Topic: Anarchism vs. Libertarianism: Hierarchies - page 2. (Read 3281 times)

There is some confusion here. Are you saying that Social Libertarianism is separate from Libertarian socialism? The latter is non-hierarchical, as is anarchism. My understanding has always been that it loosely encompasses most/all forms of anarchism.

A truly free society would consist of no hierarchy and as the OP said, no money.  Just equality and freedom and peace.

How can a hierarchy convince others to believe in their hierarchy without controlling those around them?

A hierarchy can exist if you believe in it, but universally, we are all equal.

wow okay.
hierarchies are part of nature but im not going to argue with someone who cant be bothered to make a coherent argument.

Anarchy is freedom.  Anarchy is nature.  Nature as we know is a perfect balance of everything.

so that would make you an anarcho capitalist.
in which case i recommend that you g2somalia.

There's nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchies.  I am a contractor and have often voluntarily signed contracts which put me in a hierarchy.  I never had a problem with that.  It's having one forced upon me that I have a problem with.

the only way to get rid of "hierarchies" is to force people to not form "hierarchies"
which is just another form of socialism.
libertarians on the other hand say do whatever you want as long as you dont mess with peoples property.
which is bought with their hard earned money.

A true "anarchy" would probably look differently than anarcho-capitalists imagine, but it wouldn't be entirely "social" without hierarchies either. The truth would be somewhere inbetween I imagine, resembling syndicalism. There'd be free entrepreneurs (for the individualists) and independent worker co-ops.

Big "capitalist" "exploitative" factories would be impossible. Historically, workers went on strike, mutiny, and would take over the means of production. But it was always the legislation and police provided by the state that protected bosses in those scenarios. Economically speaking, this protection service has always been very cheap in a capitalist-corporatist system.

And if the "police" was private, well the "police" consists of "workers" too.

So if many places are organized more co-operatively, bosses would have a hard time to find cheap workforce.

Again, Mondragón is a good example of how things would look like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

There are technical hierarchies of course, and although they're largely organized co-operatively, there'd also be competition. All co-ops would have to keep up with the state of technology.

I've also long thought about the nature of "money" and I believe the misunderstanding and obsession about money comes from the monopoly of money that today is provided through the central banks. In a free world, there'd be probably a rich eco-system of different value systems (PMs, local currencies, crypto-currencies, reputation systems, "promises" and tokens issued by producers of goods and services, etc). And this will stop people from counting everything in USDs or the like in their minds, and they will realize that "value" can also be very personal things that you can't count. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

I guess you already know about this, but this conversation about a centralized power, or not, and how much power it should have is a continuing one really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxtbSt0HCNA

edit: "At the time of publication the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret..."

It seems the rabbit hole goes deeper; although these two aim for similar goals, that is, for the removal of the state, they're yet different; anarchists, as I have learned, seek for the removal of all hierarchies, whereas Libertarians stop at there being no (or a tiny) state, implying business would still have leaders; it would seem, then, anarchists take the idea one step further, where businesses do not necessarily have bosses, or bosses of bosses, but people as complete equals; some even claim there cannot be money, which I find difficult to wrap my mind around, for money does not necessarily equate capitalism.

Is Libertarianism only a stepping stone to anarchy, or are they two completely different ideologies with only a similar goal?  Does leadership imply hierarchy?  Are hierarchies implicitly involuntary?  Can business thrive without hierarchy?  And what would be the common reaction, having a world of pure anarchy, to people who believe hierarchies are preferable to complete equality?