6 ms·

There are righteous forms of hierarchy and tyrannical forms of hierarchy. What your argument boils down to is an attack on hierarchy qua hierarchy. Very common

There are righteous forms of hierarchy and tyrannical forms of hierarchy. What your argument boils down to is an attack on hierarchy qua hierarchy. Very common to see these days as it is a classic revolutionary/Marxist ideal but it's also entirely inconsistent with natural law. Even within the revolutionary ideal, every revolution has its leaders and its strongmen because that's just how people organize themselves and those at the top live better off than those at the bottom (think Lenin and Stalin vs the starving masses).

jahaja 6y ago
> it's also entirely inconsistent with natural law You're equating your subjective ideas with natural law? Seem a bit over-confident to say the least. > There are righteous forms of hierarchy Yes, a parent towards a their child. What other forms of righteous hierarchies are you thinking about? > think Lenin and Stalin vs the starving masses That would be the tyrannical form and completely illegitimate.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  > What other forms of righteous hierarchies are you thinking about? Head surgeon and other surgeons. CTO and other engineers. VP of sales and sales people, etc. Other forms of hierarchy would be upper and lower courts. Whether or not these are righteous is dependent on if, for example, the head surgeon is actually experienced and talented and a good leader. If he's just some shmuck they pulled off the street or if he's only in that position because he's friends with the hospital president then that would be a tyrannical or dysfunctional hierarchy. >That would be the tyrannical form and completely illegitimate. That's my point. But hierarchy itself is not illegitimate. That hierarchy itself is legitimate is a reflection of natural law. That was my assertion.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    There seem to be some mixing of hierarchies and authority here, but even anarchists aren't as dogmatically opposed to all kinds of authority that you seem to imply? "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on 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." Mikhail Bakunin
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      I was talking about Marxism and other revolutionary movements that spring from the French Revolution. VP and CTO are actual titles that confer authority. What Bakunin is describing are hierarchies of competence in a particular art (techne) but what would he say about parent-child relationships? I had never heard of Bakunin until now. I'm not an expert on the schools of anarchist thought by any measure so I won't pretend to really be able to hold a discussion you want to get into analysis of various schools of anarchist thought.
      - jahaja 6y ago
        > VP and CTO are actual titles that confer authority. Those are considered illegitimate since they are undemocratic. A top-down vanguard too. > but what would he say about parent-child relationships? The same competence argument applies to child rearing.
        googthrowaway42 6y ago
        > Those are considered illegitimate since they are undemocratic. But these are voluntary structures? That's kind of the beauty of the free market. You have these little monarchal structures that go out and create something in the world. If people want to join they can. If and when these structures become too dysfunctional they go away due to market forces.
        jahaja 6y ago
        > But these are voluntary structures? They're not. No free person would voluntary accept all kinds of shit jobs that's out there unless indirectly coerced.
        googthrowaway42 6y ago
        By "indirectly coerced" you mean that they need food and shelter and they don't have slaves to grow their food and build their house for them?

jahaja 6y ago

> it's also entirely inconsistent with natural law You're equating your subjective ideas with natural law? Seem a bit over-confident to say the least. > There are righteous forms of hierarchy Yes, a parent towards a their child. What other forms of righteous hierarchies are you thinking about? > think Lenin and Stalin vs the starving masses That would be the tyrannical form and completely illegitimate.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
> What other forms of righteous hierarchies are you thinking about? Head surgeon and other surgeons. CTO and other engineers. VP of sales and sales people, etc. Other forms of hierarchy would be upper and lower courts. Whether or not these are righteous is dependent on if, for example, the head surgeon is actually experienced and talented and a good leader. If he's just some shmuck they pulled off the street or if he's only in that position because he's friends with the hospital president then that would be a tyrannical or dysfunctional hierarchy. >That would be the tyrannical form and completely illegitimate. That's my point. But hierarchy itself is not illegitimate. That hierarchy itself is legitimate is a reflection of natural law. That was my assertion.
- jahaja 6y ago
  There seem to be some mixing of hierarchies and authority here, but even anarchists aren't as dogmatically opposed to all kinds of authority that you seem to imply? "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on 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." Mikhail Bakunin
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    I was talking about Marxism and other revolutionary movements that spring from the French Revolution. VP and CTO are actual titles that confer authority. What Bakunin is describing are hierarchies of competence in a particular art (techne) but what would he say about parent-child relationships? I had never heard of Bakunin until now. I'm not an expert on the schools of anarchist thought by any measure so I won't pretend to really be able to hold a discussion you want to get into analysis of various schools of anarchist thought.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      > VP and CTO are actual titles that confer authority. Those are considered illegitimate since they are undemocratic. A top-down vanguard too. > but what would he say about parent-child relationships? The same competence argument applies to child rearing.
      - googthrowaway42 6y ago
        > Those are considered illegitimate since they are undemocratic. But these are voluntary structures? That's kind of the beauty of the free market. You have these little monarchal structures that go out and create something in the world. If people want to join they can. If and when these structures become too dysfunctional they go away due to market forces.
        jahaja 6y ago
        > But these are voluntary structures? They're not. No free person would voluntary accept all kinds of shit jobs that's out there unless indirectly coerced.
        googthrowaway42 6y ago
        By "indirectly coerced" you mean that they need food and shelter and they don't have slaves to grow their food and build their house for them?