R: (Searches for a particular video on his smartphone)
N: You've been quiet for some time now. What is it that you're doing?
R: If I'm going to explain my case, then it would be best if I show you an example first before giving my explanation, so bear with me.
(Scrolls through a list of videos)
Ah, here we are.
N: Let's see it.
(Video showcases four individuals playing a co-op tactical shooter; the players formulate a strategic plan of attack and work together to effortlessly execute it,
all while cracking a few jokes here and there and having fun overall)
N: That's a rather impressive performance there. They must've been playing together for a long time.
R: Exactly, which is why this video is paramount to what I'm about to say next.
N: Do tell.
R: They all work as a singular unit, but it's obvious that the three other players follow an elected team leader and willingly follow the instructions he provides.
Let's take a moment to compare this group to that of, say, a social clique in high school.
You're correct in saying that the players shown here have been playing together for as long as their party has been around; they hold no biases against each other or how a goal should
be specifically carried out, and they collectively offer their suggestions that are taken into consideration one-by-one and are able to effectively decide on what is best for a given situation,
as well they're kind and friendly towards one another, with the exception of light teasing that's easily shrugged off as they continue to push forward to the goal ahead of them.
As for the high school social clique, assuming that it was newly formed and is still young in its evolution, they're able to speak to, collaborate, and accept each other exceptionally,
but they're by no means a true team, so to speak; they're in a process of getting to know each other through their daily interactions, finding out each others' likes and dislikes, hobbies,
strengths and weaknesses, etc...
however, since they haven't been together long,
they're likely to not conform to all of their companions' thoughts and actions; even the most accepting and well-versed individuals encounter a conflict of interests,
though those who reside in a group that's strongly connected, after discussing what can be done to the best of their abilities,
are able to work things out and move on when compared to their high school social clique counterparts,
who're more susceptible to not coming to an understanding or agreement more later on; the latter tends to exercise a higher level of individuality which,
while being a healthy component in one's personal growth,
can interfere with certain tasks and social activities when an imbalance is present; an individual within the social clique can more easily feel as though their individuality is
being threatened when a form of control is introduced, like policies or a code of conduct,
and as a result that individual will resort to "sticking to their guns" instead of taking the initiative in being a helpful, productive team player.
I could continue to explain further factors for each group, but I think you get the idea.
N: Yeah, I get what you mean. So how exactly does this relate to individual sovereignty?
R: You and I have been involved in groups ourselves, So I'm certain you've seen and felt exactly what I've experienced; however,
allow me to describe the concept as such: It is the ability of humans, more specifically, humans who are willing and able,
to come together and rule as a true society while each individual maintains his/her independence.
N: I see...
But, referring to the example you've provided, these organized groups, especially full-fledged societies,
choose to seek and elect those who're deemed worthy leaders so that they may be guided towards better things to come.
In this context, wouldn't your "true society" behave autonomously rather than independently?
R: I see what you mean when you bring that up. I suppose I wasn't being clear in terms of how a group of people act and behave when they're organized.
I've forgotten to make a valid point in my example.
N: What is it?
R: It's the mere fact that humans need to remember that they're, in any shape or form, not obligated to conform to the social norms and ideals practiced in the society that they're amongst ,
nor should they do something as preposterous as pledging their allegiance to a country that boasts more promises than action; this must be pointed out, however,
that despite not following in the footsteps of those who're superficially powerful as well as the rest of the populace, one should possess a level of tolerance that,
while not hindering on their own beliefs and free will, allows them to know who they're engaging with all while exercising assertiveness and respect.
In other words, we all may not see eye to eye, but we can still assist each other in acquiring the most common and beneficial needs without unwarrantly complicating matters.
To me, this sounds like the golden rule relating to the basic but fundamental principle that allows humans to interact, form relationships,
and advance in various areas of life: Treat others as you would like to be treated.
R: Of course; although, I'd have to suggest that the golden rule delves deeper than that.
N: How do you mean?
R: All of us humans inhabit the same planet. We're capable of learning, thinking, feeling, and acting in ways that are unique from all the wildlife known to man.
We come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes; there are males and females, varying skin colors, races, ethnicities, nationalities, religious beliefs, etc...
We've created and are employed in various occupations ranging from the lowest amount of skill to the highest, and education shouldn't be forgotten,
for it's the one occupation we can always contribute to in terms of knowledge and wisdom that enables us to devise the many things we've found and implemented.
During times of hardship, when we're able to set aside our differences and band together as one, we utilize our knowledge base and ingenuity to overcome the many obstacles standing in our way.
N: Then what you're saying suggests that all humans reside within the same organism group and perform very similar tasks to each other regardless of who or what they are, am I right in saying so?
There are some who are better than others when it comes to knowledge or skill, but that doesn't change the fact that we're all capable of performing some form of work one way or the other.
N: That's true.
R: But... I don't know. It pains me to see that many people don't even realize this. The sheep gather and continue to follow the shepherds, as cliche as that description is.
N: Would you prefer to describe them as puppets, then?
R: More like lost souls who aimlessly wandered into Hell.
N: I can see that.
Well, as insightful as this discussion was, I fear that we've wandered from the original topic; pardon the sudden diversion, but can you tell me more about your social adversity?
Specifically about your preference for social isolation?