Aloha! Thanks for your thoughtful response here.
One of the most common misunderstandings and judgements in modern society is against 'anarchy'. Many people relate to anarchy as 'dangerous' or 'selfish', when in truth it means only one thing 'no rulers'. This means that we all choose our own destiny without pressure from others - however, a requirement of this is that we don't pressure others too. We cannot have anarchy while anyone is pushing anyone around or telling them what to do. As soon as someone is violent to someone else, anarchy has ended. This has been drastically distorted in society by empire builders as they understand that 'the people' valuing anarchy means the end of their fun game of enslavement.
It's understandable to think that 'just the right amount of rules and control can bring peace' or can direct centralisation in the 'right' way. However, closer inspection uncovers that there is no way to do this without some voices being squashed in the process. Even the direct democracies of ancient cultures, which were far more balanced than todays phoney 'represenatational democracies', were still ultimately the vote of the majority against all minorities.
As long as there are 'leaders' directing the will of others, then the will in others is denied to some extent and this is not balance.
Balance is 'no part or aspect overpowering any other'. While there is centralisation there is overpowering, by default - it cannot be escaped.
Since it is pretty rare for true decentralisation to be seen on Earth (almost never), it is totally understandable that we will default, mentally, to the conclusion that some centralisation is needed. I am simply saying I disagree. :)
I think we are not using the term 'centralization' in precisely the same manner. I agree with your assessment regarding the general understanding of anarchy and am myself aware of its proper definition. What you describe here is almost exactly what Immanuel Kant presented with his Kingdom of Ends. This principle is a logical product of the Categorical Imperative.
To my mind good leadership does not direct the will of others but rather the organization of action taken for the benefit of the collective. When leadership follows sound ethical principles the outcome is good. Unfortunately this almost never happens. I make this distinction: A Ruler is someone who wears a mantle of authority and only takes up responsibility when circumstances force them to, a Leader wears a mantle of responsibility and only takes up authority when situations require them to.
I am making an educated guess that employees in your business ventures enjoy your leadership. The question I would ask is could your ventures function and provide the benefits (for all involved parties) without good leadership such as you provide. This is what I think of when I use the term 'centralization'.
Good to know, thanks - I haven't really studied well known philosophers.
The nature of will is such that any organisation of action that others participate in is inevitably also an organisation of the will of the others and direct pressure or direction of that will. There's no way around that. Just as it is rare for a leader to be ethical, it is also rare for a 'follower' to be completely aligned on all levels with the action they are given. They may feel slightly annoyed that they are doing some sub part of it - or annoyed that the leader has a certain tone that day - or whatever it is - they all create subtle or gross waves within the will that are repulsed by the commands from the leader. Typically, these impulses to dissent are denied and go undercurrent, causing the formation of sub and unconsciousness (plus discomfort and discontent). This is a big topic!
That's a great distinction, yes - that's probably the best we can do with these roles.
That's an interesting topic because I try to not have subordinates. I don't have any employees, I simply hire for short term needs as required. I see the people I work alongside as equals. In some ways, the fact that I am 'at the top' is just due to the way that it is unavoidable for someone to be at the top using the corporate businesses structures that society relies on. If I do make decisions 'for the company' then people can either go along with it or not - I aim to have zero control over them and to put up zero friction for them to move away if they want to.
Without me directing the business there wouldn't be a business. May aim when working with others is to either learn from their expertise or to pass on my own, so that we all become multi skilled and more able to help each other out. There isn't really a need for hierarchy and subordination in that, though I do realise that what I am describing isn't necessarily going to work in all situations in a similar way - such as where an architect works with 100 builders, most of whom are doing straightforward labour tasks that don't involve advanced physics and maths.
To distinguish more helpfuly here, I am highlighting the problem of individual will being over-ridden and putting it in the context of centralisation. Since centralisation is the default at the moment and always results in loss of personal will, I perceive that shifting the default to decentraliastion is worth a shot - in order to save the will from it's plight. The issue then becomes one of how groups of people can co-operate without being overridden. Completely voluntary interaction is a requirement for this and through denials and ingrained (dysfunctional) patterns, the centralised structures tend to always fail to prevent coercion etc.
I don't think/feel there is a solution to this other than each individual in society being self empowered. I think the result of that would naturally be decentralisation. :)
Thanks for the clarifications, I think I'm getting a better picture. I made the mistake of assuming your business was larger than a one person shop and I applaud your chosen path. I am a staunch proponent of individuality and promoting those around me in the hopes of a better world for all.
It seems to me that what we have discussed so far, the contrast between centralization and decentralization, is almost identical to that between dystopia and utopia. It also seems that we have at least some agreement that the dystopia of centralization is a very bad idea and that the utopia of absolute decentralization isn't feasible. For myself I have always sought what Aristotle called the Golden Mean or the middle way. And I believe this is in keeping with seeking balance.
In your reply to @eternaldreamer's comment you say, "We all have our own natures and not everyone shares a single 'human nature' by any means". I would contend that there is in fact a universal human nature, the very fact of being human is a commonality that suggests this, but as each of us is a totally unique expression of being human we each have a completely unique Character. This is precisely what the philosophical study of ethics is all about. In fact one of the 'laws' of human nature would have to be our individual uniqueness, which gives rise to the common argument that there is no universal human nature.
Also in that same response you point out the 'pyramid' of your Ureka.org community, Healing, Balancing and Evolving. I like it! That is a very simple analog to Abraham Mazlow's Hierarchy of Need, another pyramid which has Self Actualization at the top. The question that I believe we are trying to answer here is how can individuals effectively promote a paradigm shift that will allow for a positive evolution of society while maintaining balance between collectivism and individualism? The Hive ecosystem is an awesome start but what can we do to amplify and accelerate the movement?
"...how can individuals effectively promote a paradigm shift that will allow for a positive evolution of society while maintaining balance between collectivism and individualism?"
I think that's a very good way of phrasing the question. Or, how can we facilitate an intellectual and spiritual evolution that will ultimately render both centralized government and centralized economy obsolete?