Hierarchy Pitfalls

 

Humans, like all creatures, tend to form hierarchies or pecking orders socially, in businesses, in family and in governmental agencies.

 

The way it works is that the higher the rank in the hierarchy, the more those in the elite get the lion’s share of the money and power. That could be okay with a mom and dad in a nuclear family, or the head abbot of a monastery, or a master sergeant in the army. It is not okay for a mogul, a dictator, king or ruling elite.

 

Where the hierarchy, so top-heavy, turns corrupt, is when those at top have all the resources and power but they do not take care of the community on all levels of its existence and operation, and this is where injustice, class envy and class warfare are born.

 

There is no way to keep a hierarchy just and good permanently, but it can be kept efficient, just and good for decades, perhaps centuries, if carefully regulated, monitored and leashed. All hierarchies and the elites running them are constantly tempted to and give in to their corrupting impulse to ever gain more power and wealth for themselves at the expense of those they subjugate, hurt, oppress, exploit and attack. To reform or eliminate a corrupt hierarchy is very hard, almost impossible to achieve, and the victory is often temporary.

 

The best defense against the corrosive social tendency to grow and expand hierarchies until they cover the entire land is each person in society, as an adult, to be an anarchist, a maverizer and a supercitizen. These warriors flatten and democratize any hierarchy they belong to, obliterate it where it is not critically needed for societal survival. In the arenas of economic engagement, and career effort, person exercise and expression of liberty and self-improvement, these alert, determined warriors will grind down and devolve all hierarchies to their fewest number of levels in existence as possible to still carry out the agency’s function.

 

How does the universal law of moderation apply to ethical decisions in or with hierarchical social structures? Roughly a centrist position between two contrarian or contradictory opposites may be the most truthful, balanced or loving, with the major emphasis being slightly on one side more than the other. What this indicates is that a free people must not have too many hierarchies or too few, ones that are huge, sprawling with hundreds of echelons, or one so weak, one-leveled or depopulated of functionaries that it cannot do its social function.

 

Regarding moral codes, egoist choices and individualism deserve higher ranking than collective choices, needs or group rights.

 

Power should decentralized with limited allotments of power for anyone on any level of the hierarchy. The surviving, honest hierarchies will not house not many levels of rank in streamlined hierarchies, as most power and control should be the latitude of individuators anarchist employees of that hierarchy.

 

In terms of individual-living or group-living, individual-living is the ethical moderate choice, with group affiliations and identities coming in second.

 

Reaching out and inviting others to join your cause or faith cannot become a mandatory command with a threat of violence, imprisonment, torture, loss of income, status or independence unless they immediately, enthusiastically  surrender to your way of thinking

 No matter how noble the goals, to use force to compel others to your cause, to set up excessive hierarchies or to pack people into nonindivudating, group-living lifestyles, these are all violent, savage, uncivilized, passionate, extremist means that make people immoderate or evil. In such a social cesspit, sprawling hierarchies grow like mushrooms on a manure pile.

 

Using force against others and mandating pack-living go hand-in-glove with establishing excess hierarchies, so these immoderate social arrangements are natural but wicked, so we must structure society artificial te be a bit more like deinstitutionalized heaven is run.

 

We are to, as anarchist individuators, enjoy what power that we have and accumulate more knowledge, land, wealth, power and market share but not by monopolistically or unethically driving all competitors out of business.

 

We are to amass no more than our fair share, and of course that intentionally is a moving target so that liberty is given wide leeway. We are not hurt no one and allow no one to hurt us, and that is a centrist framing of the golden rule.

 

We are to worship slavishly no king, general, dictator, Party Chairman guru, politician or prophet.

 

The reason that I chide people endlessly about their innate depravity often expressed as addiction to power-amassing, even if it as a mindless automaton in a mob—mobs have real size, clout and negative power, but power nonetheless—is that poor power relations in their lives heads them right over to the Dark Side and the Dark Couple.

 

We are born in sin and drenched with sin: we can never trust ourselves or anyone else at all or for very long with elite hierarchical rank or amassed wealth and power. It corrupts all, no exception.

 

Only if we are humble and know that we are corruptible, are we relatively immune to such temptation to abuse and accumulate more power than we deserve.

 

We must ever, routinely monitor ourselves and all around us constantly to detect the moral rot of power sickness.

 

To live in a state of liberty while allowing or not thwarting neighbors also living in a state of liberty is a moderate, reasonable moral way to exist. Individuators , a huge upper middle class of millions of powerful, rich, power-wielders, that do not control their neighbors or allow their neighbors to control them—this power-sharing arrangement is not personal powerlessness in a mob or cause that is a huge ugly powerful Ego or an hierarchical immersion in a huge hierarchical society of groupists and nonindivduators.