Primates live in gangs and follow the lead of a mafia boss. It's preprogrammed biology. — Tarskian

I'm not sure about "pre-programmed" biology. But even if it is pre-programmed biology, it doesn't show that it is pre-programmed in human beings.

Some may arrive there due to sheer brutality and force. In short, many dominant chimps behave like “self-interested thugs."

"Some may arrive..." and "many dominant chimps..." suggests very strongly that not all arrive in that way and some do not behave like self-interest thugs when they get there. If it was pre-programmed, they would all behave that way and only self-interested thugs would get to be dominant.

One difference between alpha chimps and mafia bosses is that alpha chimps get there in the socially recognized way and when they get there, their behaviour is socially acceptable. But then, the mafia began amongst a socially oppressed group in Sicily and live in a sub-culture in what they do is socially acceptable.

A hierarchy is not necessarily a mafia, even though a mafia is a hierarchy.

The syndicalist view you describe is an extreme version of mandating representatives. It seems to me to be a recipe for chaos, since each representative will have slightly different views and may differ radically from the previous one. On the whole, the left wing seems to prefer mandating representatives and/or making them bring their decisions back for a popular vote before it is finalized. (That's how the trade unions work, on the whole - at least in the UK.) — Ludwig V

Unionism is where I'm most familiar with syndicalism from (not that all unions run that way). I think that systems which reject representation are, on the whole, less chaotic because in order for measures to pass you have to build consent. That you have different perspectives with each brings about stability because it becomes less about what some individual person Represents to us, and more about what the collective wants. If you alienate less of the people in a collective, then it's more liable to be maintained by the people participating in it rather than torn down.

Certainly, there are such social groups. There are also half-way houses in which volunteers sign up for a common purpose which, for one reason or another depends on cohesion. That requires an acceptance of discipline and usually, in practice, some kind of hierarchy whether formal or informal. (I'll mention these again below.)
I'm not at all sure what you mean by "the family hierarchy". Did you mean that we don't get to choose our at least our first parents and we are subject to control until we grow up? Certainly, relationships with our birth/childhood family (-ies) are rather different from our family relationships when we start our own families and both are different from our friendship relationships; all those are different from our work and business relationships. Perhaps social and voluntary co-operation dominate, but they are not the whole story. (I don't say that you are wrong)

Now, could a state or nation (or nation-state) be structured in that way, largely free of hierarchy. The issue here is that we need to consider social relationships that extend beyond "kith and kin" - people you know and people you are related to by birth or "marriage" (in its widest sense)?
It seems to me, that since you don't know these people, they cannot work in the same way as your kith and kin relationships. There needs to be a formal structure to enable the kind of cohesion that is suggested by "society" and I don't see how that would work if there were not some kind of hierarchy, no matter how benevolent and co-operative. In practice, I think you will find, there always has been some kind of hierarchy and that is suggestive. — Ludwig V

Some kind, yes, though I tried to pick as an extreme a contrast as possible to demonstrate that "some kind" has meaningful differences between the various instantiations (and even their structures of hierarchy will differ, or not-count as hierarchical between one another) -- a living Goddess compared to a Billionaire Wonder Boy, both surely exhilarating tips of a hierarchy and yet I prefer to suffer the opinions of the latter to being forced to worship the former.




So I want to say that

Now, there's a tricky question. Let's stipulate that "master" and "slave" are social roles that are backed by law - i.e. backed by coercion. It would not be wrong to say, then, that if those roles are not backed by law, they cannot exist in that society.
But could master/slave-like relationships exist without the backing of the law? Of course they can. There are two kinds.
One is created when a group is formed to function in certain kinds of environment, like a ship's crew or an dangerous environment, like an dangerous journey or a war situation. (Civilian police and some other roles are also like this.) In those cases, one (normally) volunteers and, in so doing, accepts the discipline required. We could say that because it is (normally) temporary and one can leave, it is a temporary master/slave relationship, but I think that would be misleading.
The other is a certain kind of relationship that has come to prominence in recent years, known as "coercive control". It is not backed by law - indeed, it is banned by law in some countries. In many cases, it is virtually indistinguishable, apart from the lack of backing by law, from slavery.

You'll notice that I've avoided the question whether such relationships - particularly the second one - are natural or not. The reason is simple. If I say that they are natural, then the moral implication is that they are not immoral - that's why Aristotle said that master/slave relationships are natural. He was misled, of course, but he couldn't really be expected to know any better, since slavery, in his times, was more or less universally recognized and taken for granted by everyone whose opinion we know about. Nowadays, in most parts of the world, we think that slavery is immoral and consequently we would be very reluctant to say that it is natural.

However, many animal societies are structured by a dominance hierarchy (pecking order). These are not exactly slave societies, but they are dictated by coercion, or the threat of it. But it would be meaningless to try to apply our moral standards to them. However, I do think that we should not think that we can eliminate informal dominance relationships between individuals and within social groups. The trick will be to prevent them becoming slave-like relationships. — Ludwig V

This is pretty much my target in thinking through hierarchies: Aristotle's justification for slavery follows a common refrain of thought throughout societies of dominance: The barbarians are uncivilized, as can be heard from when they speak "Bar bar bar", saying basically nothing, and so need an enlightened human of knowledge to direct them towards the best that the inferior can hope to achieve (since they won't reach for it on their own) ((The same reasonings were applied to the Irish when they wanted to convert the Irish peasants into proletarian workers, or the Africans when they wanted to convert them into their chattel slaves))

But, due to human nature, whenever a civilizer comes along somehow the civilized end up worse off and helping the civilizer live an easier life :D

That's the bit of human nature I'm targeting I think we have lots of reasonings to excuse social dominance, but for the most part it's our chimpanzee side which gives rise to such reasonings rather than the purportedly enlightened side.

Human nature has this capacity to form hierarchies, but it also has the capacity to dither them -- so it's more a question of "ought" than the "is" of nature (since I'd agree that ought implies can -- but since we can....)

The barbarians are uncivilized, as can be heard from when they speak "Bar bar bar", saying basically nothing, and so need an enlightened human of knowledge to direct them towards the best that the inferior can hope to achieve (since they won't reach for it on their own) — Moliere

That's not ancient slavery.
Certainly, the ancient greeks regarded foreigners as lesser beings because they couldn't speak properly. But ancient greek colonies don't seem to have behaved like European colonies later on. They didn't, so far as I can see, take over ownership of the hinterland, never mind its inhabitants. On the contrary, they were there primarily to trade.
The account of slavery that you are outlining is the barbarous version of it cooked up by Europeans to justify maltreating people they chose to see as savages. Ancient slavery included anyone who could not pay their debts, prisoners of war, common criminals. Whether they were members of the society that enslaved them was irrelevant.

Unionism is where I'm most familiar with syndicalism from (not that all unions run that way). I think that systems which reject representation are, on the whole, less chaotic because in order for measures to pass you have to build consent. That you have different perspectives with each brings about stability because it becomes less about what some individual person Represents to us, and more about what the collective wants. If you alienate less of the people in a collective, then it's more liable to be maintained by the people participating in it rather than torn down. — Moliere

I wouldn't disagree with you. It's probably slower than allowing representatives to make the decision, but the benefit in greater consensus is probably worth it. It certainly gives more power to the people. The desire of the establishment at the time of the Reform Act in 1832 not to undermine the representation system as it stood, rather than introducing mandating them, was undoubtedly reinforced by the fact mandating representatives gives more control to the voters.
Much as I respect the union practice, I'm not convinced that in our giant states mandating representatives would work at all well for the entire state. It's just too big and too complicated.

Some kind (sc. of hierarchy), yes, though I tried to pick as an extreme a contrast as possible to demonstrate that "some kind" has meaningful differences between the various instantiations (and even their structures of hierarchy will differ, or not-count as hierarchical between one another) — Moliere

I didn't mean to eradicate those important differences. Some hierarchies are more vicious than others. Whether any are not vicious at all, I wouldn't like to say.

That's the bit of human nature I'm targeting I think we have lots of reasonings to excuse social dominance, but for the most part it's our chimpanzee side which gives rise to such reasonings rather than the purportedly enlightened side. — Moliere

I see the point (but would be inclined to wonder whether chimpanzees are really as bad as human beings, for all their dominant ways). But I also think that in some situations, where decisions need to be made quickly or close co-ordination is required, there are practical reasons for choosing hierarchy. The ancient roman constitution had a provision that allowed the senate to elected a supreme commander, by-passing the political hierarchy (called "dictator") for a limited time to deal with an emergency - especially useful in time of war. It is high risk though and came unstuck in the civil wars that led to the establishment of the imperial system.

Nicely put, thank you.

I'm curious what this "structure" is, and more, what it really amounts to. I've been told of "tribal structures", "social structures", "formal structure", a "structure of relations", but I cannot translate its figurative use to its non-figurative application. There are no such "structures" or "connections" in any literal sense, since any connective tissue between human beings was removed along with the umbilical cord.

Hobbes mentions "artificial bonds", for example. "artificial chains" which are "civil laws". He describes the nature of these bonds as "weak", and given only their metaphorical reality, I'm inclined to agree. I'm wondering if "structure" as it is consistently used in this thread is one such artificial bond. You say that nations require "a formal structure to enable the kind of cohesion suggested by society", do you mean something like civil laws, and the hierarchy they necessarily impose?

You say that nations require "a formal structure to enable the kind of cohesion suggested by society", do you mean something like civil laws, and the hierarchy they necessarily impose? — NOS4A2

I did mean something like laws - because they involve compulsion.

When people talk about structure in the context of a discussion about societies, states nations, they mean (so far as I know) some kind of social relationship. So friendship and love would also be regarded as social structure, though they are very different from laws. A family is a social structure, so is a corporation or a club, so is the army, navy, so is the government - most people (I think) would say that the government, or perhaps the constitution, is the structure that forms a state. It's one of those vague all-encompassing words that really ought to be specified whenever it is used. But its vagueness is also quite convenient sometimes.

That's the bit of human nature I'm targeting I think we have lots of reasonings to excuse social dominance, but for the most part it's our chimpanzee side which gives rise to such reasonings rather than the purportedly enlightened side. — Moliere

So then your target isn’t really hierarchical order but some notion of social injustice.

If we step back to understand hierarchical order as a pure form, we can see that it is a distribution system. It is a way to distribute power, information, entropy, whatever, in an evenly balanced fashion across a closed and cohesive network of relations.

So it is fundamentally about equality. But the complex kind of equality where the total flow of the system is divided up in a fractal or scalefree fashion that maximises its throughput.

A landscape is drained of water by forming a fractal network of trickles, streams, rivers and deltas. World aviation is organised into remote grass airstrips, small rural airports, large city airports, major international hubs. The mathematics of this is precise. A fractal distribution system has a log/log or powerlaw scale of size. That is how a geography can be efficiently covered so every drop of water or wannabe flyer gets an equal chance of participating in a well-organised network of flow.

There is no limit on free action even when all the actions are in competition. The network adapts so that statistically it services the available flows in an evenhanded fashion. If demand increases for the rural airstrip or drops for the global hub, then that node in the network can grow or shrink accordingly.

So in the pure form, the hierarchy is about a democracy of scale. A network composed of networks with any possible scale. Whatever works best to optimise flow for the entire system in question.

In a society, we would want everyone to have enough to eat, a bed to sleep, a voice in any decision making. These are goods to be distributed evenly. But then a real world civilisation is not going to end up giving everyone the same meal, the same bed, the same degree of being listened to.

A rural airstrip is not going to have a VIP lounge, or customs officers, or nonstop flights to international destinations. A global hub becomes its own vast hierarchy of terminal facilities and job functions. If you want a weather report at the grass strip, you look up at the clouds. At Dubai or Chicago, there are teams of meteorologists with hi tech radars, monitoring stations and computer models.

Is this difference in airport facilities intrinsically unfair? Even artificial rather than natural? If you want to fly, the whole world has become efficiently organised to allow anyone to hop on a plane from anywhere. But to do that basic thing, it also means that the nodes in the network have to themselves become hierarchically complex to the degree they fairly do their part in servicing this globalised flow of individuals.

If you are talking politics and decision making, the same applies. One can get all upset that democracy organises itself into interest groups and institutions. One can start bleating about the ruling mafia, the oppressive state. One can dream of a world where in effect everyone flies off their own grass airstrip and there are no giant planes taking off from their giant airports.

But there are perfectly natural reasons why societies, as human flow structures, will seem unequal as they seek to deliver equality. And if you don’t understand that, you can’t actually focus on where a hierarchy might be performing poorly in striking that optimal flow balance. You just want to pull the whole system down, or live outside its bounds. You have no proper theory of how it works and thus no real idea of how to fix it.

The mathematics of this is precise. A fractal distribution system has a log/log or powerlaw scale of size. That is how a geography can be efficiently covered so every drop of water or wannabe flyer gets an equal chance of participating in a well-organised network of flow — apokrisis

Interesting reference. A parabolic fractional distribution is a little obscure with the Wiki page getting only 7 views per day.

It goes by a great many names. Here is a sample.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat-tailed_distribution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Bejan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

That's not ancient slavery.
Certainly, the ancient greeks regarded foreigners as lesser beings because they couldn't speak properly. But ancient greek colonies don't seem to have behaved like European colonies later on. They didn't, so far as I can see, take over ownership of the hinterland, never mind its inhabitants. On the contrary, they were there primarily to trade.
The account of slavery that you are outlining is the barbarous version of it cooked up by Europeans to justify maltreating people they chose to see as savages. Ancient slavery included anyone who could not pay their debts, prisoners of war, common criminals. Whether they were members of the society that enslaved them was irrelevant. — Ludwig V

It's Aristotle's justification or reasoning about slavery that I think is similar to the later justifications.; though even in slavery there are better and worse masters, the belief that there are those who are inferior by their very nature -- and so needing a guiding hand -- seems pretty similar here:

But whether any person is such by nature, and whether it is advantageous and just for any one to be a slave or no, or whether all slavery is contrary to nature, shall be considered hereafter; not that it is difficult to determine it upon general principles, or to understand it from matters of fact; for that some should govern, and others be governed, is not only necessary but useful, and from the hour of their birth some are marked out for those purposes, and others for the other, and there are many species of both sorts.

And the better those are who are governed the better also is the government, as for instance of man, rather than the brute creation: for the more excellent the materials are with which the work is finished, the more excellent certainly is the work; and wherever there is a governor and a governed, there certainly is some work produced; for whatsoever is composed of many parts, which jointly become one, whether conjunct or separate, evidently show the marks of governing and governed; and this is true of every living thing in all nature; nay, even in some things which partake not of life, as in music; but this probably would be a disquisition too foreign to our present purpose.

Every living thing in the first place is composed of soul and body, of these the one is by nature the governor, the other the governed; now if we would know what is natural, we ought to search for it in those subjects in which nature appears most perfect, and not in those which are corrupted; we should therefore examine into a man who is most perfectly formed both in soul and body, in whom this is evident, for in the depraved and vicious the body seems [1254b] to rule rather than the soul, on account of their being corrupt and contrary to nature.

We may then, as we affirm, perceive in an animal the first principles of herile and political government; for the soul governs the body as the master governs his slave; the mind governs the appetite with a political or a kingly power, which shows that it is both natural and advantageous that the body should be governed by the soul, and the pathetic part by the mind, and that part which is possessed of reason; but to have no ruling power, or an improper one, is hurtful to all; and this holds true not only of man, but of other animals also, for tame animals are naturally better than wild ones, and it is advantageous that both should be under subjection to man; for this is productive of their common safety: so is it naturally with the male and the female; the one is superior, the other inferior; the one governs, the other is governed; and the same rule must necessarily hold good with respect to all mankind.

Those men therefore who are as much inferior to others as the body is to the soul, are to be thus disposed of, as the proper use of them is their bodies, in which their excellence consists; and if what I have said be true, they are slaves by nature, and it is advantageous to them to be always under government.

He then is by nature formed a slave who is qualified to become the chattel of another person, and on that account is so, and who has just reason enough to know that there is such a faculty, without being indued with the use of it; for other animals have no perception of reason, but are entirely guided by appetite, and indeed they vary very little in their use from each other; for the advantage which we receive, both from slaves and tame animals, arises from their bodily strength administering to our necessities; for it is the intention of nature to make the bodies of slaves and freemen different from each other, that the one should be robust for their necessary purposes, the others erect, useless indeed for what slaves are employed in, but fit for civil life, which is divided into the duties of war and peace; though these rules do not always take place, for slaves have sometimes the bodies of freemen, sometimes the souls; if then it is evident that if some bodies are as much more excellent than others as the statues of the gods excel the human form, every one will allow that the inferior ought to be slaves to the superior; and if this is true with respect to the body, it is still juster to determine in the same manner, when we consider the soul; though it is not so easy to perceive the beauty of [1255a] the soul as it is of the body. Since then some men are slaves by nature, and others are freemen, it is clear that where slavery is advantageous to any one, then it is just to make him a slave.


But whether any person is such by nature, and whether it is advantageous and just for any one to be a slave or no, or whether all slavery is contrary to nature, shall be considered hereafter; not that it is difficult to determine it upon general principles, or to understand it from matters of fact; for that some should govern, and others be governed, is not only necessary but useful, and from the hour of their birth some are marked out for those purposes, and others for the other, and there are many species of both sorts.

And the better those are who are governed the better also is the government, as for instance of man, rather than the brute creation: for the more excellent the materials are with which the work is finished, the more excellent certainly is the work; and wherever there is a governor and a governed, there certainly is some work produced; for whatsoever is composed of many parts, which jointly become one, whether conjunct or separate, evidently show the marks of governing and governed; and this is true of every living thing in all nature; nay, even in some things which partake not of life, as in music; but this probably would be a disquisition too foreign to our present purpose.

Every living thing in the first place is composed of soul and body, of these the one is by nature the governor, the other the governed; now if we would know what is natural, we ought to search for it in those subjects in which nature appears most perfect, and not in those which are corrupted; we should therefore examine into a man who is most perfectly formed both in soul and body, in whom this is evident, for in the depraved and vicious the body seems [1254b] to rule rather than the soul, on account of their being corrupt and contrary to nature.

We may then, as we affirm, perceive in an animal the first principles of herile and political government; for the soul governs the body as the master governs his slave; the mind governs the appetite with a political or a kingly power, which shows that it is both natural and advantageous that the body should be governed by the soul, and the pathetic part by the mind, and that part which is possessed of reason; but to have no ruling power, or an improper one, is hurtful to all; and this holds true not only of man, but of other animals also, for tame animals are naturally better than wild ones, and it is advantageous that both should be under subjection to man; for this is productive of their common safety: so is it naturally with the male and the female; the one is superior, the other inferior; the one governs, the other is governed; and the same rule must necessarily hold good with respect to all mankind.

Those men therefore who are as much inferior to others as the body is to the soul, are to be thus disposed of, as the proper use of them is their bodies, in which their excellence consists; and if what I have said be true, they are slaves by nature, and it is advantageous to them to be always under government. He then is by nature formed a slave who is qualified to become the chattel of another person, and on that account is so, and who has just reason enough to know that there is such a faculty, without being indued with the use of it; for other animals have no perception of reason, but are entirely guided by appetite, and indeed they vary very little in their use from each other; for the advantage which we receive, both from slaves and tame animals, arises from their bodily strength administering to our necessities; for it is the intention of nature to make the bodies of slaves and freemen different from each other, that the one should be robust for their necessary purposes, the others erect, useless indeed for what slaves are employed in, but fit for civil life, which is divided into the duties of war and peace; though these rules do not always take place, for slaves have sometimes the bodies of freemen, sometimes the souls; if then it is evident that if some bodies are as much more excellent than others as the statues of the gods excel the human form, every one will allow that the inferior ought to be slaves to the superior; and if this is true with respect to the body, it is still juster to determine in the same manner, when we consider the soul; though it is not so easy to perceive the beauty of [1255a] the soul as it is of the body. Since then some men are slaves by nature, and others are freemen, it is clear that where slavery is advantageous to any one, then it is just to make him a slave. — Politics, Chapter V

I didn't mean to eradicate those important differences. Some hierarchies are more vicious than others. Whether any are not vicious at all, I wouldn't like to say. — Ludwig V

Cool. More a point for @Tarskian then, who's taken a more absolutist line in saying because you cannot eliminate it you might as well accept any version of it that works for you as an individual.

I wouldn't disagree with you. It's probably slower than allowing representatives to make the decision, but the benefit in greater consensus is probably worth it. It certainly gives more power to the people. The desire of the establishment at the time of the Reform Act in 1832 not to undermine the representation system as it stood, rather than introducing mandating them, was undoubtedly reinforced by the fact mandating representatives gives more control to the voters. — Ludwig V

Slower in some ways, faster in others -- and it's still a legal system of rules, so it's still "game-able", just with more inroads for participation; and like any implementation of democracy the specifics can make big differences even if the conceptual understanding of why we do these things around the specifics are roughly similar.

Much as I respect the union practice, I'm not convinced that in our giant states mandating representatives would work at all well for the entire state. It's just too big and too complicated.

I'm not convinced that our present systems of government are really working too well with the bigness and complexity; part of my interest in this isn't just the unintended consequences of the industrial revolution, but also in the vein of modifying existing structures to better handle the problems we're presently failing at dealing with (such as global warming -- all the hierarchy in the world, and nary a solution beyond "Burn it all up" -- at least to hear the people who can set and push policy talk)

I see the point (but would be inclined to wonder whether chimpanzees are really as bad as human beings, for all their dominant ways). But I also think that in some situations, where decisions need to be made quickly or close co-ordination is required, there are practical reasons for choosing hierarchy. — Ludwig V

I think the practical reasons for choosing hierarchy are habituated more than practical -- they're practical because very few people in an industrial society are taught how to work collectively. The people in charge have no reason to develop those skills because it would mean that the "decision makers" wouldn't be valuable anymore. (same sort of thing with Aristotle: I'll free my slaves when I'm done with them, but until then I have no reason to "develop" them such that they can live an autonomous life after I free them)

But then when you get a job it's all about "teamwork" and "collective" because that's what our actual strength as a species is -- it's just that there's been a messy business of figuring out how to make that strength an individual perk for some owners and thinkers.

So then your target isn’t really hierarchical order but some notion of social injustice. — apokrisis

My target is hierarchy. I know that much.

If we step back to understand hierarchical order as a pure form, we can see that it is a distribution system. It is a way to distribute power, information, entropy, whatever, in an evenly balanced fashion across a closed and cohesive network of relations. — apokrisis

I think this is too general; at some point social systems are not abstract and do things according to what's up rather than because of patterns we've seen.

And, given enough leeway, we can always "see" any social system as "good" -- which is what "evenly balanced fashion across a closed and cohesive network of relations" is doing, at least as I read you: This is what hierarchies ought aim for?

This is what hierarchies ought aim for? — Moliere

I think what's being said is that, unless hijacked from without, this is what hierarchies do as a matter of course, rather htan an aim of them. It is their function. I - in a rough and ready sense - would agree. Though, it's a flimsy agreement LOL

My target is hierarchy. I know that much. — Moliere

So not good vs bad hierarchies, just hierarchy in general. Boo, hiss! Hierarchy, dude! It's baaad!

I think this is too general; at some point social systems are not abstract and do things according to what's up rather than because of patterns we've seen. — Moliere

If you could give a concrete example, it would help show if you might have a case.

So not good vs bad hierarchies, just hierarchy in general. Boo, hiss! Hierarchy, dude! It's baaad! — apokrisis

Yeah!

I have reasons and all, but that's it -- though it seems, given your previous caveat, that we're thinking similarly while saying different words: You have a particular thought on hierarchy, but I'm not sure that I have a negative opinion on your notion of positive hierarchy because when I read your description of society -- as a flow -- it seems descriptive and descriptive only and I cannot tell what might even be the "good" hierarchy.

I'm generally opposed to hierarchy, but: What is the good hierarchy in your view?

If you could give a concrete example, it would help show if you might have a case. — apokrisis

Gonna quote the original post I was mulling over in saying that:

If we step back to understand hierarchical order as a pure form, we can see that it is a distribution system. It is a way to distribute power, information, entropy, whatever, in an evenly balanced fashion across a closed and cohesive network of relations.

So it is fundamentally about equality. But the complex kind of equality where the total flow of the system is divided up in a fractal or scalefree fashion that maximises its throughput.

A landscape is drained of water by forming a fractal network of trickles, streams, rivers and deltas. World aviation is organised into remote grass airstrips, small rural airports, large city airports, major international hubs. The mathematics of this is precise. A fractal distribution system has a log/log or powerlaw scale of size. That is how a geography can be efficiently covered so every drop of water or wannabe flyer gets an equal chance of participating in a well-organised network of flow.

There is no limit on free action even when all the actions are in competition. The network adapts so that statistically it services the available flows in an evenhanded fashion. If demand increases for the rural airstrip or drops for the global hub, then that node in the network can grow or shrink accordingly.

So in the pure form, the hierarchy is about a democracy of scale. A network composed of networks with any possible scale. Whatever works best to optimise flow for the entire system in question.

In a society, we would want everyone to have enough to eat, a bed to sleep, a voice in any decision making. These are goods to be distributed evenly. But then a real world civilisation is not going to end up giving everyone the same meal, the same bed, the same degree of being listened to.

A rural airstrip is not going to have a VIP lounge, or customs officers, or nonstop flights to international destinations. A global hub becomes its own vast hierarchy of terminal facilities and job functions. If you want a weather report at the grass strip, you look up at the clouds. At Dubai or Chicago, there are teams of meteorologists with hi tech radars, monitoring stations and computer models.

Is this difference in airport facilities intrinsically unfair? Even artificial rather than natural? If you want to fly, the whole world has become efficiently organised to allow anyone to hop on a plane from anywhere. But to do that basic thing, it also means that the nodes in the network have to themselves become hierarchically complex to the degree they fairly do their part in servicing this globalised flow of individuals. — apokrisis

All the above is what I'd call general description: according to names, data, and narrative one can make sense of it.

However, I think we're going for something other than description. "ought" is the philosophy word, but I'm not sure it's the right word other than to convey a distinction on a philosophy forum.

If you are talking politics and decision making, the same applies. One can get all upset that democracy organises itself into interest groups and institutions. One can start bleating about the ruling mafia, the oppressive state. One can dream of a world where in effect everyone flies off their own grass airstrip and there are no giant planes taking off from their giant airports.

But there are perfectly natural reasons why societies, as human flow structures, will seem unequal as they seek to deliver equality. And if you don’t understand that, you can’t actually focus on where a hierarchy might be performing poorly in striking that optimal flow balance..

I'm not arguing against the perfectly natural -- given that hierarchies are a part of nature (what else would what I'm criticizing be a part of?) they are perfectly natural.

You just want to pull the whole system down, or live outside its bounds. You have no proper theory of how it works and thus no real idea of how to fix it

I've been tempted a time or two to pull it all down, but no -- I care about more things than my anger or stupid moral commitments.

And I want to push against the notion of a real idea of how to fix it: No one has a proper theory of how to fix it, or a real idea about how it works. Getting everyone on board with that much -- the metaphor I like to invoke is the rocket we're all strapped to without any knowledge about where it's going, how to control it, or when it will end -- is a step in the right direction. If we all think we have the key to the door while failing at opening the door then maybe it ought be time to make another key.

An "ought" for an "is" ;)

when I read your description of society -- as a flow -- it seems descriptive and descriptive only and I cannot tell what might even be the "good" hierarchy. — Moliere

Well I only got started on the first point. How nature is in general always organised into hierarchical or fractal flows.

Then would come how hierarchies evolve from the unthinking kind to the thinking kind. When the flow is that which sustains an organism able to make smart choices at every scale of its being.

Eventually we get to the political meat - like why the combo of a constitution and a president (or even law-bound monarch) seemed like a clever idea.

Just as our brains are intelligent because they can form both long term smart habits and make more instant smart choices, so this polarity is reflected in the design of a rational political architecture. We want a constitution as our stable long term memory, our accustomed and well adapted habit. And we also want a president who can mobilise society in the moment, react immediately to novel threats and opportunity as they present themselves.

So as our brains are organised for intelligent choice, so do we want our nations to be institutionally organised. Exactly the same need and so exactly the same cognitive architecture.

However, I think we're going for something other than description. "ought" is the philosophy word, but I'm not sure it's the right word other than to convey a distinction on a philosophy forum. — Moliere

If “ought” makes philosophers feel they have a USP, then let’s see how much sense they make applying the concept. Systems science and natural philosophy have already shown is and ought to be all part of. the one pragmatic package. But if philosophy wants to slide over to romanticism as it feels the enlightenment has been giving it the cold shoulder lately…

No one has a proper theory of how to fix it, or a real idea about how it works. — Moliere

So you say. So you find comforting to believe.

But I asked for concrete examples that might support your vaguely expressed sentiments. As usual, I’m just getting more unsourced claims.

Eventually we get to the political meat - like why the combo of a constitution and a president (or even law-bound monarch) seemed like a clever idea. — apokrisis

I think this is a "meat" question for scientists who wonder how it happens or want to know the facts about the human brain -- but it would be the same question in China as the United States and Europe.

It's an interesting question -- why did Europe like this clever idea? -- but it's not a political position.

So you say. So you find comforting to believe.

But I asked for concrete examples that might support your vaguely expressed sentiments. As usual, I’m just getting more unsourced claims. — apokrisis

Can you give me criteria for what a concrete example would need to fulfill?

Cool. More a point for Tarskian then, who's taken a more absolutist line in saying because you cannot eliminate it you might as well accept any version of it that works for you as an individual. — Moliere

I am actually not very or particularly demanding.

(1) Most importantly, as a government, do not interfere in my private family life concerning women and/or children. Whatever the problem may be, there is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.

(2) In all practical terms, I do not pay personal income tax, wealth tax, or capital gains tax. It just won't happen.

The less I need to bend myself into corners to avoid paying that kind of things, the better.

It's not that I reject the entire notion of taxes.

However, don't come and ask me how much I make or how much I own because the answer will always be: "nothing".

I don't look at what laws they have on the books because that is largely irrelevant. I only look at what they really try to enforce.

If I happen to receive a tax return form from the local ruling mafia, I will be on the next plane out of there. Bye bye.

Most governments outside the West are acceptable to me and generally meet my requirements.

It's an interesting question -- why did Europe like this clever idea? -- but it's not a political position. — Moliere

For goodness sakes. Read Fukuyama. All three volumes. :grin:

He analyses political structure across the world from the year dot. Read Debt as well for the economic story.

How Europe stumbled its way to its political arrangements is a fascinating tale of luck and experiment. But also of essential system-balancing structures needing to be found.

Can you give me criteria for what a concrete example would need to fulfill? — Moliere

Do you ask to hold someone’s hand every time you need to cross the road? Clearly I’m wasting my time now.

Do you ask to hold someone’s hand every time you need to cross the road? Clearly I’m wasting my time now. — apokrisis

I'm scratching my head a bit because I think I've given concrete examples before, like the IWW.

Among other sentiments about what I like.

What I'm asking is: What do you like?

Or, What's good?

I'm scratching my head a bit because I think I've given concrete examples before, like the IWW. — Moliere

You really are a low effort sort of guy. You can't even cut and paste your example, let alone explain it in terms that are relevant as any kind of counter to what I might have said.

But here you go. This is your starter.....

The Wobblies believed that all workers should organize as a class, a philosophy which is still reflected in the Preamble to the current IWW Constitution:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

Most governments outside the West are acceptable to me and generally meet my requirements. — Tarskian

No, they don't. The majority of governments outside of the west violate either (1) via religious/sex-specific regulation or violates the underlying deception in your response to tax questions. For example, interest on capital is against Sharia - but if a Sharia country asked you to 'donate' you'd be doing the same thing as paying a tax. It should be clear though, that tax is not illegal under Sharia - it is just worded in esoteric terms (you can have a read here - pay attention to statements such as "The State achieves this by imposing taxes upon the Muslims such that these needs and interests are met without being exceeded. These taxes should only be taken from people’s surplus wealth." and its inferences.

The problem there, then, even if you are find with the interest-less tax system, is swallowing theocracy dedicated to a clearly illogical, unsubstantiated story about pedophile warlord.

The majority of governments outside of the west violate either (1) via religious/sex-specific regulation — AmadeusD

If you don't sign any marriage-related government documents, these governments simply won't get involved.

I spent one whole year in Indonesia in the past.In what way do they regulate anything sex-specific? I certainly did not notice anything. In all practical terms, it is based on self-discipline. I also did several multi-month stints in Malaysia. Again, sexual regulations are based on self-discipline.

It all depends on the woman's self-discipline and on your own.

If she is completely lawless, she'll be willing to do pretty much whatever, especially for some money.

But then again, you can find this type of women everywhere in the world. Still, if your dealings with her do not disturb public order, the government won't lift a finger to do anything about it.

a Sharia country asked you to 'donate' you'd be doing the same thing as paying a tax — AmadeusD

Zakaat, i.e. mandatory charity, is usually not enforced by government. Some countries do it, but most don't.

The calculations are too complicated anyway.

Only you can know how much you have given in charity already during this fiscal year and how much you still owe to the poor and the needy.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no country in the world that would try to enforce mandatory charity on foreigners.

They generally don't even try to force the locals to pay it, and certainly not successfully. It's rather that the clergy will start preaching about zakaat at the end of Ramadan and exhort the believers not to forget about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat

Today, in most Muslim countries, Zakat is at the discretion of Muslims over how and whether to pay, typically enforced by fear of God, peer pressure and an individual's personal feelings.[17]

In six of the 47 Muslim-majority countries—Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen—zakat is obligatory and collected by the state.[17][18][83][84] In Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Bangladesh, the zakat is regulated by the state, but contributions are voluntary.[85]

Under compulsory systems of zakat tax collection, such as Malaysia and Pakistan, evasion is very common and the zakat (alms tax) is regressive.[17] A considerable number of Muslims accept their duty to pay zakat, but deny that the state has a right to levy it, and they may pay zakat voluntarily while evading official collection.[83] In discretion-based systems of collection, studies suggest zakat is collected from and paid only by a fraction of Muslim population who can pay.[17]

If you pay zakaat to the government, you trust that they will correctly identify the poor and the needy and really provide your payment to them. I personally do not trust the local ruling mafia for that job.

Furthermore, your own relatives and in-laws have priority in the distribution of zakaat.

(Note that parents and other ascendants fall under a different support obligation. They are not legitimate recipients of zakaat.)

It is only the remainder that can go to complete strangers.

If you don't sign any marriage-related government documents, these governments simply won't get involved. — Tarskian

Patently false. But, even so, you've acknowledge that the form of government violates your (1) in those cases. I understand what you're trying to get at, but its simply not the case.

I spent one whole year in Indonesia — Tarskian

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/08/indonesia-new-criminal-code-disastrous-rights Do not get started on Indonesia. Being an atheist is theoretically punishable by death (not the dumbest law on the books, it seems). https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/1/2
https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=ilrev
https://www6.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELECD/2008/44.pdf

mandatory charity — Tarskian

Is a complete contradiction. Smelling anything yet?

Again, sexual regulations are based on self-discipline. — Tarskian

No. Regulations are there to curb lacks of self-discipline. And apparently, 'discipline' means doing what the law says. This is a nonsense response.

From your same link (Wikipedia no less!!):
Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen still legally enforce Zakat, and a couple others regulate it at a state level.. Further, your quoted extract simply puts Allah in the place of hte 'local mob overlords' as to motivating factors. To put it in 'wittier' terms, a 'Cosmic North Korea' which ensures you pay your fucking taxes. AND Allah doesn't exist. So this is many many times worse than an enforced taxation system. Can you imagine the mid-east without Oil? Nope. The 20th century would not have been kind.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no country in the world that would try to enforce mandatory charity on foreigners. — Tarskian

What does this have to do with anything?

I personally do not trust the local ruling mafia for that job. — Tarskian

It sounds as if you would trust a Global Theocratic Hegemony tho?

I understand what you're trying to get at, but its simply not the case. — AmadeusD

In my Indonesian and Malaysian experience, it simply is.

Do not get started on Indonesia. — AmadeusD

The law making consensual sex outside of marriage a criminal offense is a full-scale assault against the right to privacy, permitting intrusions into the most intimate decisions of individuals and families, Human Rights Watch said.

Even Afghanistan does not manage to enforce this. Again, what's on the books is irrelevant. The only thing that really matters, is what they truly enforce. The above is simply unenforceable.

Being an atheist is theoretically punishable by death (not the dumbest law on the books, it seems). — AmadeusD

Impossible to enforce. It is just a populist political statement. If push comes to shove, your lawyer would simply argue that you are technically not an atheist but that you believe in something whatever. The prosecutor's office will routinely drop the case. Impossible to get a conviction. Not worth their time.

Is a complete contradiction. Smelling anything yet? — AmadeusD

Assisting the poor and the needy is a perfectly legitimate moral obligation. If your own wealth exceeds a particular threshold, the laws of the Almighty insist that you help others in need. It is, however, not the government's job to enforce this. It is your own conscience that is supposed to do that.

What does this have to do with anything? — AmadeusD

I am a foreigner in these countries. Therefore, it matters to me. If they would never enforce a particular rule against me, this rule is obviously irrelevant to me.

It sounds as if you would trust a Global Theocratic Hegemony tho? — AmadeusD

I do not believe that the clergy should be the ruling class.

In the UAE, for example, the emir of Dubai is not a cleric. In Islamic history, the ruling sultan was rarely a cleric. Instead, he was typically the supreme commander of the armed forces. I do not believe at all that clergy should be the head of the army.

The role of clergy in society is substantially different from the army, the police, or the security forces in general.

You seem to be confused as to the role of the Islamic clergy ("ulema") in society. They lead the prayers ("imam"). They give jurisprudential advice ("mufti"). They get appointed as judges in personal status or criminal law ("qadi") by the emir or the sultan.

explain it in terms that are relevant as any kind of counter to what I might have said. — apokrisis

That's why I asked for criteria of some kind.

I suspect that your notion of hierarchy, when descriptive, is not the same as what I'm targeting. The idea that a program or system has hierarchies, for example, isn't the same as social hierarchy.

Assisting the poor and the needy is a perfectly legitimate moral obligation. If your own wealth exceeds a particular threshold, the laws of the Almighty insist that you help others in need. It is, however, not the government's job to enforce this. It is your own conscience that is supposed to do that. — Tarskian

Maybe I'm nit-picking, but I think "moral obligation" is a contradiction in terms. But the important question is whether the system achieves its objectives. What are the facts?

In the UAE, for example, the emir of Dubai is not a cleric. In Islamic history, the ruling sultan was rarely a cleric. Instead, he was typically the supreme commander of the armed forces. I do not believe at all that clergy should be the head of the army. — Tarskian

Ah, god and guns. That's all you need to be in control. Keep the two separate, and no-one's in control.

He (sc. Fukuyama) analyses political structure across the world from the year dot. Read Debt as well for the economic story. — apokrisis

Are you referring to "The End of History"? I'm really sorry and I may be prejudiced, but given what has happened since then, I think I have other priorities.

In a society, we would want everyone to have enough to eat, a bed to sleep, a voice in any decision making. These are goods to be distributed evenly. — apokrisis

That sounds like a good start. We aren't there yet. All suggestions considered.

If we step back to understand hierarchical order as a pure form, we can see that it is a distribution system. It is a way to distribute power, information, entropy, whatever, in an evenly balanced fashion across a closed and cohesive network of relations. — apokrisis

Are you saying that power is equally distributed in a hierarchy? Had you thought to ask those at the bottom of the heap what they think? What happens if I'm at the top and don't want to distribute power in an evenly balanced fashion?

A landscape is drained of water by forming a fractal network of trickles, streams, rivers and deltas. World aviation is organised into remote grass airstrips, small rural airports, large city airports, major international hubs. The mathematics of this is precise. A fractal distribution system has a log/log or powerlaw scale of size. That is how a geography can be efficiently covered so every drop of water or wannabe flyer gets an equal chance of participating in a well-organised network of flow. — apokrisis

I can understand how the system applies in the case of water or air travel opportunities - though "equal chance" is not an entirely transparent description. But what grounds are there to supposed that power behaves in the same fashion? I have a nasty feeling that power attracts power, so has an inherent tendency to inequality - like money.

The barbarians are uncivilized, as can be heard from when they speak "Bar bar bar", saying basically nothing, and so need an enlightened human of knowledge to direct them towards the best that the inferior can hope to achieve (since they won't reach for it on their own) — Moliere

I don't know, that doesn't sound too wrong. This Aristotle guy was smart, wasn't he? Except when he disagrees with my enlightened 21st century politics, of course.

whenever a civilizer comes along somehow the civilized end up worse off and helping the civilizer live an easier life — Moliere

There are multiple examples in history where that was not the case.

It's Aristotle's justification or reasoning about slavery that I think is similar to the later justifications.; though even in slavery there are better and worse masters, the belief that there are those who are inferior by their very nature -- and so needing a guiding hand -- seems pretty similar here: — Moliere

I'm not denying that. On the contrary, in the 18th century, a lot of the gentry would have read Aristotle. But Aristotle does not specify that speaking a foreign language or not being a Greek is evidence of being suitable for slavery.

This Aristotle guy was smart, wasn't he? Except when he disagrees with my enlightened 21st century politics, of course. — Lionino

He was!

Why target low hanging fruit when the articulation for slavery that Aristotle uses is much the same as later articulations, and has an entire philosophical oeuvre within which to interpret the argument?

Really it might not even be Aristotle Aristotle that's the target here, but rather English interpretations of Aristotle (it's not like I'm going back to the Greek here, nor could I): He's the foil through which I'm thinking about hierarchy rather than addressing him in his own time and place due to the argument being largely the same, and clearer than most slavers are willing to articulate.

There are multiple examples in history where that was not the case. — Lionino

I'm skeptical of such claims because of how often they are made, and how often "better off" is measured by the civilizers' values.

What examples do you have in mind?

I'm not denying that. On the contrary, in the 18th century, a lot of the gentry would have read Aristotle. But Aristotle does not specify that speaking a foreign language or not being a Greek is evidence of being suitable for slavery. — Ludwig V

Not specified, sure -- I'm reading into him. I don't think it unreasonable to think that Aristotle prefers Greeks of the upper echelon, though, when we read the politics in conjunction with the ethics and note that goodness is the exercise of virtues within the larger biopolitical world.

It's his mixture of biology with politics that is really close conceptually to the race-based reasonings for slavery: he doesn't explicitly put slavish souls into a biological category, but their essence differs from other members of the species giving a sub-species "kind" with essence; I take it that no one can actually perceive a slavish or masterful soul, that there must be markers for that, and things like being non-greek would work for that.

It's his mixture of biology with politics that is really close conceptually to the race-based reasonings for slavery: — Moliere

I don't deny that for a minute. I just think that we should acknowledge that his version wasn't based on race. In other words, the 18th century version not only attempted to justify slavery, but did not so racial grounds.

he doesn't explicitly put slavish souls into a biological category, but their essence differs from other members of the species giving a sub-species "kind" with essence; — Moliere

Yes. That's not in itself wrong - we do the same thing when we classify certain people as incompetent. What matters is what happens next.

I take it that no one can actually perceive a slavish or masterful soul, that there must be markers for that, and things like being non-greek would work for that. — Moliere

One might suspect that. But does the actual practice reflect that? For now, I can produce:-

There were four primary sources of slaves: war, in which the defeated would become slaves to the victorious unless a more objective outcome was reached; piracy (at sea); banditry (on land); and international trade. — Wikipedia - Slavery in Ancient Greece

In the case of the first three sources, a ransom was often sought as the first resort. In the case of the last, the actual enslavement would have happened elsewhere. I think it's pretty clear that although barbaroi were not excluded from slavery, they were not specifically targeted - as they were in the 18th century.
It's curious, thought, that Aristotle's criteria don't seem to have figured in actual practice at all. Perhaps we should give him credit for trying to introduce some criterion other than brute force.

I don't think it unreasonable to think that Aristotle prefers Greeks of the upper echelon, — Moliere

I don't deny that for a minute, either. I'm sure he also preferred Athenians to Greeks from other Greek cities as well. They were treated as foreigners, weren't they?

I don't deny that for a minute. I just think that we should acknowledge that his version wasn't based on race. In other words, the 18th century version not only attempted to justify slavery, but did so on racial grounds. — Ludwig V

Yes. That's not in itself wrong - we do the same thing when we classify certain people as incompetent. What matters is what happens next. — Ludwig V

Yes I'm being anachronistic -- there are some differences that are worth noting: Aristotle didn't use 18th century racial categories, and the practices of slavery were different between the eras.

And I have some work to do on what counts as a proper theory of race in order to make this point -- I'm reading in-between the lines with a generic notion of race which seems to have a conceptual match.

The concepts that are similar enough (and since they're embedded in a larger philosophy they're more interesting that some plantation owner who makes the case):The way he talks about slaves in the passage I quoted. Going back to proletarinizing the Irish (so, not even a case of slavery, in the practices, but it's still the same kind of cruelty and reasoning I'm thinking through): The character of the Irish is that they are lazy and so must have their land taken from them so that English capitalists of better character force them to be productive for their own good.

I don't think that we make the same judgment of another person when we say they are incompetent because we're not judging whether their character is such that they are naturally incompetent: it leaves open the possibility of learning, as well as not making inferences about people who are of the same kind having such-and-such a character.