Society/Culture Are hierarchies bad?

Remove this Banner Ad

Oct 2, 2007
42,485
42,026
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
So without a hierarchy, who would establish and enforce laws?

The democratic (i.e collective) liberal State. I've covered this already.

Wealth creates hierarchies. Should we make sure no one has more wealth than anyone else?

No, buty we sure as hell need to ensure those with more wealth are not able to use that wealth to oppress others.

This is why we have consumer protection laws, anti-trust laws, regulation of the market, residential tenancies legislation, ASIC, Consumer affairs etc etc etc.

Thats our Liberal State at work enforcing POSITIVE liberty.

Make sure everyone is equal! If you're a brain surgeon, you get paid the same as a barista. Because we can't have hierarchies.

That's not what I am saying. Quit the hyperbole.
 
Jun 6, 2016
19,309
12,031
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I'll say it again, just so everyone gets it. (if you wish, look up the word epiphany)

No hierarchy = no order and organization

No order and organization = chaos (if you wish, look up the word anarchy)

So in answer to the thread question, > NO <
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
The democratic (i.e collective) liberal State. I've covered this already.
So you're OK with hierarchies based on proximity to state power?

That's still a hierarchy.

But that's not toxic or oppressive?

No, buty we sure as hell need to ensure those with more wealth are not able to use that wealth to oppress others.

This is why we have consumer protection laws, anti-trust laws, regulation of the market, residential tenancies legislation, ASIC, Consumer affairs etc etc etc.

Thats our Liberal State at work enforcing POSITIVE liberty.

That's not what I am saying. Quit the hyperbole.
I'm just trying to ascertain which hierarchies you reject and which ones you think are worth preserving.

It turns out you're OK with hierarchies based on the distribution and exercise of state power.

And your calls for hierarchies to be dismantled and everyone to be equal don't apply to hierarchies based on monetary wealth.

It's weird because previously you said we don't need any hierarchies and we should all live in a collective where everyone is equal. But it turns out you don't actually want that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
OK.

You, me and Bob all rent a house.

We agree to share all expenses three ways, for an agreed on roster of chores, and for all decisions to be made via a majority vote.
That's great but it doesn't begin to address the more complex challenges of ordering a society.

What if Bob decides he doesn't want to clean the toilet. Can you and I compel him?
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,485
42,026
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Yes, everyone knows you like to pick and choose based on ideology.

If you think a liberal democracy is a hierarchy explain why.

Lets start with the definition:

A hierarchy (from Greek: ἱεραρχία, hierarkhia, 'rule of a high priest', from hierarkhes, 'president of sacred rites') is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) that are represented as being "above", "below", or "at the same level as" one another.

Hierarchy - Wikipedia
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Oct 2, 2007
42,485
42,026
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
That's great but it doesn't begin to address the more complex challenges of ordering a society.

It does, because I just explained how democracies work, and why they're not hierarchies.

What if Bob decides he doesn't want to clean the toilet. Can you and I compel him?

I presume so.

But again, the ability to sanction someone, compel someone to do something, or punish someone, or wield power DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE EXISTENCE OF A HEIRARCHY.

You're conflating [wielding power/ compulsion] with [hierarchy].
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I presume so.

But again, the ability to sanction someone, compel someone to do something, or punish someone, or wield power DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE EXISTENCE OF A HEIRARCHY.

You're conflating [wielding power/ compulsion] with [hierarchy].
If some people have more power than others, that is a hierarchy.

Police have more access to state power than you or I.

That is a hierarchy.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
If you think a liberal democracy is a hierarchy explain why.
Our societies certainly contain hierarchies which you apparently think should be preserved despite previously saying hierarchies should be dismantled.

Policing requires a hierarchy, ordered according to who has more access to state power.

The free market that allows folks to be paid according to demand for their skills also produces a hierarchy.

You like having a hierarchy on BigFooty, don't you? You like being able to issue thread bans. That's a hierarchy.

Are you against these hierarchies? Or just other hierarchies you've decided to condemn for nakedly ideological reasons?
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,485
42,026
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Of course it is.

No, it is not.

I could force you to give me your money at gunpoint. That doesn't mean you and I have formed a hierarchy.

A heirarchy:

A hierarchy (from Greek: ἱεραρχία, hierarkhia, 'rule of a high priest', from hierarkhes, 'president of sacred rites') is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) that are represented as being "above", "below", or "at the same level as" one another.

Hierarchy - Wikipedia

Understand? The exercise of power does not imply a hierarchy.

It's a different story if I (the King) direct you (the Baron) to do something.

If I (a random) direct you (a random) to do something, we're not in a hierarchy by simple virtue of me holding a gun to your head.

Do you see the distinction, yes or no?
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
No, it is not.

I could force you to give me your money at gunpoint. That doesn't mean you and I have formed a hierarchy.
That's called a crime. Our society doesn't sanction it.

A heirarchy:



Hierarchy - Wikipedia

Understand? The exercise of power does not imply a hierarchy.

It's a different story if I (the King) direct you (the Baron) to do something.

If I (a random) direct you (a random) to do something, we're not in a hierarchy by simple virtue of me holding a gun to your head.

Do you see the distinction, yes or no?
You're not making any point.

If you don't think policing requires a hierarchy, based on who has more access or less access to state power, you misunderstand your own argument.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
No, it isnt!

I've provided you with the definition now multiple times. I don't give a sh*t what you think a hierarchy is, lets talk about what the definition is.

If those with power use that power to form a hierarchy, we could talk.
That "definition" doesn't make any argument.

Do you really think that quoting the first paragraph of a wikipedia entry does the trick?
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,485
42,026
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
That's called a crime. Our society doesn't sanction it.

So what?

The point is the mere [exercise of coercive power] such as me forcing you at gunpoint to do something, does not imply (or require) the existence of a hierarchy.

They're not the same ******* thing.

Can you at least concede this point - [exercise of power/ coercion] does not a hierarchy make/ imply or require.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Of course it doesnt. But we cant argue the merits of something unless we're in agreement on 'what' the fu** it is we're arguing about can we?
A hierarchy is essentially an order. Some have more, some have less. That is a hierarchy.

Policing requires a hierarchy whereby some folks have more power, some have less.

That is a hierarchy.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back