Indeed. Plato's definition of politics is "the relationship between three or more people".
That definition has served me well to remember over the years.
That definition has served me well to remember over the years.
Groups of one is a thing. The two people can be against each other. Common.
We're talking about groups of people. Not the mathematical definition of a group.
Not all pairs may be able to separate (immediately or even later). Real life stuff.
>There's no backroom conniving that can go on to get the upper hand on the other person, because you'd need other people to connive with. You either come to an agreement or move along.
Sure, about the conniving. But scheming against the other person is quite possible (and done plenty) for a single person against another single person. Real life again.
>We're talking about groups of people. Not the mathematical definition of a group.
I did not say or imply otherwise. I meant it in the real life sense.
If there's only two of you and you're working against each other, there's nobody for you to build an alliance with. You can't be an alliance of one. You don't have to convince yourself to do what you want to do because by definition you already want to do it.
If you have a complex of pairwise relationships with just two people, I think we tend to look at that as pathological or abusive...
A marriage necessarily involves at least one ather person, the one vested with the power to marry others.
Or, marriage is a social contract.
Therefore, it could be argued, marriage is fundamentally political.
Edit: fixed speeling and gramar
It's not quite true, but pretty close.