Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchy: Is Hierarchy Compatible?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 2:56:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've heard Anarchy most often defined as one of these three things:

- Anti-statism
- Anti-authority
- Anti-hierarchy

The first two are required to be considered Anarchy, certainly, however anti-hierarchy is not.

If hierarchy were a principle antithetical to Anarchism, then football teams would be unanarchistic. There's the team, then the coach, then the owner of the team. That's a hierarchy.

Or even in the work place. Hierarchy is necessary to get work done. People such as directors, managers, and supervisors are like coordinators, not authoritative rulers. There is a set of goals and their job is to assign the goals to the workers to complete. The workers don't have time to take on the supervisory role of organizing, planning, and assigning tasks. Workers are to be given tasks which it is also a task of the supervisor to give them.

Like I said though, you need coordinators, and then people to carry out the work. For example, you need an architect and then construction workers to carry out the work. It's both difficult and inefficient to be both architect and construction worker.

So is it possible to live without hierarchy and is it antithetical to Anarchism?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:02:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
How do you define authority? If you mean authority in the sense that governments have authority over their citizens, then why is this different from anti-statism?

So is it possible to live without hierarchy and is it antithetical to Anarchism?
It's certainly possible. You could live alone on a farm and grow your own food or something. I wouldn't consider it antithetical to anarchism. The only thing that would really be antithetical to anarchism would be the initiation of violence.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:10:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hierarchy can exist voluntarily in the form of hired managers and executives. They are not necessary for every firm, but oversight is necessary in most business models for efficient production.

Forms of hierarchy can exist under anarchocapitalism. Therefore, the answer is yes.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Agnapostate
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:17:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A short and brief post, as I can manage: No. The words themselves are incompatible. It's not possible to support both no rule (an-archy) and rule (archy), which is in the word hier-archy. It's blatantly contradictory.
Agnapostate
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:19:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The existence of "voluntary hierarchy," as with Block's concept of "voluntary slavery," is also contradictory, since the voluntary aspect implies freely given consent from the ostensibly subordinate party for their subordination itself, meaning that it's not a matter of true subordination at its root; it relies on the "consent of the governed." Of course, if something else is meant, such as consent given in the context of compelling pressures that constitute aggression, it's a legitimate manifestation of archy.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:25:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:17:05 PM, Agnapostate wrote:
A short and brief post, as I can manage: No. The words themselves are incompatible. It's not possible to support both no rule (an-archy) and rule (archy), which is in the word hier-archy. It's blatantly contradictory.
Etymology doesn't work as well as it should.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Hierarchy isn't by definition absent from anarchy.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:33:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Language is a consensus.

But there doesn't seem to be very much consensus at all about Anarchy.

For me, at the moment, Anarchy means the abolition of violence.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:40:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:33:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
For me, at the moment, Anarchy means the abolition of violence.

Do you mean the initiative of violence, or just violence? How could anarchist societies propose to defend themselves if its the latter?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:44:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:40:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:33:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
For me, at the moment, Anarchy means the abolition of violence.\
Do you mean the initiative of violence, or just violence? How could anarchist societies propose to defend themselves if its the latter?
In the modern world, who would attack an anarchist society?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:46:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:44:17 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:40:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:33:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
For me, at the moment, Anarchy means the abolition of violence.\
Do you mean the initiative of violence, or just violence? How could anarchist societies propose to defend themselves if its the latter?
In the modern world, who would attack an anarchist society?

Another society that wanted full access to any resources or land that said anarchist society was sitting on, unless of course the modern world is infinite in all respects.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:46:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:40:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:33:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
For me, at the moment, Anarchy means the abolition of violence.

Do you mean the initiative of violence, or just violence? How could anarchist societies propose to defend themselves if its the latter?

Non-violent resistance.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:49:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:46:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Non-violent resistance.

So if another force or group of people essentially said they were going to kill the lot of you with weapons and the like unless you did such and such an action, you'd sit there?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:50:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:46:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:44:17 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:40:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:33:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
For me, at the moment, Anarchy means the abolition of violence.\
Do you mean the initiative of violence, or just violence? How could anarchist societies propose to defend themselves if its the latter?
In the modern world, who would attack an anarchist society?
Another society that wanted full access to any resources or land that said anarchist society was sitting on, unless of course the modern world is infinite in all respects.
See: First Gulf War. A terrible idea for Iraq. Not likely to be repeated.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:51:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:49:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:46:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Non-violent resistance.

So if another force or group of people essentially said they were going to kill the lot of you with weapons and the like unless you did such and such an action, you'd sit there?

Is violence the only way to solve a dispute?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:52:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:50:32 PM, wjmelements wrote:
See: First Gulf War. A terrible idea for Iraq. Not likely to be repeated.

Except wjm, Freedo is advocating non-violent resistance. As far as I'm aware, the Gulf War was a fairly violent affair.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:53:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:51:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Is violence the only way to solve a dispute?

In terms of people who aren't willing to settle for anything less, yes. The fact that you can't consider violence in the name of defense whatsoever is a weakness to be exploited. I relish no violence, but you have to be prepared to use it if it comes down to it.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:55:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:52:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:50:32 PM, wjmelements wrote:
See: First Gulf War. A terrible idea for Iraq. Not likely to be repeated.
Except wjm, Freedo is advocating non-violent resistance. As far as I'm aware, the Gulf War was a fairly violent affair.
Would you consider Kuwait's defense significant?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:56:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If anarchy means anti-state, then the following people are anarchists:

Anti aggression
Anti violence
Anti authoritarians
Anti hierarchy
Anti law
Anti-societies-starting-with-S ("States")
Propertarians
Voluntarists

These are all sufficient conditions. None of them are necessary. So someone who is anti hierarchy might be pro violence. Someone who is against aggression might be pro law. etc etc...

The only argument I have heard out of left anarchists is that if you aren't anti hierarchy, you aren't an anarchist. Well? I oppose all governments that have ever existed or been generated with political theory. I do not think the cub scouts is a government and I do not oppose it. So what am I? Something between an anarchist and a statist? I don't want to rule over everyone so I can't be an authoritarian. I am ideologically indifferent to hierarchy so you can't say I am hierarchical...

If I am not an anarchist, I am totally confused about where I sit on the ideological spectrum. All I know is that "don't attack innocent people" requires the abolition of the state. /shrug.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:57:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:55:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Would you consider Kuwait's defense significant?

Significant? No. Existent and willing to use violence? Yes.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:57:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:53:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:51:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Is violence the only way to solve a dispute?

In terms of people who aren't willing to settle for anything less, yes. The fact that you can't consider violence in the name of defense whatsoever is a weakness to be exploited. I relish no violence, but you have to be prepared to use it if it comes down to it.

Whenever I look at any war I see that violence simply breeds more violence. Somebody has to stop the viscous cycle.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 3:59:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:57:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Whenever I look at any war I see that violence simply breeds more violence. Somebody has to stop the viscous cycle.

The "cycle," as you put it, easily starts up again when one individual decides he wants something and is willing to use force to get it.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 4:03:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:57:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:55:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Would you consider Kuwait's defense significant?
Significant? No. Existent and willing to use violence? Yes.
Nope. The defense made no difference in Iraq's decision to invade and control Kuwait. Kuwait's defense also made no difference in the result. The reason they survived as a state was because other states besides Iraq wanted their oil as well.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 4:04:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 4:03:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Nope. The defense made no difference in Iraq's decision to invade and control Kuwait. Kuwait's defense also made no difference in the result. The reason they survived as a state was because other states besides Iraq wanted their oil as well.

Do you actually have a point here?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 4:36:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 4:04:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 4:03:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Nope. The defense made no difference in Iraq's decision to invade and control Kuwait. Kuwait's defense also made no difference in the result. The reason they survived as a state was because other states besides Iraq wanted their oil as well.
Do you actually have a point here?

They might as while not have even had one.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 4:43:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Herein lies my problem with Anarchy. I'm sure at least some of you know, my political stance when I joined this site was 'Anarchist' and has since changed to 'Apathetic'. This is because I don't care for any of the forms of government that exists or a theorised about. I like Democracy, but it doesn't correlate with Capitalism at all.
I've been convinced by our many members that Anarchy could not be implimented in our society as it is now. It could descend in to Anarchy sure, but the key word there is descend. I still love the concept of Anarchy and the passionate works by historys many Anarchists...

But, it won't work.
You can't take away the greed inherent in the heart of man. Even if 99.999% of people agreed tomorrow that desolving all forms of government is a great idea, it still wouldn't work.
Most people are stupid sheep. They need to be told what to do, otherwise they would be lost and would die like the lemmings they are.

There needs be a leaders on many different levels and if there is any form of leader, it ceases to be Anarchy.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 5:07:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:49:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/27/2010 3:46:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Non-violent resistance.

So if another force or group of people essentially said they were going to kill the lot of you with weapons and the like unless you did such and such an action, you'd sit there?

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs . . . It would have roused the world and the people of Germany." - Mahatma Gandhi
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 5:12:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"If the Jews can summon to their aid soul-power that comes only from non-violence, Herr Hitler will bow before the courage which he will own is infinitely superior to that shown by his best stormtroopers." - Mahatma Gandhi
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 5:59:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 3:02:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The only thing that would really be antithetical to anarchism would be the initiation of violence.

At 9/27/2010 3:33:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:

For me, at the moment, Anarchy means the abolition of violence.

I'm intrigued by these definitions, there seems to be nothing about pacifism or not initiating violence in the definition of anarchy. http://www.google.co.uk...

I know someone already brought up the etymology of the word and it literally does mean a lack of a leader or ruler (archon). I suppose you could have some kind of hierarchy without an actual leader but I think it would be problematic.

I guess the pedantic semantic point to make is that anarchy =/= anarchism.

http://www.google.co.uk...
Any ism is a philosophy or set of beliefs recognised by some particular group of people, so individual anarchists can basically define their anarchism and what specific archons they are opposed to however the hell they want.

They should probably try and avoid equating their wildly divergent political beliefs with actual anarchy though.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 6:07:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 5:12:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"If the Jews can summon to their aid soul-power that comes only from non-violence, Herr Hitler will bow before the courage which he will own is infinitely superior to that shown by his best stormtroopers." - Mahatma Gandhi

Sorry for double post but... yeh.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 6:16:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/28/2010 5:59:58 AM, feverish wrote:

I'm intrigued by these definitions, there seems to be nothing about pacifism or not initiating violence in the definition of anarchy. http://www.google.co.uk...

These definitions are pretty loaded. "A state of chaos because of lack of government" ... Lawlessness.

It should be clear that these definitions are retarded, because obviously non-governments are successful in maintaining law and order. For example, internet forums have moderators and rules and enforcement mechanisms, but are rightly not considered governments.

I know someone already brought up the etymology of the word and it literally does mean a lack of a leader or ruler (archon). I suppose you could have some kind of hierarchy without an actual leader but I think it would be problematic.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

They are all incompatible with authority - the arbitrary rule of some men over others. They do not rule out hierarchy if it is consensual. They do not rule out things like internet forums.

http://www.google.co.uk...
Any ism is a philosophy or set of beliefs recognised by some particular group of people, so individual anarchists can basically define their anarchism and what specific archons they are opposed to however the hell they want.

I think its safe to say that all anarchists are opposed to government. They might be opposed to a lot of other things too. They might be opposed to governments because their are hierarchical, and also voluntary clubs if they are hierarchical. I am opposed to governments because they are aggressive, and also oppose other forms of aggression.

Although it does help if we clarify ourselves a little - I should really call myself ancap more..
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...