I'm in a debate with a geolibertarian

[FallibleOne]

So I'm currently on another board, discussing the merits of different points of anarchism and, surprise! libertarianism *sarcasm*

One point my opponent (considers himself a geolibertarian, although I can sense he has some right-wing tilt) brought up was about the issue of hierarchy. Personally, I consider myself an individualist anarchist, so I'm not as gung-ho on the hierarchy issue, even though I find myself consistently opposing any form of its manifestation, much like every social anarchist. His point was that hierarchies are found in every social structure, like a teacher-student relationship.

I responded by saying that, compared to our corporatist society, a teacher-student relationship is not nearly as oppressive. Is there a possibly better response? Is mine even accurate?

[thelastindividual]

That's a naturalistic fallacy. It doesn't follow from "hierarchies exist in all social structures" that "hierarchies should exist in all social structures". And it's a blatantly ridiculous claim anyway. You won't find groups of friends giving themselves rankings and power within their social group (Although sometimes these arise naturally, but it's not so much natural heirarchy that's the problem as social and institutional hierarchy).

Student teacher relationships aren't inherently oppressive though (although teacher-headteacher or teacher-government beuracrat relationships can be).

Slightly off topic but on the issue of you being and individualist who agrees with social anarchists I think that the two aren't necessarily completely dichotomous. Check out this diagram:



On the right hand side is "pure" social anarchism with it's commitment to the abolition of social hierarchies. On the left hand side is "pure" individualist anarchism with it's commitment to extreme individual autonomy. In the middle however there is a place where the two meet in which committment to individual autonomy combines with the use of mechanisms of social co-operation and abolition of hierachical social structures.

[thelastindividual]

Ugh, for some reason it won't let me edit my post properly (it says it can't determine the dimensions of the image properly even though it managed it the first time...).

Anyway I meant to say he's making a naturalistic fallacy (to make it clear that I wasn't directing that bit at you).

And as examples of the three groups I mentioned - Kropotkin, Bakunin and Bookchin would be on the right hand side. Zerzan, Hakim Bey and Rothbard would be on the left hand side and Tucker, Proudhon, Carson and yourself as well as various communists who argue from an ethical egoist perspective would be in the middle.

[Fallible]

Thanks Pikachu, er.. I mean thelastindividual.

[Zazaban]

It's worth differentiating between a permanent, universal hierarchy and a temporary, limited one. Sure there may be hierarchy involved in a teacher-student relationship, but it does not extend beyond matters regarding study, and ends when study ends. A teacher could not come into a student's house and arrest them. And the student can leave, probably, whenever they want with no penalty beyond not finishing their study with that teacher.

Similarly, a movie director may hold authority above the cast and the rest of the crew, but only on the set, and only until the film is completed. It's simply not the same thing as institutionalized state power. It's borderline nitpicky to even call it 'hierarchy' at all in some cases, but for the purpose of debate this is probably a good response.

There will probably be some difference in stature between different people no matter how the world is set up. People are simply not all the same. Some people will hold more prestige, influence, [Ugh, this statement isn't coming out the way I wanted it at all, abandoning.]

[dougfurst]

Another possible approach is the anthropological perspective 190,000+ years of egalitarian, non-hierarchical existence on the planet is a strong argument against hierarchy being innate to human social organization. Property and the institutions that defend this notion gave rise to what is essentially a less evolved primate response to the environment.

[AnarchistEpoch]

considers himself a geolibertarian, although I can sense he has some right-wing tilt

So? Whether he is left or right it doesn't matter(in my opinion at least). No ideology is necessarily explicitly right or left wing in my view, so I don't really care.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to let go of this "left/right" BS and just focus on Anarchy or Libertarianism in themselves.