[Dr House]

Anarcho-capitalists need not apply.

It seems PredatorOC doesn't believe that anarchism entails the removal of the entire hierarchy and leadership structure. Help me prove him wrong.

[SecretSquirrel]

Anarchists want the removal of hierarchies based on coercion/force. They want the removal of all human interactions based on coercion and force, in fact.

Thats how I see it. I am libertarian or anarchist or what have you because I believe in the nonagression principle. There is no problem in my mind with hierarchies not based on violence.

[Dr House]

Anarcho-capitalists need not apply.

[SecretSquirrel]

so what exactly is the nature of the stick up your ass, then?

Anarcho capitalist is just a label people have given me. I told you what I believe in: abolition of coercion and initiatory violence. Thats it. Everything else just leave up to people to do if they feel like. Why you believe im so terrible for that I have no idea.

[Dr House]

You or any ancap (or an libertarian for that matter) responding to this thread is self-serving, thus a conflict of interest, thus gtfo. I made it with the specific purpose of confirming for the benefit of PredatorOC that my claim that anarchists intend to abolish hierarchy in all its forms is correct.

[pugsville]

Anarchism is a pretty broad term covering a lot of different points of view, many anarchists are often reluctant to define any real "party line", personally I relate to anarchy as a sort of zen philosphy. Most anarchists are in favour of orginization rather than "hirechary" and see "anarchism" as a more evolved form of orgization than hirecharies. A principle that voluntary orgiztions as the way forward but that the Individual has the right to work out side of that, that defaulting out of the non-system is a valid choice and right.

[Dr House]

where's abood when you need him

[DubiousDan]

Anarcho-capitalists need not apply.

It seems PredatorOC doesn't believe that anarchism entails the removal of the entire hierarchy and leadership structure. Help me prove him wrong.

You are as well informed on social theory as you are anthropology, House. The key elements in Anarchism are authoritarianism and compulsion. You can have any structure in place as long as the members can walk whenever they want without punishment. It can get confusing when people who claim to be Anarchists talk about consensus and direct voting, that’s only Anarchist when the results are not binding.
There is always the hierarchy of ability. Anarchism doesn’t seek to remove that, it would be folly. If you are going out on a war party or a hunt, if you want somebody to lead, that’s fine as long as anyone can opt out.
The reason that civilization and Anarchism are mutually exclusive is because civilization is based on law, or in the final analysis, the sword. Since most people can’t conceive of an existence apart from civilization, they can’t conceive of true Anarchism. That’s also why those people who believe in the indispensability of civilization are constantly trying to construct pseudo Anarchisms.

[Invictus_88]

As with any line in the sand with respect to "Anarchism", the answer is "Sometimes, maybe, but not necessarily, no".

[ninurta]

Just one small, rather gigantic problem, you can't have humans in such a system.

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

In what system?

[Abood]

where's abood when you need him

He arrives when the party is over.

I'm not an anarchist anymore, but here's my two cents:

Anarcho-capitalists like to draw a line between "natural" and "artificial" aggression. That line, of course, is arbitrary. They decide whatever is natural however they like. And if it's "natural", they think it's alright. Whereas if it's "artificial", they call it "aggression". But how is there freedom if the lack of choice is "natural" as opposed to "artificial"? What's the difference between a person being forced by a state to work and be beneficial for society and a person having a choice between work in two jobs that are equally as unfulfilling and without which s/he would starve to death? Any society in which a person is forced to work is an aggressive society. The only society that's not aggressive is one in which a person wants to work, voluntarily; in other words, a society where a person is not estranged from his/her labour. Any society in which people are estranged from their labour is a society in which people don't want to work and thus are forced to. Whether the reasons are economic or otherwise is irrelevant.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, where the economy is run by the profit motive, there wouldn't be a difference, as far as labour estrangement goes, from our current society. The desire to maximize profit would still make labour be taken from the workers. So if they didn't own their labour, why would they want to work? They would just have to work or they'd starve.

There can't be a hierarchy in a non-aggressive society. As long as there is hierarchy, people's labour would be taken from them and therefore they would have to be forced to work, because people naturally do not desire to work when they don't own their labour.

[ninurta]

In what system?

One with absolutely no hierarchy.

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

One with absolutely no hierarchy.

I probably just quotefailed. anyways.

If I throw a baby in the woods (deplorable as that may be) they don't exist in a social hierarchy. If they meet another human being, and they associate with each other, they can still live without social hierarchy.

But I come back: I tell them that I own the forest, and if they want to keep living there, they have to pay rent. They work for me, and I collect a profit. Now I've established a social hierarchy.

It's not necessary. The two people in the forest could've existed socially sans hierarchy for their whole lives. Of course, I changed that in the scenario.

Rousseau once said something along the lines of:
"Men are born free, and yet everywhere they are in chains."

I'm not an anarchist anymore, but here's my two cents:

Out of curiosity, what would you call yourself?

[Abood]

Out of curiosity, what would you call yourself?

Libertarian Marxist.

[ninurta]

I probably just quotefailed. anyways.

If I throw a baby in the woods (deplorable as that may be) they don't exist in a social hierarchy. If they meet another human being, and they associate with each other, they can still live without social hierarchy.

But I come back: I tell them that I own the forest, and if they want to keep living there, they have to pay rent. They work for me, and I collect a profit. Now I've established a social hierarchy.

It's not necessary. The two people in the forest could've existed socially sans hierarchy for their whole lives. Of course, I changed that in the scenario.

Rousseau once said something along the lines of:
"Men are born free, and yet everywhere they are in chains."

Just a few problems.
When you have one person, and sometimes two, a hierarchy doesn't form because there isn't enough people. That doesn't mean the hierarchical nature of the child's natural habitat (a society of people) doesn't still exist in his instincts

[DubiousDan]

Just a few problems.
When you have one person, and sometimes two, a hierarchy doesn't form because there isn't enough people. That doesn't mean the hierarchical nature of the child's natural habitat (a society of people) doesn't still exist in his instincts

On the other hand, you have offered no proof that there is an instinctive hierarchical nature in man. Since the most rudimentary social orders either lack it or have very little of it, and it is most prevalent in advanced social orders, it would seem that hierarchy is a cultural trait.

[Invictus_88]

One could easily argue that there is in inherent hierarchy in the parent and child, the teacher and the student, the experienced and the inexperienced, no?.

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

When you have one person, and sometimes two, a hierarchy doesn't form because there isn't enough people. That doesn't mean the hierarchical nature of the child's natural habitat (a society of people) doesn't still exist in his instincts

I think you're confused, here. Ending hierarchies does not necessarily mean that broadly status-based social orders would dissapeared. Their will always be someone better at one thing than another. The difference though, is anarchists want to end hierarchal decision making, and replace it with a horizontal model.

If one person is smart, and another person is dumb, we don't necessarily have a hierarchy.

Or do you think that the hierarchy would instinctively form, e.g. social relationships will always become constructed as hierarchies?

Or something else?

On the other hand, you have offered no proof that there is an instinctive hierarchical nature in man. Since the most rudimentary social orders either lack it or have very little of it, and it is most prevalent in advanced social orders, it would seem that hierarchy is a cultural trait.

Personally, I think it's cultural. This is exemplified in the differing values of hierarchies in otherwise similar societies, ex. Japan v. USA.

One could easily argue that there is in inherent hierarchy in the parent and child, the teacher and the student, the experienced and the inexperienced, no?.

In nuclear families, yes. However, marriage is not a natural institution. It's cultural, and the roots as Veblen understood them was war and exploit.

Horizontalist society would not codify teacher and student, or father and son, necessarily. For example, while the teach expects the student to learn things, the student can also teach the teacher through active literacy. However, modern education systems crush active literacy ...

[Dr House]

There can't be a hierarchy in a non-aggressive society. As long as there is hierarchy, people's labour would be taken from them and therefore they would have to be forced to work, because people naturally do not desire to work when they don't own their labour.

This is all I was looking for. Thanks Abood.