Like you're not denying that there's something out there but you're denying that it can be called a 'hierarchy'.

Okay, define the "something" that supports the hierarchical view. I don't believe in it, so I can't define it for you, and if you want to convince me over to your side, you have to support the idea that a real hierarchy pattern exists that is not just a perception.

And here it seems to be a disagreement over what it means to 'exist'.

If you do not mean to argue that the popular perception of something equates to that thing actually existing, then we are, in fact, in agreement about what existing means. Don't you think?

If people act like there's a social hierarchy then having a notion of social hierarchy in your model of the world will allow you to predict those people better.

I agree with this, but that's not the context in which I originally stated that I don't believe in social hierarchy, and it doesn't confront my original statement that seeing a hierarchy in our social patterns is an illusion.

And if the survival of poor people is threatened enough, they'll kill all the rich people and take all their stuff. They do outnumber them.

Remember, in this scenario the rich people have ROBOTS.

Okay. Poor people can steal those, too.

I was thinking more about outbidding them at the food market.

Because a bunch of starving people are definitely going to wait in line patiently at the food market.

The scenario under consideration is that food-pickers went on strike, not total disorder and dissolution of society which the idea of violently competing for food implies.

Okay. All the food pickers go on strike. We've only got so much time till the food rots. Now what? If they don't get back to picking food soon, there won't be any food. If there is no food, society will dissolve. That was my point.