3 ms·

Because if you are weak (and being poor is a form of weakness), then you are at the mercy of those who are strong. Now there are to ways for the weak/poor to c

Because if you are weak (and being poor is a form of weakness), then you are at the mercy of those who are strong. Now there are to ways for the weak/poor to combat this. The first is to join forces and act as one. The problem with this is that to do so one must give away some of their freedom (because they need to act as one). The other option is to climb the ladder and become richer and therefore stronger. And that is why social mobility matters. Wealth and power are intrinsically linked. You could try to just mind your own business and live your simple life, but it is not up to you. It is up to those stronger than you to let you live your simple life. Maybe you get lucky and maybe not.

jhoechtl 6y ago
> Because if you are weak (and being poor is a form of weakness), then you are at the mercy of those who are strong. That's the point. And the only way out is anarchy. Not the anarchy which lets ring your alarm bells of democratic turmoil, riots and revolution. But in the sense of a system where no one reigns over another.
- WJW 6y ago
  I've always wondered about this in the context of dynamic equilibria; a system where nobody reigns over one another seems like it would be unstable. As soon as one person breaks the "truce" and does start to reign over somebody else, they then have a little more power and they might use that extra power to accumulate even more power. The usual answer seems to be that all the other people in society would somehow band together to oppose the initial perpetrator and then voluntarily split up their band/mob/militia again at the end, instead of keeping the power they formed by banding together. If one of the groups does not disband, you'd need an even greater group to forcedly disband the first and then an even greater group to disband the next and so on until you are right back where we are now: with nation sized groups in detente against each other. It seems the current situation naturally forms from a system where no one reigns over one another as a result of people having personal ambitions. I don't think ambition is something humanity has the means for to abolish, even if we wanted to (which is in itself an interesting debate).
  - kqr 6y ago
    > other people in society would somehow band together to oppose the initial perpetrator This band would probably also need some form of leadership, where a consensus-defined alpha role comes naturally to us, much like for chimpanzees. In fact, I'd argue that it doesn't even take a human to be the initial perpetrator. Humans (again, like chimpanzees) have an ever-present initial perpetrator: the environment. We're not built to stand strong against the forces of nature as individuals.
- chii 6y ago
  > But in the sense of a system where no one reigns over another. even in anarchy, there will be those who reign over others.
- orange_tee 6y ago
  TBH I don't agree with anarchists. I don't think it is possible to have a flat society devoid of hierarchy. I also don't think all hierarchy is bad and it is not clear to me that a flat society would be better. I think it is easy to make the argument that some people should have more influence than others. The crucial part is how the hierarchy is developed and how stable it is.

jhoechtl 6y ago

> Because if you are weak (and being poor is a form of weakness), then you are at the mercy of those who are strong. That's the point. And the only way out is anarchy. Not the anarchy which lets ring your alarm bells of democratic turmoil, riots and revolution. But in the sense of a system where no one reigns over another.

WJW 6y ago
I've always wondered about this in the context of dynamic equilibria; a system where nobody reigns over one another seems like it would be unstable. As soon as one person breaks the "truce" and does start to reign over somebody else, they then have a little more power and they might use that extra power to accumulate even more power. The usual answer seems to be that all the other people in society would somehow band together to oppose the initial perpetrator and then voluntarily split up their band/mob/militia again at the end, instead of keeping the power they formed by banding together. If one of the groups does not disband, you'd need an even greater group to forcedly disband the first and then an even greater group to disband the next and so on until you are right back where we are now: with nation sized groups in detente against each other. It seems the current situation naturally forms from a system where no one reigns over one another as a result of people having personal ambitions. I don't think ambition is something humanity has the means for to abolish, even if we wanted to (which is in itself an interesting debate).
- kqr 6y ago
  > other people in society would somehow band together to oppose the initial perpetrator This band would probably also need some form of leadership, where a consensus-defined alpha role comes naturally to us, much like for chimpanzees. In fact, I'd argue that it doesn't even take a human to be the initial perpetrator. Humans (again, like chimpanzees) have an ever-present initial perpetrator: the environment. We're not built to stand strong against the forces of nature as individuals.
chii 6y ago
> But in the sense of a system where no one reigns over another. even in anarchy, there will be those who reign over others.
orange_tee 6y ago
TBH I don't agree with anarchists. I don't think it is possible to have a flat society devoid of hierarchy. I also don't think all hierarchy is bad and it is not clear to me that a flat society would be better. I think it is easy to make the argument that some people should have more influence than others. The crucial part is how the hierarchy is developed and how stable it is.