[ninurta]

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.

I don't know too many societies that lack hierarchy, and anthropology is my strong spot. To me, even small differences in status between people, is hierarchy, whether or not its a wide gap in rank/status or not. While yeah there are some with very little hierarchy, but I've yet to come acrossed a group of peoples with none. To me, that seems like proof that we are instinctively hierarchical. Or that a child obeys his parent, or in cases like this:

You may put your morals on hold for authority. That to me, without having to look for much proof, seems pretty suggestive. The most rudimentary social orders people have are tribal communities. While definitely they lack the differences modern nations have in rank in their hierarchies, they still have them. With more people, the more the differences in status can be expanded, and usually is expanded.

I didn't offer proof, because it seems pretty apparent that it comes naturally. Are there any societies lacking hierarchy that are larger than a group of 20 people?

The burden of proof is on the person who wants to change to a nonhierarchical society to prove that there is such a thing that is possible for humans.

[ninurta]

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?

I was referring to those based on society. They're everywhere, even in your children's (if you have some) schools. You have the popular kids right on down to the unpopular ones.

Or you will find them at work, the bosses favorite employees tend to get more raises then those he or she doesn't really care much for (unless raises are regulated).

I wasn't really referring to political hierarchies, though I would argue that they would go hand in hand, simply because political systems and society tend to do so.

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

I think that we may also have a slightly different view as to what a hierarchy consists of. And often those hierarchies themselves are different. Though there are always hierarchies.

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.

Though there is always hierarchy. There is this group of people in China that have a type of "marriage" (It's really the wrong word for it, but I'll use it anyway), where they get together to have children, but the father always lives seperate from the mother. The women are the heads of the household. And the sons stay in the homes of the mothers.

While there isn't a patriarch, there is a matriarch. And second to her are the other women, then the men. I'm not 100% clear on how it's organized, though I know its a matriarchy. So even in the absence of marriage or a husband, there is still hierarchy.

I'm going to do some research on a Horizontal Society, as I will admit, I've never heard of one.

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

My point is while you can construe them hierarchies, they are not necessarily aggressive relationships.
For example, I can assume I'm more intelligent than you, which might create a hierarchy (no I do not actually assume this ) but it's not an aggressive social relationship.

[ninurta]

I see. As long as its done in a way that it doesn't go against human nature, it at least has the possibility to be a success.

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

I see. As long as its done in a way that it doesn't go against human nature, it at least has the possibility to be a success.

Exactly. Presumably though a minimalistic assumption of human nature is necessary first to such a society. For example, defining legitimacy of violence and such in a very simple and logical way.

[ninurta]

Human society should be designed to be like a tribe in order for there to be a "stateless society" as you define to work, so not really. You'd need to build a framework in a way that enhances human nature, and works with it. Such as building a community in a way that you would a tribe.

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

You'd need to build a framework in a way that enhances human nature, and works with it. Such as building a community in a way that you would a tribe.

Exactly. What I just said. I added a caveat, in keeping with non-agressive principle:

minimalistic assumption of human nature is necessary first to such a society. For example, defining legitimacy of violence and such in a very simple and logical way.

Base framework should be based on voluntary association as a human right.

The difference is this community, tribe, whatever:

(1) Does not use force on it's own members
(2) Or other human beings
(3) Or permit violence/force between it's members (ex. private control of means of production)

Yay for simplicity and freedom!

[ninurta]

The way you define anarchy sounds alot like my libertarian statism. Though in another thread, someone made a point in asking if it should even be called a government, but its definitely not anarchy.

If you have liberty, and instead have a community that has noncoercive rules, and a system where you make community rules and handle justice, as well as a larger system set up for defence, then how do you differentiate between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism?

[DubiousDan]

Base framework should be based on voluntary association as a human right.

The difference is this community, tribe, whatever:

(1) Does not use force on it's own members
(2) Or other human beings
(3) Or permit violence/force between it's members (ex. private control of means of production)

Yay for simplicity and freedom!

I’m a little nervous about asserting human rights. I believe in them, but my meaning is different than most people’s, and that is the problem, defining them.

I kind of like falling back on the intuitive concept of right and wrong based in the collective unvoiced.

Not using force on it’s own members as long as they are members. That should have the caveat of self defense. Voluntary dueling is another exception that seems valid. The tricky word is voluntary.

However, not using force on non-members, that seems problematical. Self defense requires the use of force. However, when dealing with social orders, self defense can be tricky. Do you wait until the attack is launched before responding? The preemptive strike is tricky. Too often, it is naked aggression, but not always. However, social orders can use means other than military to attack, and sometimes, the only means of defending against a non-military (for example, economic) attack is military.

As for economic coercion, simply removing government defined property from the social order should take care of that. Most of the forms of economic coercion depend on government to work.

An Anarchism cannot really exist without some form of military capacity. There are tricky ways to do this, but the simplest way is a voluntary militia composed of the majority of the able male citizens.

One reason you would need this is to stop some commercial entity from hiring a band of thugs. And there is always the possibility of a band of thughs operating as bandits. And, of course, I oppose the social order from hiring a band of thugs for its military simply from the arguments of history.

[Meslocusist]

Even though the topic is nominally settled, I'll just throw in what I think I guess.

This is actually one of the big disputes within anarchy in the sense of Anarcho-Capitalist v. Anarcho-Communist. In anarcho-capitalism, there is no hierarchy in the same way that there is no hierarchy in a liberal democracy- Everyone is equal, de jure because there is no law or government to set them apart. However, in fact there is a complex economic hierarchy that will presumably grow to be much wider than it has even in modern archo (state-based)-capitalism- and I use Archo-Capitalism because State Capitalism has other Marxist associations that, while potentially true, are different than what I mean.

In anarcho-communism, however, everyone is equal because there is absolutely nothing to make people unequal. There is no law, no politics. There is also no money or property to speak of. Certainly, there will be temporary organizations that will be formed to co-ordinate this or that undertaking, and yes there will be people in these organizations who do the thinking, and there will be those who do the doing, but one need not listen to the other and to say that one would be in charge of the other is entirely false. Thus there will only be hierarchy in An-com-ism in the sense that people will be doing different jobs and living different lives. Unfortunately, to the extent that that is a hierarchy (however minimal of one it is compared to just about any other system), it is more or less impossible to remove.

[Invictus_88]

Also useful to note that "hierarchy" is often used as a word for 'coercive, limiting power relations', rather than more benign technical hierarchies like those of a mother and infant, or a mentor and student, in which there isn't necessarily any coercion.

[ninurta]

Also useful to note that "hierarchy" is often used as a word for 'coercive, limiting power relations', rather than more benign technical hierarchies like those of a mother and infant, or a mentor and student, in which there isn't necessarily any coercion.

The mother child relationship is the same as the one the state has over its people. You break mom's rules, and you get disciplined for it. There's no difference. And unless the mentor has more authority, there's really no hierarchy there. Just one person teaching another.

[Invictus_88]

Depends on your mother then, yours sounds a bit 'Statist'. Mine was not.

[lombas]

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

~ Bakunin

[ninurta]

Depends on your mother then, yours sounds a bit 'Statist'. Mine was not.

Makes sense.

(ex. private control of means of production)

How do you prevent control via a company using a source of income as a means to coerce?