|
|
|
|
|
by mrow84
3637 days ago
|
|
But by your definition, you maximise sovereignty by declaring yourself entirely independent. That makes no sense. If you are wholly unwilling to enter into agreements with other people then you will find it very difficult to achieve anything at all - indeed, you are likely to be exploited in some way (in most places in the world this would entail being locked up in prison). "Freedom" to act is not a state of nature. Others can inhibit your freedom unless you convince them not to, either through agreement or force. If you don't think that the EU is a power-sharing agreement that the UK has now voted to withdraw from, what do you think it is? |
|
No, that makes a lot of sense and accords with most people's intuitive understanding of the word. The trouble is, as you say:
If you are wholly unwilling to enter into agreements with other people then you will find it very difficult to achieve anything at all
And economic 'independence' is a real problem if you want to have a non-agrarian society. You need to import oil, electronics, pharmaceuticals. This is what goes wrong in places like Venezuela and Greece when supplies of hard currency start running low.