I have used these principles since 2013. I have never had any security problem related to Bitcoin — Tarskian

I have not used either. I had no protection whatever until 10 years ago. Now, I have a virus-checker (Norton). I have never had any security problem.

The power of the local ruling mafia is continuously being challenged by other political clans who want to replace them. If you've got nothing to do with that, you are simply of no interest to them. — Tarskian

... apart from your ability to pay your taxes?

The truth is that the only real, inalienable wealth is your ability to deal with changes in fortune and, in the end, to walk away from everything you possess and start again, using whatever you have to hand. That's not entirely bullet-proof, but it's as near as one can get.

Now, I have a virus-checker (Norton). I have never had any security problem. — Ludwig V

A well-structured operating system does not need a virus-checker. I don't have one installed, because it is irrelevant in my context. In fact, anti-virus software does not even exist for Linux because by design viruses cannot spread on Linux.

... apart from your ability to pay your taxes? — Ludwig V

In all practical terms, personal income tax is not even implemented outside the West.

They may theoretically have it on the books but almost no country outside the West has rolled it out in practice.

Instead, they have a final salary tax in the part of the economy that makes use of formal employment but that is just a (small) part of the economy. Normally, "small employers" are exempt. They usually also have a corporate income tax but "small businesses" are typically exempt.

There are many reasons for that, even just practical ones.

For a starters, half the population may be subsistence farmers who would not even be able to pay any personal income tax or who would be exempt anyway. They would also have serious trouble filling out the form. Secondly, they typically do not have a sufficiently complete population registry and address database, for them to send an income tax return to the entire population, let alone, to transient foreigners.

The ability to send out and process personal tax returns is in practice far beyond with most countries in the world can do.

And then you still have the problem of running after the masses of subsistence farmers and informal-economy traders such as street food vendors to get them to pay what they supposedly owe -- probably peanuts anyway.

Concerning foreigners, imagine that the local ruling mafia started harassing the foreign retirees here for personal income tax, or the digital nomads or the nomad capitalists? If just the rumor started spreading that they were about to do that, they would all jump on the plane to a neighboring country, be gone in no time, never to come back.

I do not have a TIN (Tax Identification Number) here and the vast majority of the locals do not have one either.

A well-structured operating system does not need a virus-checker. — Tarskian

Yes. If I had my time again, I would probably adopt Linux long before now. But it would be a big project for me and I think I have more pressing things to attend to. I'll have to manage as I am.

In all practical terms, personal income tax is not even implemented outside the West. — Tarskian

Fair enough. I thought there might be an answer along those lines. What about VAT or sales tax? It is not politically clever to apply taxes that each citizen must individually pay. The best taxes are not visible to voters. But then there's the moral argument that, just as there should be no taxation without representation, there should be no representation without taxation. So it's not easy.

In politics and government the hierarchy is artificial and conventional, not natural. So this type of hierarchy is not inevitable or born of necessity, but the practical and logical consequence of synthetic political organization.

What about VAT or sales tax? — Ludwig V

Again a question of company or retailer size. The large businesses pay it. The small businesses don't.

But then there's the moral argument that, just as there should be no taxation without representation, there should be no representation without taxation. — Ludwig V

Other taxes such as import duties are more important. Also, government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is much lower. The government simply spends less.

There was no personal income tax anywhere in the world until around the first world war.

Representation is an illusion anyway. Why pay for an illusion? Or give people the choice if they want to pay for that. I don't.

There was no personal income tax anywhere in the world until around the first world war. — Tarskian

Income tax was levied in the UK from 1799 to 1802, and again from 1803 to 1816. It was brought back - on a strictly temporary basis - in 1842. Somehow, Parliament has never got round to abolishing it. In the USA personal income tax was imposed from 1872. A new income tax statute in 1894 was effectively struck down by the Supreme Court in 1895. The 16th Amendment reintroduced it on a firm legal basis in 1913. It's always been unpopular and bitter battles were fought over it in the 19th century. I can't quickly find information for other countries.

Also, government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is much lower. The government simply spends less. — Tarskian

That makes sense. You get what you pay for. It will be interesting to see how things develop as their economies develop. Hint - The first welfare state in the world was initiated by Otto von Bismarck in 1883 as a remedial measure to appease the working class and undermine support for his political opponents. For clarity, he was a conservative politician, deeply opposed to socialism.

Representation is an illusion anyway. Why pay for an illusion? — Tarskian

If one doesn't think it is an illusion, one might pay for it. Or even, perhaps, one might pay for it even it is an illusion because it is a useful illusion.

In politics and government the hierarchy is artificial and conventional, not natural. So this type of hierarchy is not inevitable or born of necessity, but the practical and logical consequence of synthetic political organization. — NOS4A2

Yes. As cities got larger, new forms of social organization had to be developed. You could always go back to hunting and gathering. Not my choice, though.

Yes. As cities got larger, new forms of social organization had to be developed. You could always go back to hunting and gathering. Not my choice, though.

They didn’t have to. They just wanted to. Now we have to adhere to the hierarchy or risk being punished.

They didn’t have to. They just wanted to. — NOS4A2

Yes, I expect that there were people who were keen to take advantage. But the question is, could cities have supported that many people in a hunter-gather life-style? It's a complicated question and I think that a definitive answer would be hard to impossible to get. So there may well have been an element of choice. In some way, cities must have offered something that was desirable to everyone. What could it have been. Agriculture arose around the same time, so that might have had something to do with it.

Now we have to adhere to the hierarchy or risk being punished. — NOS4A2

Do you seriously think that hunter-gather bands were all sweetness and light, with everybody doing exactly what they wanted and no force or compulsion?

Yes, I expect that there were people who were keen to take advantage. But the question is, could cities have supported that many people in a hunter-gather life-style? It's a complicated question and I think that a definitive answer would be hard to impossible to get. So there may well have been an element of choice. In some way, cities must have offered something that was desirable to everyone. What could it have been. Agriculture arose around the same time, so that might have had something to do with it.

I don’t know why people in a city would want to support a Hunter/gatherer lifestyle. All I’m saying is groups of people living anywhere needn’t impose a hierarchy on others.

Do you seriously think that hunter-gather bands were all sweetness and light, with everybody doing exactly what they wanted and no force or compulsion?

No I don’t think that. I haven’t even mentioned hunter/gatherers unless it was to say I wasn’t speaking about hunter/gatherers. I’m only saying if a hierarchy is unnatural, it isn’t necessary. Political hierarchies are not natural but artificial and conventional.

Political hierarchies are not natural but artificial and conventional. — NOS4A2

Since most of the human race is dependent on them, I guess that makes us artificial. We made ourselves, with a lot of luck.

Political hierarchies are not natural but artificial and conventional. — NOS4A2

Evidence? Where in history is a human society not hierarchically ordered? I mean how could we even recognise it as a "society"?

Imagine pulling up in your colonial ship on the shores of Australia or America and finding just ... a crowd. Imagine the contents of Dubai or Singapore airport being dumped there as the native population. Everyone is just part of a sea of individuals with no structure of relations. And somehow that atomised existence has been the way this population has lived for centuries.

Wouldn't that just seem completely alien? Quite unnatural? Pretty much impossible?

So where is your evidence to support your assertion.

(And if you start talking about how networks beat hierarchies, hierarchies are just networks of networks – networks with nested hierarchical scale. Networks that are actually optimised in terms of their freedom of connectivity. )

I have never had any security problem related to Bitcoin. — Tarskian

Perhaps Sam Bankman-Fried should call you as a character witness then?

You would obviously feel it an outrageous violation of the bitcoin bro code that a ruling mafia in the form of the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York got him grabbed off his comfy couch in the Bahamas.

I mean bitcoin is just so secure. Who needs these exaggerated systems of security to secure the security of your securities once they have been adequately digitised and block chained?

It is not as if you could ever need the protection of the state when some gang ties you up in a chair and starts hacking your flesh until you give up the key to your digital wallet.

So sure, it is possible to live the transient life of a digital nomad. But it ain't some kind of alternative politics or superior moral order. It reflects the freedoms that are available in a world that has now growing equally complex and multifaceted in its hierarchical order.

For you to arbitrage the world in this fashion – optimise your self-interest in terms of not paying taxes, finding the least regulated communities to work remotely from, gloat about the naive local women, etc –
requires a world with that variety to arbitrage.

Got a passport? No ties? Fungible skills? Well you are good to go.

And big deal. The world only has to hang together slightly more than it falls apart. It's a simple statistical game after all. Although things do start to get slippy as your expectations of a return move from a no-interest stasis to an exponentialised no-limit growth.

Evidence? Where in history is a human society not hierarchically ordered? I mean how could we even recognise it as a "society"?

How many hierarchies have you formed?

How many hierarchies have you formed? — NOS4A2

Yep. You really don't understand hierarchies in any theoretical sense. Hence the idiot response.

I'll just note how you failed to back up your claims with evidence. Case dismissed. :up:

I know what a hierarchy is. My contention is that political and power-based ones are not natural. But you have to bring up vague associations like “human society”, which I suppose you believe is a hierarchy, to make your case.

Still nothing being said to back up your claims. Just some annoyed mutterings as you depart the scene. :up:

I wager the association between you and your friends, should you have them, is non-hierarchical, as is much of the association between you and the others you deal with throughout your life. I wager you don’t apply hierarchies to the vast majority of the people you comes across in your “human society”. Am I wrong? Or is it hierarchies all the way down?

Again, no point bothering me until you understand hierarchies.

I could explain to you of course. But you don't want to be put in the position that would reverse the little hierarchical power dynamic you hope to construct here.

(How much did you wager? How soon can I expect payment? :razz: )

It is not as if you could ever need the protection of the state when some gang ties you up in a chair and starts hacking your flesh until you give up the key to your digital wallet. — apokrisis

There is quite a bit of literature on the $5 wrench attack.

The reality is that there are no gangs that specialize in this crime, simply because other types of crime are much more profitable.

Seriously, how do you even find individuals who have substantial amounts of Bitcoin? There's no database where you can find how many coins I have. Such database simply does not exist.

It is much easier for criminals to target individuals with large bank balances. Criminals can get that information by hacking a banking server system or by corrupting bank staff or by intercepting mail or other communications, and they certainly do.

So sure, it is possible to live the transient life of a digital nomad. But it ain't some kind of alternative politics or superior moral order. — apokrisis

This life strategy acknowledges the very limited or even inexistent ability of the individual to improve his current political environment while emphasizing his very real ability to simply choose another one.

It is morally superior because it encourages the individual to do something about the problem instead of endlessly complaining about it.

gloat about the naive local women — apokrisis

They are not naive at all.

Supply and demand are simply different in their environment. Your personal SMV (Sexual Market Value) is very location dependent.

For example, a man who is 5 foot 6 inch is considered really short in North America and Western Europe, or even in China or South Korea.

This will act as a serious impediment to attract the kind of women that he would want to get with, even if he is technically still taller than them.

He could complain and lament his fate, develop all kinds of insecurities, and possibly even want to jump out of the window, but he could also consider the following information instead:

The average Guatemalan man is 163.4cm (5 feet 4.33 inches) tall. The average Guatemalan woman is 149.38cm (4 feet 10.81cm) tall.

Some people are good at solving their own problems while others are clearly not.

Some people are even insidious.

Instead of congratulating this man for successfully solving his problem, they will argue that he is taking advantage of these naive Guatemalan women.

WTF !?

Furthermore, life is not only about discussing pie in the sky.

If you have a problem, then solve it, instead of running around in circles. Life is unfair only to people who refuse to do something about it. In fact, that is not even unfair.

Maybe you could give me an example of “a structure of relations”, then? Maybe a picture of one that is not “atomized individuals”? You cannot because all you have are abstractions.

All I’m saying is groups of people living anywhere needn’t impose a hierarchy on others. — NOS4A2

Well, there's no-one forcing hierarchies on us. Unless you are positing that hierarchies are only ever formed because some individual decides to grab power. But, if that's what happens, why is it unnatural?
You may well be aware that Marx, in the 19th century, developed the ideas known as communism - there are many varieties of this. His theory was that we would, in the end, develop communist non-hierarchical societies.

In the 17th and 18th centuries it was popular to speculate about the origins of society. Various theories were developed on the basis of that society was created. See Hobbes' Leviathan 1651, Locke'sTwo Treatises of Government 1689 and Rousseau Social Contract 1762. There was much interest at the time in the "savages" discovered in the Americas who provided a model for this process. In the early years of the 20th century, it was realized that all "savage" societies were all working societies before Europeans arrived, so the idea of the state of nature has been abandoned for lack of empirical evidence. Nowadays, we are aware that many animals, fish and insects form societies naturally, so the idea that societies are a distinctively human idea has lapsed. It seems that we naturally form societies.
The question now is why societies have evolved, on the assumption that they must have some evolutionary advantage. Non-human societies have various structures; you can find details and examples on the internet. But I think you'll find that many, if not most, of them are hierarchical.

This life strategy acknowledges the very limited or even inexistent ability of the individual to improve his current political environment while emphasizing his very real ability to simply choose another one. — Tarskian

Yes. Many individuals have sought, willingly or not, to choose somewhere else to live. But colonization is over and many find it difficult to find another environment that will accept them. It helps to have a plenty of money. Without that, it is a very hard road even when you find somewhere else to settle.

It is morally superior because it encourages the individual to do something about the problem instead of endlessly complaining about it. — Tarskian

Complaining about things doesn't necessarily mean that you want to move. There are often good reasons to stay put even if there are difficulties to put up with.

The reality is that there are no gangs that specialize in this crime, simply because other types of crime are much more profitable. — Tarskian

It is almost as if crime believed in the statistical utility of risk/reward equations.

This life strategy acknowledges the very limited or even inexistent ability of the individual to improve his current political environment while emphasizing his very real ability to simply choose another one. — Tarskian

Dignify it how you like. Arbitrage is arbitrage. The issue is the strength of the presumptions you use to motivate your life strategy model. The interesting social science question is "does it scale?".

In the end, individuals can make their free choices. And the world is that which emerges as a consequence. The consequences of some particular choice being scaled to the level where it is a general choice then begins the feedback response. The choice being made may come to be regretted once everyone seems to be trying to do the same thing as you,

Of course, then you are free to switch to another course – to the degree other options remain unconstrained.

So there is no mystery or heroism here. It is just human civilisation evolving and learning. Until the wheels suddenly fall off as all the risk/reward calculations turn out to have been predicated on living in Mediocristan rather than Extremistan.

It is morally superior because it encourages the individual to do something about the problem instead of endlessly complaining about it. — Tarskian

Ah. Moral superiority. How hierarchical. How heroic.

"Do something" meaning "escaping having to do something". What you leave behind is beyond redemption. You just give up on it. And this defeat is inverted – by forming a network of the like-minded – as some digital nomad tribal victory.

I mean I perfectly understand the self-interested rationale you give. I just don't see that it can be glorified in political science terms unless it truly scales.

And to scale would turn it into ... a hierarchy. The tribe would become large enough to have its own clout. It could start to change the world around it to better serve its needs. It would develop a political voice. It would get laws changed to suit its preferences.

Already, in waving the banner of a new tribe, you are playing the very game you seem to want to claim you are escaping.

So fine. Digital nomad. It's a way of life available to you. It will either mesh well or clash badly with the larger hierarchy of the civilised world. Lessons will be learnt. Adjustments made. Same old systems logic applies. At least until the wheels properly fall off.

Your personal SMV (Sexual Market Value) is very location dependent. ...
Instead of congratulating this man for successfully solving his problem, they will argue that he is taking advantage of these naive Guatemalan women. WTF !? — Tarskian

It is clear that you hope to shock with this kind of bro-speak. But it has kind of lost that initial shock value it might have had. One dimensional thinking leads to a one dimensional life.

But I gave you that example. You failed to respond to it. And I can understand why. You have no real argument to make in terms of any evidence you can present. You cannot rise above empty slogans.

Anyway, imagine arriving on the shores of Australia to either be faced with the rich social complexity of its indigenous people or instead some actually random and atomistic collection of folk dumped out of the average international airport at a busy time.

Do you think you might notice a difference? Could you put a finger on what it was? In what sense would the critical distinction you might detect fail to meet a proper systems definition of hierarchical order?

These were the questions you were seeking to evade by pretending you hadn't been asked them.

But don't worry, I am not holding my breath for a coherent response. :up:

But colonization is over and many find it difficult to find another environment that will accept them. — Ludwig V

During colonial times, the colonizing powers strictly prohibited access from the motherland to the colonies, except for some colonies earmarked for settling purposes, such as North America, Australia, and New Zealand.

For example, you could not just settle in French Indochina from France or in Indonesia from the Netherlands. You needed permission based on a good reason to actually be there such as employment or an authorized business.

In fact, you were considered a liability by the colonial authorities, requiring expensive protection during local insurgencies or rebellions.

This problem no longer exists. The local population does not attack foreigners during an insurgency, because we are not politically associated with the local regime. The local powers also do not use us as a tool of oppression against the locals.

In fact, in my experience, every country where there is no serious excess of visitors -- think Barcelona and Venice -- tends to be welcoming, or even very welcoming to foreigners. They mostly treat you as a curiosum. They want to talk with you, go out with you, and so on.

There are so many places around the world where they are curious about foreigners and eager to get the opportunity to meet them.

These places are just not the ones where everybody goes to; exactly because everybody goes there already.

For example, in the Philippines, don't go to the Boracay island. Nobody is waiting there for you, because you will just be twelve in a dozen.

Go for example to Dumaguete on Negros island or Tacloban on Leyte island instead. There are lots of even more obscure islands in the Visayas that are even better for the purpose of being "popular" with the locals.

It has always been the policy of the government of the Philippines to allow you in all practical terms to stay in the country pretty much for as long as you want (if you don't cause trouble, of course).

During colonial times, the colonizing powers strictly prohibited access from the motherland to the colonies, except for some colonies earmarked for settling purposes, such as North America, Australia, and New Zealand. — Tarskian

Thanks for this. I'm glad I stuck to what I was sure of. Those countries were, of course, regarded as terra nullius because the societies there were not recognized as such. I'm not sure why. I'm pretty sure there was widespread settlement in Africa, though, as well. I forgot about that for some reason.

In fact, in my experience, every country where there is no serious excess of visitors -- think Barcelona and Venice -- tends to be welcoming, or even very welcoming to foreigners. They mostly treat you as a curiosum. They want to talk with you, go out with you, and so on. — Tarskian

I'm sure that's true. Less so when there are many immigrants, though. But there is still ambivalence, as one can see in the USA and Europe, especially Britain.

I just wanted to point out that picking up one's traps and moving elsewhere is not always an easy option.

I guess it depends one what kind of societies we’re talking about. A common trick is to conflate a state or nation as a society. I just don’t know how one consider such an aggregate of human beings a “society”, so I’ll stick to the simpler ones.

A natural society, to me, is kinship. It consists of people we know: family, friends, those we trade with, or otherwise deal with on a consistent basis. The activity that operates here is premised on largely social and voluntary cooperation. The hierarchies developed in such a situation, should there be any, are honed by experience and necessity, for instance the hierarchy of the family. Kinship develops naturally through association and common enterprise. Authority here is legitimate. These kinds of relationships are available to anyone, are visible everywhere, and are not just the remnants of Hunter/gatherers and savages.

An artificial society, to me, is one defined purely by dictate, for instance by law. It consists largely of people we do not know, will never know, and never have to deal with. The activity that operates here is premised on involuntary and anti-social cooperation, enforced as it is by coercion and punishment. The hierarchies developed in such a situation are contrived, imposed, and enforced, for instance the hierarchy of the state. A artificial society doesn’t develop out of association and mutual enterprise, but through conquest. Authority here is illegitimate.

That’s the only distinction between “natural” and “artificial” societies I’ve been making.

Remember that Aristotle thought the relationships between master and slave were natural. Do you?

But there is still ambivalence, as one can see in the USA and Europe, especially Britain. — Ludwig V

I am the only foreigner in my street, well, in the entire neighborhood, really. In fact, there are a few Chinese here, but they are not really counted as foreigners in Indochina. They are rather seen as something in between.

Unlike immigrants, digital nomads, nomad capitalists, and retirees are not looking for opportunities in the local economy. We are not interested in finding a job or setting up a business locally. In fact, we are mostly just spending money locally for a while before moving on.

If there are too many of us, it leads to gentrification, pricing the locals out of housing, and other local price inflation. The locals become less interested, less friendly, and in some cases even outright hostile. There are so many other places to choose from instead, that I do not understand why anybody would burden the local population by doing that. We can so easily avoid that. Just stay away from places that are too popular.

That makes sense. Though didn't I read earlier that you do take up some work or business opportunities from time to time? But I guess that's marginal.

It's a life-style choice. It doesn't happen to be mine.

Come to think of it, I have upped sticks and moved to somewhere new with no social links - apart from a job opportunity - a few times. So it isn't an all or nothing choice. There are options in between.

It seems to me, from the little I know about world history, that static societies do benefit from welcoming travellers and immigrant (and from their people travelling and sometimes moving out). On the other hand, travellers and immigrants do rely on ordered societies to move between.

One could discuss exceptions, like colonization of unoccupied land (though my guess is that has not occurred since pre-historic times) and imperialistic conquest. But they are exceptions.

So from the point of view of social philosophy, the best situation is for both patterns to co-exist.

That’s the only distinction between “natural” and “artificial” societies I’ve been making. — NOS4A2

OK. If you had explained this up front, it would have been clearer what you were saying.

A common trick is to conflate a state or nation as a society. I just don’t know how one consider such an aggregate of human beings a “society”, so I’ll stick to the simpler ones. — NOS4A2

Yes, those words do get used in very sloppy ways. It's complicated and there are many different ways to live.

Remember that Aristotle thought the relationships between master and slave were natural. Do you? — NOS4A2

Now, there's a tricky question. Let's stipulate that "master" and "slave" are social roles that are backed by law - i.e. backed by coercion. It would not be wrong to say, then, that if those roles are not backed by law, they cannot exist in that society.
But could master/slave-like relationships exist without the backing of the law? Of course they can. There are two kinds.
One is created when a group is formed to function in certain kinds of environment, like a ship's crew or an dangerous environment, like an dangerous journey or a war situation. (Civilian police and some other roles are also like this.) In those cases, one (normally) volunteers and, in so doing, accepts the discipline required. We could say that because it is (normally) temporary and one can leave, it is a temporary master/slave relationship, but I think that would be misleading.
The other is a certain kind of relationship that has come to prominence in recent years, known as "coercive control". It is not backed by law - indeed, it is banned by law in some countries. In many cases, it is virtually indistinguishable, apart from the lack of backing by law, from slavery.

You'll notice that I've avoided the question whether such relationships - particularly the second one - are natural or not. The reason is simple. If I say that they are natural, then the moral implication is that they are not immoral - that's why Aristotle said that master/slave relationships are natural. He was misled, of course, but he couldn't really be expected to know any better, since slavery, in his times, was more or less universally recognized and taken for granted by everyone whose opinion we know about. Nowadays, in most parts of the world, we think that slavery is immoral and consequently we would be very reluctant to say that it is natural.

However, many animal societies are structured by a dominance hierarchy (pecking order). These are not exactly slave societies, but they are dictated by coercion, or the threat of it. But it would be meaningless to try to apply our moral standards to them. However, I do think that we should not think that we can eliminate informal dominance relationships between individuals and within social groups. The trick will be to prevent them becoming slave-like relationships.

A natural society, to me, is kinship. It consists of people we know: family, friends, those we trade with, or otherwise deal with on a consistent basis. The activity that operates here is premised on largely social and voluntary cooperation. — NOS4A2

Certainly, there are such social groups. There are also half-way houses in which volunteers sign up for a common purpose which, for one reason or another depends on cohesion. That requires an acceptance of discipline and usually, in practice, some kind of hierarchy whether formal or informal. (I'll mention these again below.)
I'm not at all sure what you mean by "the family hierarchy". Did you mean that we don't get to choose our at least our first parents and we are subject to control until we grow up? Certainly, relationships with our birth/childhood family (-ies) are rather different from our family relationships when we start our own families and both are different from our friendship relationships; all those are different from our work and business relationships. Perhaps social and voluntary co-operation dominate, but they are not the whole story. (I don't say that you are wrong)

Now, could a state or nation (or nation-state) be structured in that way, largely free of hierarchy. The issue here is that we need to consider social relationships that extend beyond "kith and kin" - people you know and people you are related to by birth or "marriage" (in its widest sense)?
It seems to me, that since you don't know these people, they cannot work in the same way as your kith and kin relationships. There needs to be a formal structure to enable the kind of cohesion that is suggested by "society" and I don't see how that would work if there were not some kind of hierarchy, no matter how benevolent and co-operative. In practice, I think you will find, there always has been some kind of hierarchy in states and nations and that is suggestive.

In practice, I think you will find, there always has been some kind of hierarchy and that is suggestive. — Ludwig V

Yes, agreed, and not only amongst humans:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/these-4-animals-depend-on-leadership-to-survive

At the top of chimpanzee groups stands the alpha. How this male achieves this status can depend on his personality, as the Jane Goodall Institute explains. Some may arrive there due to sheer brutality and force. In short, many dominant chimps behave like “self-interested thugs."

Others can dole out favors – such as grooming – to build alliances with other group members. Once in a position of dominance, the alpha gets prime choice on mating and can halt fighting amongst those further down the social ladder.

How this relates to survival is uncertain, but those in the alpha’s coalition or with higher social rank can benefit. In chimp groups, however, being at the top is precarious, as the alpha must always keep a wary eye on those beneath him.

Primates live in gangs and follow the lead of a mafia boss. It's preprogrammed biology.