You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: a system engineer’s perspective: what system is better than capitalist democracy?
Such hierarchies are part of humanity and form under any political framework. Societies where some have the power to strip others of property and compel them to do, or not to do, things just means the power hierarchy is in the political class and not those who have accumulated wealth by serving customers.
And yes, human behavior and innovative spirit is infinite.
all hierarchy is, by definition, imbalanced. so when you say that hierarchy is effectively inevitable, you are saying that balance is impossible. that is untrue.
" Societies where some have the power to strip others of property and compel them to do, or not to do, things just means the power hierarchy is in the political class and not those who have accumulated wealth by serving customers."
-> i am not advocating for the power to give and take 'things' from people. if anything i am advocating for enlightenment of the form that recognises the spiritual truth of life on earth, such that we no longer accept that 'those whose ancestors once raped and pillaged the rest of the world enough to claim and own most of it' are able to continue artificially in the power position. if those who 'have it all', don't agree to co-create in a balanced way - then they will eventually meet a reflection of their denial of reality. i would rather that THEY meet their reflection than see a continuation of the disparity we see now, where a large percentage of humans suffer constantly and do not have what they need to live, often due to no fault of their own.
This is an interesting discussion and definitely makes you think :)
"all hierarchy is, by definition, imbalanced. so when you say that hierarchy is effectively inevitable, you are saying that balance is impossible."
#1 there's no such definition of hierarchy. Plenty of hierarchies can be balanced.
#2 Even the concept of "balanced" is odd in human relations; a process can be balanced over some range, but have boundary conditions after which it breaks. Nonetheless, human relations, desires, and environmental inputs constantly change, so i wouldn't declare some equilibrium to be an objective to maintain for the sake of it.
Great you're not advocating for power to violently change human relations! We should always advocate for peace and freedom.
i am glad you are injoying the flow!
"there's no such definition of hierarchy. Plenty of hierarchies can be balanced."
-> well, we are all free to create our own definitions in every moment - so unless you are mind reading every human, you are not in a position to know the sum total of all definitions currently being used. however, if we stick to 'the usual' dictionary definitions, we have something like this:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hierarchy
all of the definitions (removing the esoteric definition relating to angels) refer to status, authority, rank, economic level and so on - in one way or another. if everyone is considered and treated equally/fairly (without being hindered artificially) then there is no need or purpose in defining a hierarchy. hierarchy inherently performs as a means of control in one sense or another, where the 'higher ups' exercise control of some form over the 'lower downs'. if you can name what is a balanced hierarchy, in your mind - then i am fairly sure i can find a way to show that it isn't actually balanced.
" Even the concept of "balanced" is odd in human relations; a process can be balanced over some range, but have boundary conditions after which it breaks. Nonetheless, human relations, desires, and environmental inputs constantly change, so i wouldn't declare some equilibrium to be an objective to maintain for the sake of it."
yes, we constantly change. none the less, when some aspect of human interactions exceeds a personal limit and / or some aspect of the human is overpowered/denied, then that is imbalance. as an example - two people may be in a forest with some food bearing trees around and they both have enough. if one then decides to hoard all the food and not let the other have any, then there is imbalance (which started in the heart of the one deciding to hoard). this will result in feelings that are off balance, a tension and potentially a conflict. the balance points always need to be found for us to thrive and even survive and that you question the necessity of this on a planet that is almost so out of balance that none of us may survive is only a testament to how far away many humans are in their thinking from heading towards peace and contentment.