The Evolution of Leadership and Government

How do schools of fish know which way to go?

Fish maintain orderly schools and swim in the same direction by paying attention to what their neighbors are doing and by following those fish that are most determined to go in a particular direction. If a fish is determined to go in a particular direction, there’s probably a good reason for it: a predator has been sighted and they are determined to get away from it. Not every fish in a school can see a predator, so it’s a good idea to follow those fish most determined to go in a particular direction.

That’s pretty much a perfect definition of leadership. People follow those who are most determined to go in a particular direction. It doesn’t matter what that direction is, so long as the person is most determined to go in that direction. This is why people follow all leaders, whether they be in government, in business, or in cults. The problem is that when you end up with a high level of cognition such that you become fully self-aware, you are then able to make the mistake of thinking that just because a large number of people is following you, that you’re going in the right direction. Which only makes you more determined to go in that direction. Which draws in more followers.

This is the case throughout the animal world. We see it again in flocks of birds, but we also see it in herds of antelope, and we even see it in humans during riots. Further, we see it in the complex social structures of certain mammals, particularly in primates such as chimpanzees. We used to think that the alpha in any group of social mammals became the alpha to get the best breeding opportunities. However, genetic testing showed there was literally no reproductive benefit to being the alpha, to being the leader. The benefit of the alpha is simply that everyone does what he/she wants everyone to do. They get the right to be the one who will get to be the one most determined, rather than some random individual. In an emergency, it can still be some random individual, but during the rest of the time, the alpha is always the one everyone looks to as the one who will determine in which direction everyone goes.

This is literally the bottom line when it comes to leadership. In business, you usually get followers by hiring them, so it doesn’t quite work in the same way, but in cults, religions, and government, that’s literally what happens each and every time. There is someone who is determined to go in a particular direction, and people follow. There may be “reasons” we have for following that particular person in that particular direction, but all too often it’s a matter of popularity and tribal loyalty. It has nothing to do with truth, nothing to do with justice, nothing to do with reason. We justify our desire to follow, we rationalize our desire to follow, meaning we give reasons after we’ve decided to follow, but only rarely do we follow for rational reasons. We are at root fish following those most determined to simply go in some particular direction.

On the Origin of Law

Laws (all laws in general, including laws of the universe) emerge from the interactions of the elements of the system. With humans, it is interactions within a social system that first give rise to custom-laws, which then develop into government-laws. Government laws are written down codes that have developed in the society at large. Nobody is actually inventing new laws ex nihilo, but rather observe laws emerging, then give then a name. I think if we truly understand the origins of laws, we will be able to more fully understand their role (and what their role should be) in our lives. Should every custom-law be turned into a government-law? Which custom-laws should be? Which should not? Are there some laws that are created in order to create new custom-laws? Are bottom-up laws better (or always, or necessarily better, if they are better) than top-down laws? (My own opinion: they are. Why? Because of the nature of complex systems. Though this does not mean that we don’t need the occasional top-down corrective of bad bottom-up custom-laws.)

What does it mean for the understanding of law and justice if we take a complex systems approach to understanding the origins and consequences of law?

A Few Observations on Oil and Alcohol

Basic economics shows that we will never run out of oil. As we use up the supply of oil, the price will go up. This will make it more economical to locate and drill harder-to-reach reserves. Higher oil prices will also result in the creation of alternatives, as it will be worth looking for and developing those alternatives. Over longer periods of time, as oil gets used up and the price of oil goes up in response to supply, less oil will be used, and more alternatives will be created, until we are completely converted to the alternatives — sometime before we ever use up all the oil. There will eventually be a price where nobody cares to get any of the oil, and what is left will stay there. Thus, we will never, ever run out of oil. It’s basic economic principles. There will be alternatives.

The car, for example, is an alternative to the horse. A plane is an alternative to either one. A computer is an alternative to the abacus, to pen and paper, etc. During the bronze age, who would have thought of iron as an alternative? The microwave is an alternative to fire. Petroleum, when whale oil became expensive due to a shortage of whales, became an alternative. Some of these pre-existed. Some were invented later.

An alternative in the economic sense is not necessarily something that replaces another object exactly. When we run out of oil, it will become more economically feasible to come up with alternatives — many of which, like so many things in the past — haven’t even been thought of yet.

I have no doubt that it will happen, because it has always happened. Always.

Now one may object that all the alternatives to oil have, so far, been inferior. But just because they have been inferior so far, that doesn’t mean they will continue to be. Many falsely assume that the price of oil will remain constant, meaning people will continue to use it as the same rate, until it runs out, and that nobody will have any incentive to find alternatives. But, again, as the price of oil goes up as supply goes down, it will be economically viable to find better alternatives. What we are getting now is government-subsidized alternatives — so we shouldn’t be surprised at what we are getting. Things will change when market pressures create an actual demand for real alternatives. These new ways of doing things won’t be done with government — unless there is the coincidence of creating a bomb whose power source can also be used for energy production (i.e., nuclear power). I’d rather the market find a solution than to have the government bomb its way into one.

And this brings me to government-subsidized alcohol. Is it really a good idea to turn our food into fuel? That just seems like a bad substitute right on the face of it. One could argue that it’s also a bad idea to wash cars, since that uses up water we could be drinking, but we need to beware of false analogies. There is much, much, much more water than there is corn. If we wash our cars, it doesn’t raise the price of water enough not to drink it. But the rise in the price of corn that has already occurred has resulted in problems in Mexico with availability of corn for tortillas, driving up the price of a main staple there — among some of the poorest people. Further, it has driven up the price of meat, because corn is a food for chicken, pigs, and cows. When the price of feed goes up, the price of meat goes up. This, again, hurts the poor far more than any other group.

So, again, it is incredibly stupid to use food to fuel. And it hurt the poor. But that just means that ethanol is just another thing liberals have latched on to that causes harm to the poor. When your every economic policy harms the poor, one begins to wonder why you want so bad to make their lives worse.

The Kingdom of God

Once upon a time, Barack Obama asked a church audience in South Carolina to help him become “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth.”

I do not like such rhetoric coming from either conservatives or liberals. Think about it: what would you do to achieve heaven on earth, if you really though it possible? With conservatives, it is often a question of personal ethics. With progressives like Obama, it is a question of economics. Do not be mistaken: Obama’s concerns as President were materialistic, not spiritual. We were fortunate he didn’t actually do much during his eight years to try to fulfill that rhetoric. To the extent Obama was a successful President, it’s only because of the extent to which he was a failure at getting his vision enacted.

We have seen many attempts throughout history to make a Kingdom of God here on Earth. If Obama had meant what he said, he would have aligned himself with the likes of Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Chavez in their attempts to create a Heaven on Earth. The implications are troubling: each of these men attempted to in a real sense “finish God’s work” which He had poorly done of making the earth and human beings in it. If you are a Christian, Muslim, or Jew especially this should be most troubling. What person has the right to assume that God’s work on earth is incomplete and that they know how to make heaven on Earth? And for an agnostic or atheist, this should sound at best silly, and at worst dangerous.

But there are still those who buy into utopian visions. Impatient for Heaven, people want to create it on Earth. And I would venture to guess that their vision in no way matches that of Heaven itself. No, it rather is a vision of their own making. “If I were God, this is how I would formulate the world.” And indeed, the secular religion of Leftism/Progressivism which defies government now that God is dead are precisely interested in making the world in their own image. And it doesn’t matter how good a person someone is, or how moral or ethical, or how well-intentioned (oh, beware of the well-intentioned!). What is at issue is the disconnect these people have with the world. They abide by Marx’s dictum that “The point is not to understand the world, but to change it.” This is a recipe for disaster. And it has been, repeatedly — some more egregious than others. No, the point is to understand the world before you understand how you can change it to get the actual outcomes you seek. This, of course, assumes that a politician’s intentions are to realize the goals he seeks, and not to merely gain more power for himself.

One last word for those who still think we should try to create Heaven on Earth: we have—as William Blake rightly observes in “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell”: “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite.” And prior to that, he observes that if when the world is cleansed, “the whole creation will be consumed and appear infinite and holy whereas it now appears finite & corrupt.” And there is the point: the world appears to us to be finite and corrupt, when it is in fact infinite and holy. If you cannot understand that the world is in fact and already holy—if you agree that we can and should try to make “Heaven on Earth”—then you need to have your doors of perception cleansed. To paraphrase Heraclitus: “Men have supposed some things to be unjust, others just, while God sees the world as beautiful and good and just.”

Zero Sum Games

In a free economy everyone has the opportunity to get better because the economy is a non-zero-sum game.

Most people in developing nations would rather be poor in the U.S. than middle classed in their own countries. And it’s because the working poor have it better off here than do most people (except the ruling elite, of course) in developing nations.

Certainly the U.S. isn’t perfect, and it doesn’t have as free an economy as it could and should have, but its relative freedom allows for a positive-sum economy that makes it possible for all boats to rise. I don’t particularly care if other boats rise faster, either, as that sort of “fairness,” or egalitarianism, only pushes the economy toward increasing zero-sumness.

The point is, in a free economy, I am not hurt in any way, shape, or form if there are others who have more than I do, because they are not taking anything from me in a positive sum game. Their wealth does not impoverish me. To complain about someone else’s wealth is like complaining about someone else being ethical, as though their being good somehow prevented me from being good. The first attitude resulted in the gulag, and the second attitude resulted in the attacks by the Islamic terrorists on 9-11.

The bottom line is that the belief in a zero-sum world has resulted in a lot of deaths, and will continue to do so until we recognize that the world isn’t a zero-sum game, and never has been, and never will be.

The Global Social Network

The human brain has a network structure that is both local and global. There are small, local modules that perform certain functions, and they are typically close to other modules that support those functions. But there are also huge neurons known as giant fusiform cells that allow for global connectivity across the brain. Giant fusiform cells are only found in the apes, and they are found in the largest number in humans. This combination of local and global that reaches a high degree of complexity in humans is what allows for the high intelligence of apes in general, and humans in particular.

There have been moves across the world–most notably, the EU–to create more globalized, more centralized political structures. Roger Scruton argues that we shouldn’t do away with the nation-state so easily, and he argues that it’s the highly-globally-connected wealthy elites who are pushing for things like the EU and even more global governance. At the same time we are seeing a push for a stronger EU, we are also seeing a pushback with the Brexit vote last year, and also more and more desire for local political control, especially in Spain and the U.K. With many of the independence movements, though, there is a simultaneous desire to remain part of the EU.

We can understand this by thinking about the network structure of the human brain. The global elites who are more comfortable with each other than with their countrymen are the equivalent of the giant fusiform cells. The problem arises when they think the world ought to be just like them. But that’s not the reality among human beings. A brain of only giant fusiform cells wouldn’t be a healthy, productive, or likely living brain. Most people are, like most brain cells, part of a local, specialized area. They have their own local culture, religious beliefs, and industries, among other things. And they persist in the face of global culture.

The point is that those who wish to have a more globally connected world are right, and those who wish to maintain their local cultures and mores are right. We need to be both more local and more global–and have many areas of unity in between. We need a global civilization where the Scots can be Scottish, the Welsh can be Welsh, the English can be English, and they can all be British; where the British can be British, the French can be French, the Spanish can be Spanish, and they and the rest of Europe can also be Europeans. And all regions can have a weak connection through the UN. We need strong local cultures as well as natural classical artists with global reach. We need all of this simultaneously. The more the globe evolves to match the network structure of the human brain, the healthier humanity as a whole will be.

Proposal For A New Check in the Old Checks and Balances

Politicians need to be held responsible for when the passage of a law has negative results. We cannot trust voters to vote the bums out — it’s never MY Congressperson who is the problem, but the Other Congresspeople who are the problem (much like, it’s not My School that is not giving children a proper education, it is all the Other Schools that are the problem — no, it is absolutely YOUR SCHOOL!!! that is the problem, and until we admit that, there will never be true education reform in this country). Further, just because someone passed one law with negative consequences, that doesn’t mean that other laws one’s politicians passed didn’t have positive consequences.

Thus, I propose that individual lawmakers be held legally liable for the laws they pass, and the proven negative consequences produced. Thus, if a law is passed that results in an increase in the crime rate, and it can be proven in a court of law, each lawmaker who voted for it will have to pay a fine that makes up for the cost of the law they passed.

I would venture to say that having the ability to hold lawmakers responsible this way would make them think twice about passing any law — unless they had a fair amount of certainty it would have the desired effect(s). Thus, there would be no more of this nonsense about the lawmakers having “good intentions,” no matter what the outcome may be. Lawmakers should be interested in good outcomes, not good intentions. There is a very subtle form of immorality in supporting good intentions that have bad outcomes (remember what the road to Hell is paved with). I say it is about time our lawmakers were held responsible for their actions — and not just with the voters, but in courts of law.

Of course, such proof is at best difficult, especially since so many people will outright reject any sort of economic thinking that will likely have to underlie proving the outcomes in question. And even if that weren’t difficult, I wouldn’t expect any lawmaker to ever support anything like this.

Satire

I made the mistake of reading one of Juvenal’s satires. There is so much fodder right now in the world. So much fodder. And it has historically not been good news for a society when the satires begin to get written. So, shall I begin?

And where to begin? I’m almost tempted to just run through each and every Senator and Congress person. Then hit the White House and the Supreme Court, move on to various states, various social leaders, issues of education — here I have a lot to work with, since my wife works in a public school, and I have worked in a charter school, a public school, and as an adjunct professor in community colleges and universities. A blessing and a curse all at once. So much to work with, so little time to work.

So much work to do, so little time to work. I need a patron. Then I could do the work I need to do. Anyone out there want to be a patron of the arts? Of philosophy? Of an up-and-coming vicious satire?

I’ve always thought the doomsayers were full of it. But I’ve seen too much of late, I see the wheels of history turning in a way that they have turned before. The barbarians are at the gate, and they are being let in by those so weak they don’t want to offend anyone. Even those who claim to be the strongest are weak beyond compare. The most terrifying difference is that the barbarians are also the most educated among us. On 9-11 we were attacked by a cadre of the college-educated. They were not the poorest, they were not the least among us, they were not even desperate — they were highly educated, highly motivated, and highly religious. This is a religious war. Those who say otherwise are those who have never had religion in their lives, and have no idea what it is even about, who don’t think religion has any real effect on peoples’ lives. It is these people who will the death of us all. Well, them, and others like them — people like the late Hugo Chavez and his worse successor and Kim Jong-Un– who only plan, like the dogs they are, to make cynical use of others’ religious fervor.

I’ve been all over the place — or have I? The satire seems to have begun a little earlier than I originally thought.

Defending the Con

When a con-man is found out, his first defenders are almost inevitably his victims. No one wants to admit to themselves that they are gullible, that they’ve been conned, that they’ve been fooled. It takes a mountain of evidence to break down a person’s ego, and even then you will find defenders among their victims.

There are some institutions out there that are particularly attractive to con-men—to sociopaths generally—and the most attractive institution of them all is elected office. Especially in a government that has power over the economy. When you hand governments a great deal of power over people’s lives and reward politicians for sociopathic behaviors, you should expect to find a great many sociopaths there. Worse, even those who aren’t sociopaths will act like sociopaths because of the incentive structures of elected office.

Of course, many will deny that we primarily elect sociopaths or those who are willing to act like sociopaths to keep office (and power). These are the victims of the con-man defending the con-man. The real problem is that you’ve been fooled all your life, and it’s too embarrassing and shameful to admit you’ve been fooled all your life by a much of sociopaths using you for their own self-aggrandizement.

Unstable Stabilities and Stable Instabilities in Government and Economy

The only stable political or economic systems are unstable ones. Conversely, the most unstable political and economic systems are those designed to be most stable. A paradox? Only if we accept a view of the world wherein order begets order, and disorder begets disorder -– a linear, rationalist, Newtonian world since disproved by complexity theory.

Complexity theory shows that growing systems are nonlinear systems that exist on the borderlands between order and disorder. Complete order –- and complete disorder –- are both definitions of being dead. A salt crystal is an example of complete order –- a gas in a closed container at a constant temperature and pressure is an example of complete disorder. Living things exist on the edge of order and disorder, the realm of chaos, wherein lies the principle of growth. Living things are systems, and systems have order and disorder –- the heart is a system (that makes up part of the circulatory system, which makes up part of the organismal system) that can have neither completely orderly beats, nor completely random beats, but must have beats that are mostly orderly, with some disorder, which means the beats are fractal. Cell membranes are orderly and disorderly -– they are liquid crystals, fluid yet solid, as the proteins and phospholipids slip past each other. All living things live on the principle of growth, live in the realm of order and disorder, live lives far from equilibrium.

If the principle of growth and stability for life is in the nonlinear, far-from-equilibrium realm between order and disorder, this would also be the principle of growth and stability for systems of living things as well, including superorganismal systems such as ecosystems, economies, and governments. Indeed, studies of ecosystems show they are not stable –- at some sort of equilibrium –- but are in fact always in flux, always changing, in time. And the way they change follow power laws – with many small changes, a few medium-sized changes, and very few large changes, as we see in avalanches of sand when we pile sand up one grain at a time. They are systems that are far-from-equilibrium, always growing, in a state of orderly disorder – disorderly order. If something were to happen to make any given ecosystem stop changing – which is to say, stop growing – that ecosystem would die off. Ecosystems are stable only so long as they are constantly in flux, constantly changing. Thus, they cease being the ecosystem they are within the next moment, forever changing –- deserts move in and recede, forests expand and recede, grasslands too expand and recede. Meandering rivers cut off oxbow lakes where new kinds of fish evolve -– to be introduced to the river when the meandering river merges again with the oxbow lake. There the new fish compete with the other fish in the river, pushing some to evolve, others to go extinct, others into other habitats. They change as the river changes, flowing into new species with the flow of time and the flow of the very river in which they live.

A stable government is thus an unstable government. Any government that constantly changes -– every two or four or six years, in towns, counties, states, and nations -– is a government that is stabilized by this instability. Who is in charge in such a government as that found in the United States?

The President, who is there four or eight years at most?

The Congress, made up of two Houses in conflict with each other, whose members could be there only two or six years, but who may be there any number of years from two years to two decades?

The Court system, which can overturn even what these two branches of government pass?

Or how about the states, which are given (according to the Constitution, even if this is not true in practice anymore) all the power not explicitly given to the federal government?

Or is it the people, who elect and defeat people who run for office at the town/city, county, state, and federal levels?

All of them, and none.

The system is kept destabilized by the very process of election -– stabilized by varying degrees of continuity (two and four and six or more years, as the case may be). There are power laws of continuity that prevent power from existing in one set of hands for long, if at all. The most stable political systems are indeed those based on the principles of power laws –- many people have most of the power and have the most cumulative effect, middle-sized entities have less power and less cumulative effect, and the federal government has the least power of all, and the least effect on us.

Do you not like what the President does? He is gone in four years (if he is too bad, in less, with impeachment). Do you like him too much? Too bad – we cannot reelect him more than once. We have prevented ourselves from electing our own dictators. And if the President tries to take on too much, to take too much power, the Congress will block him, refuse to pass what he wants. And if the Congress tries to take on too much, to take too much power, the President will veto them. And if they both agree to too much, the Supreme Court can refuse to let it remain law. We have them fight each other, trying to take power from each other, so they cannot harm the people, who prosper and grow. But the people only prosper and grow so long as the government is in a state of stable instability – as is found in republican (not democratic, where the power is placed in the hands of one group – and we get the tyranny of the majority) governments. Stable governments are based on power law distributions of power.

Stable governments create instability –- dictators create instability in their own countries, among their own people, let alone among the peoples in other countries. Often this is done precisely to create the stability inherently missing in dictatorial governments. Whether the dictator is ideological or nonideological, the results are the same –- they try to prevent change (change means a change from their rule, after all), which stagnates, creating equilibrium – which is to say, death. We have seen the cultures of death, the governments of death, in Hitler’s Nazi Germany, in the series of dictators in the Soviet Union, in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, in Pinochet’s Chile (though there is something to recommend in his economic policies), in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, in the dictatorship of minority rule in South Africa during Apartheid, and in and with the various kings and queens throughout history. They attempt to override and overcome natural power laws through the use of force -– many large avalanches are created through the use of a smashing fist. The democratic republics of the West and increasingly throughout the rest of the world have not always had the cleanest of hands –- but those hands were only spotted with blood compared to other times and other countries where dictatorships (no matter what the name) ruled, when rulers’ hands dripped with blood. While France, for example, has not had the best of reputations in the twentieth century in its former colonies, especially as they pulled out of them, at least the French people have been safe from the French government –- something that was not the case under their kings, the government of the Terror, or under Napoleon. Only as France has become more and more politically destabilized in their having now a representative government –- and are even more destabilized by becoming part of the European Union –- has France become safe for the French people. Thus has France become increasingly stable.

Economies too work on the same principle as ecosystems and government –- the connection between economy and ecosystem should be readily apparent in the common root of the two words. Economies that are designed to be stable –- the planned economies of socialist and communist governments, and even the over-regulated economies under interventionism and Keynesianism –- are themselves highly unstable.

Socialist countries around the world had and have high levels of unemployment.

Communist countries starved their citizens because they could not produce enough food, or properly distribute it –- during the 1980’s the Soviet Union had to spend 25% of its GDP on the military to keep up with the Unites States spending only 2% of its GDP on the military.

Welfare states slow economic growth in order to support the unemployed – those made unemployed by the slow growth created by the welfare state.

Subsidies keep unprofitable businesses around at the expense of the profitable businesses – Britain famously subsidized looms when the textile industry became automated, keeping unprofitable looms around at the expense of the textile industries, which could have caused the economy to boom even more than it did, absorbing all of those temporarily displaced by the economic changes (and those who are displaced by change are always only temporarily displaced, for the growing economy rapidly takes them in).

Every instance of a government anywhere trying to control the country’s economy has resulted in at best slow growth, at worst starvation and complete economic collapse. Any attempt to make an economy remain at equilibrium has had the same result: death.

The principles of a growing economy are the same as the principles of growth of ecosystems, organisms, and everything else in the universe –- the economy must be on the edge of order and disorder, in the far-from-equilibrium state where growth occurs. Growth must be based on power law distributions. The economy must be allowed to be unstable so that it may be stable –- stable enough to grow and adapt and change over time. It must have the rules of voluntary cooperation for it to have life (the imposition of force – which is what governments do –- brings entropy-as-equilibrium to the system, making it act no longer as a system), for it to grow and to produce and reproduce, to create, recreate, and procreate –- for these are the elements of growth.

Economies, like ecosystems and organisms, must be heterarchies –- both hierarchical and decentralized, full of nonlinear feedback loops. No one can control an economy any more than any one cell controls an organism (and, when one cell tries to take over an organism, it is called cancer – which results in the death of the organism). Even the brain dies without a working heart or liver. Yet, there is a hierarchy at work to create a living organism. The same is true too of economies –- which are constituted not only of individuals, but, in a power law distribution, of families making decisions together, and each church making decisions as a church, communities making decisions as communities, companies and corporations making decisions as companies and corporations, and even governments making decisions as governments (though it is best when their decisions are to remain out of the economy as much as possible, since they are more apt to try to control it than participate in it –- the only possible exceptions being doing things like building roads, which are more difficult to do privately, though one should note how, in a power law distribution, it is local governments that build and maintain more roads than do state governments, which build and maintain more roads than does the federal government, and which should all be done using only the “user fee” known as gasoline taxes, which I would argue should also only be used for roads).

In such an economy, it is not the individual, the family, or the various groups and entities that are in charge of the economy –- in fact, no one is in charge, or even for the most part has much of an effect on the economy as a whole, any more than does any individual member of Congress. Yet each individual and entity is necessary –- and an individual or entity can have a large influence on the economy, with the introduction of a new technology, etc. Two bicycle mechanics had a massive influence on the world’s economy when they invented the airplane –- yet think too of all the other bicycle mechanics who simply repaired bicycles, making tiny contributions to the economy that were, as part of the accumulation of economic activity, important, but only minimally important. But such innovations by bicycle mechanics could not be planned or directed by central command –- they arose because they were part of a system that, because it existed at a far-from-equilibrium state, could be influenced by butterfly effects. Only in such an economy could a pair of butterflies like the Wright brothers truly take flight.

If we want to truly have stable governments, societies, and economies, we have to have governments, societies, and economies that are inherently unstable, far-from-equilibrium, on the edge of order and disorder, wherein lies the principle of growth. For it is growth –- and growth itself is imbedded in time, and changes and evolves – that is the source of stability in the world. A growing organism is most stable, healthiest, most adaptable. The same is true of ecosystems, economies, and societies. When an organism, an ecosystem, an economy, or a society stops growing, it becomes unstable, unhealthy, and may even die. We know what the principle of growth now is – a growing system is a far-from-equilibrium system on the borderlands of order and disorder – meaning, we now know what we must do to have a growing economy and a stable government wherein the people are safe from that government, other governments, and even those citizens which wish to do others harm. Only to the extent than an economy and a government are both hierarchical and decentralized, and constantly changing in such a way that stability is created (by good rules, not by either ironclad laws or anarchy), can they lead to safe and prosperous societies and citizens.