I've got more plans than the balanced trade one, but I've got no big plan to fix the world. Every plan to fix the world creates new problems, and the bigger the plan, the more surprising the new problems are likely to be.
You're the guy with the big plan for solving the world's problems. I'm just suggesting some organizational impediments you might run into.
I get that impression, but to read the suggestions, I have to first see what sense I can make of it. The suggestions reside within a distinctive frame of reference, and so I have to see what terms translate directly to one I am comfortable working with, and what changes when moving from the one to the other. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
That's a fundamental concept in complexity theory. If you recognize that, then you have a basic framework to work with.
Solutions to problems are like karma, they create sets (or waves, if you will) of reactions that can and usually do become new problems.
Hierarchy is one recognizable result of efforts by a group to solve an increasing complexity that results from attempts to solve problems.
Managing hierarchy then becomes another problem.
Competition and margins of return in a capitalist system, for instance, can be seen as organizing principles that drives efforts to solve problems, and to create more efficient management strategies.
One of the driving forces behind this is the very initial efforts to control nature, as in the onset of agriculture.
I'm just suggesting these are some basic principles to take into account. It seems to me in looking at them they have their own ontological logic that takes place once a process is underway and groups of people involved become systemically committed to the solutions. "I would pillow myself on the stream, for I'd like to cleanse my ears" - Sun Chu (218-293) Chinese recluse
