5 ms·

I think heirarchy is a natural human inclination. It's observed in every part of the animal kingdom. But it is possible to simultaneously have hierarchy and aut

I think heirarchy is a natural human inclination. It's observed in every part of the animal kingdom. But it is possible to simultaneously have hierarchy and autonomy at the lowest level. Subsidiarity and distributism are the only things I am convinced will work. Every other endeavour ends up being a free-for-all (that ultimately is self destructive) or a dictorship (that eventually implodes).

justforyou 6y ago
The entire spectrum of human behavior is natural, as is any conceivable action no matter how immoral. The observation of a behavior or inclanation in the wild is not a good basis for the structuring of a civilization.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Like I replied elsewhere, I think because nature selects for survival, there is something to be learned from the fact that human societies always tend towards hierarchy. I am not saying we should there have as much hierarchy as possible, but I am certainly opposed to any form of anarchism (which I don't believe would last long anyway). Give anarchy a month at most, and you'll have leaders with followers popping up everywhere, which will eventually combine into a smaller number of large hierarchies.
leto_ii 6y ago
> I think heirarchy is a natural human inclination. It's observed in every part of the animal kingdom. I have two main objections to this line of thinking: 1. Even if a tendency or behavior can occur in "nature", that doesn't necessarily make it correct. By that measure murder, infanticide, rape etc. should also be considered acceptable since they occur in nature (both with humans and animals). 2. If you take a look at smth like The World Until Yesterday or other similar work it will become apparent that the kind of large scale hierarchies of power present in the modern world are relatively recent constructions. To me they're more a hallmark of contingency and deliberate human choices, not of "nature". If we want to make a less hierarchical society we can, it's in our power to change the design of society (to a significant extent at least).
- Thorentis 6y ago
  1. Yes, agree, but this just depends on your opinion of what is "correct". Nature selects for survival, not correctness. I think rigid hierarchy is more advantageous for overall survival, but I am not advocating for that. I think there is something significant about the fact that humans almost always tend towards hierarchy (Lord of the Flies illustrates this). 2. I agree that large scale beauracracies are not in the best interests of humanity. I would argue for hierarchy, with less power the higher up the chain you go. E.g. Local governments should have more power than federal/national governments. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a national government.
  - 0df8dkdf 6y ago
    > I think rigid hierarchy is more advantageous for overall survival I can see how one can see it that way, it is probably what those who rigging the game were thinking when they first started, and like the saying goes "those who play a rigged game gets stupid over a long period of time". That's probably why empires collapse, too much corruption and too many people playing the rigged game. A rigged game kinda corrupt workability of the whole system. The short term advantage may not be so good in the long run.
dandanua 6y ago
Hierarchies are natural to everything, it's pointless to fight just them. I'm specifically against subordinate relations like master-slave. In a typical firm there is a boss that commands managers, workers etc. The boss has the most power. But he is still accountable to an agreement between him and workers. He can't do "whatever he wants". In a very centralized government systems you can't make top management accountable. Moreover, in such systems top management actually support master-slave relations between people, like between men-women, rich-poor, etc. It's then easier to hold power.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > In a typical firm there is a boss that commands managers, workers etc. The boss has the most power. But he is still accountable to an agreement between him and workers. He can't do "whatever he wants". This isn't really true for most large firms. Since people are dependent on their wages, they are generally subjects to their boss' whims. You just have to look at Amazon workers wearing diapers to realize that workers don't generally get a say, even if they are not technically slaves.
  - dandanua 6y ago
    This is what I'm talking about. There used to be labor unions, also the right to strike and protest is a prominent part of democracy. But nowadays all those freedoms are oppressed. Those who are in power are trying to divide labor people and gain even more power over them.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  I would be more specific and say that every worker should be at autonomous as possible. I am a big proponent of distributism. The means of production should be as widely distributed as possible. This does not mean they should be concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals (capitalism), nor should they belong to the state (communism). A good example of distributism is workers who own their own tools (the means of their own production). Software engineers have it pretty good in this regard. But this can apply to tradespeople, factory workers that collectively own shares in machinary, etc.

justforyou 6y ago

The entire spectrum of human behavior is natural, as is any conceivable action no matter how immoral. The observation of a behavior or inclanation in the wild is not a good basis for the structuring of a civilization.

Thorentis 6y ago
Like I replied elsewhere, I think because nature selects for survival, there is something to be learned from the fact that human societies always tend towards hierarchy. I am not saying we should there have as much hierarchy as possible, but I am certainly opposed to any form of anarchism (which I don't believe would last long anyway). Give anarchy a month at most, and you'll have leaders with followers popping up everywhere, which will eventually combine into a smaller number of large hierarchies.

leto_ii 6y ago

> I think heirarchy is a natural human inclination. It's observed in every part of the animal kingdom. I have two main objections to this line of thinking: 1. Even if a tendency or behavior can occur in "nature", that doesn't necessarily make it correct. By that measure murder, infanticide, rape etc. should also be considered acceptable since they occur in nature (both with humans and animals). 2. If you take a look at smth like The World Until Yesterday or other similar work it will become apparent that the kind of large scale hierarchies of power present in the modern world are relatively recent constructions. To me they're more a hallmark of contingency and deliberate human choices, not of "nature". If we want to make a less hierarchical society we can, it's in our power to change the design of society (to a significant extent at least).

Thorentis 6y ago
1. Yes, agree, but this just depends on your opinion of what is "correct". Nature selects for survival, not correctness. I think rigid hierarchy is more advantageous for overall survival, but I am not advocating for that. I think there is something significant about the fact that humans almost always tend towards hierarchy (Lord of the Flies illustrates this). 2. I agree that large scale beauracracies are not in the best interests of humanity. I would argue for hierarchy, with less power the higher up the chain you go. E.g. Local governments should have more power than federal/national governments. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a national government.
- 0df8dkdf 6y ago
  > I think rigid hierarchy is more advantageous for overall survival I can see how one can see it that way, it is probably what those who rigging the game were thinking when they first started, and like the saying goes "those who play a rigged game gets stupid over a long period of time". That's probably why empires collapse, too much corruption and too many people playing the rigged game. A rigged game kinda corrupt workability of the whole system. The short term advantage may not be so good in the long run.

dandanua 6y ago

Hierarchies are natural to everything, it's pointless to fight just them. I'm specifically against subordinate relations like master-slave. In a typical firm there is a boss that commands managers, workers etc. The boss has the most power. But he is still accountable to an agreement between him and workers. He can't do "whatever he wants". In a very centralized government systems you can't make top management accountable. Moreover, in such systems top management actually support master-slave relations between people, like between men-women, rich-poor, etc. It's then easier to hold power.

tsimionescu 6y ago
> In a typical firm there is a boss that commands managers, workers etc. The boss has the most power. But he is still accountable to an agreement between him and workers. He can't do "whatever he wants". This isn't really true for most large firms. Since people are dependent on their wages, they are generally subjects to their boss' whims. You just have to look at Amazon workers wearing diapers to realize that workers don't generally get a say, even if they are not technically slaves.
- dandanua 6y ago
  This is what I'm talking about. There used to be labor unions, also the right to strike and protest is a prominent part of democracy. But nowadays all those freedoms are oppressed. Those who are in power are trying to divide labor people and gain even more power over them.
Thorentis 6y ago
I would be more specific and say that every worker should be at autonomous as possible. I am a big proponent of distributism. The means of production should be as widely distributed as possible. This does not mean they should be concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals (capitalism), nor should they belong to the state (communism). A good example of distributism is workers who own their own tools (the means of their own production). Software engineers have it pretty good in this regard. But this can apply to tradespeople, factory workers that collectively own shares in machinary, etc.