let alone roads and pipelines. Shit, celebrity itself, the worship of individuals to the detriment of quality. Rap music. Need I go on?

Given that culture is literally built out of dissent. — Constance

Not speaking for Banno, but for me culture (for all its problems) is built out of cooperation and the overarching goal is to include as many stakeholders as possible. You can see that the significant problems of human existence - resource allocation, climate change, war, can only be successfully dealt with and remedied through cooperative ventures. If not, we are lost.

Most of politics since Thatcher and Reagan. Trumpism. Neoliberal economics. The failure to invest in social capital, such as education and health, let alone roads and pipelines. Shit, celebrity itself, the worship of individuals to the detriment of quality. Rap music. Need I go on? — Banno

Oh. So you're talking about some kind of libertarianism. That is not individualism AT ALL. That is economic fascism.

Not speaking for Banno, but for me culture (for all its problems) is built out of cooperation and the overarching goal is to include as many stakeholders as possible. You can see that the significant problems of human existence - resource allocation, climate change, war, can only be successfully dealt with and remedied through cooperative ventures. If not, we are lost. — Tom Storm

In political terms, in global political, I most strongly agree. But in terms of the way we stand at the receiving end of a body of determinative thinking, no.

But in terms of the way we stand at the receiving end of a body of determinative thinking, no. — Constance

Say some more.

So you're talking about some kind of libertarianism. — Constance

No, I am talking about individualism, the social theory "favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control".

Not speaking for Banno, but for me culture (for all its problems) is built out of cooperation and the overarching goal is to include as many stakeholders as possible. You can see that the significant problems of human existence - resource allocation, climate change, war, can only be successfully dealt with and remedied through cooperative ventures. If not, we are lost. — Tom Storm

Overwhelmingly, yes. The emphasis on competition is an anomaly deriving form a misguided account of how capitalism works. The idea is that competition rules the reduction of cost. But due consideration will show that to be too narrow a view. Take the baker who is in competition with the alternate baker across the street; both are reliant on the farmer who grows the grain, the miller, those who transport these items, the gas supply, the roads that bring customers. The degree to which he cooperates with others is far greater than the degree to which he competes.

But the myth of competition has bastardised our understanding of society.

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you. — HardWorker

And if this person relies on you, in a reciprocal relationship of mutual aid, do you not have "authority" over them? Or does authority cease to be a distinction?

Voluntary associations imply that each party freely chooses to participate; each party could survive on its own, but each chooses to cooperate for the mutual benefit obtained in doing so.

No, I am talking about individualism, the social theory "favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control". — Banno

You're talking about classical liberalism. Libertarians think like this, while also looking to ease restrictions on social values as well. Anyway, if this is what you object to, then more power to you. There is, on the other hand, the notorious "they", the ones who keep an Orwellian eye out for odd behavior, make sure we all toe the line, the omnipresent guards of the panopticon, that implicit standard of what is right and what is taboo that we all internalize.

I want to say I despise this kind of thing, but obviously, this needs to be qualified. This is the stuff arguments are made of.

Say some more. — Tom Storm

I speak of the dogmatic approach to living and thinking. Unquestioned rules and ideas. to me the question, that is, the resistance that is posed by the possibility of an opposition, this needs to be free. It most assuredly does cause trouble, but living in this "tension" of irony in which all things stand challenged and nothing sits too firmly, this is the essence of a free society.

No, I'm talking about the emphasis on individuality over cooperation. That is the flaw in neoliberalism, not found in the more nuanced accounts of classical liberalism.

My interest is in ethics, as prior to politics. Or better, as what politics ought be.

I speak of the dogmatic approach to living and thinking. Unquestioned rules and ideas. — Constance

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.

to me the question, that is, the resistance that is posed by the possibility of an opposition, this needs to be free. — Constance

I don't understand this sentence.

but living in this "tension" of irony in which all things stand challenged and nothing sits too firmly, this is the essence of a free society. — Constance

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.

My interest is in ethics, as prior to politics. Or better, as what politics ought be. — Banno

Ethics prior to politics? But all politics is, if you will, an ethics prior to itself as it's good standing rests with essential defensible moral grounding. I generally criticize libertarian thinking on the grounds that it encourages a division of wealth that isn't morally defensible.

No ethics, no politics. What, therefore, ethics do you have in mind?

No ethics, no politics. — Constance

No, Ethics.

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?