Disclaimer: I've not yet watched the video. I will. > Ironically, but not surprisingly, in describing his alternative to hierarchy, the video essentially re-in

Disclaimer: I've not yet watched the video. I will. > Ironically, but not surprisingly, in describing his alternative to hierarchy, the video essentially re-invents hierarchy. Anarchism isn't a single, unified ideology. Not all forms of anarchism is anti-hierarchy. Anarcho-capitalism boils down to the abolition of violent coercion. Anarcho-Socialism and -Syndicalism boils down to the decentralization of authoritarian hierarchy to the level of a well-defined community that is small enough for an individual to have an effective voice yet large enough that that community has a voice in the affairs of the larger society within which it exists. Bear in mind that the above are my syntheses, not some sort of "official" defition. My point is that it's no more fair to lump all forms of anarchism - and all anarchists - into a single group than it would be to lump republicans together with monarchists. Hierarchy is not necessarily antithetical to anarchism. > Anarchy is so fragile that even in a thought experiment by an anarchist, it can't even last 20 minutes. I think a lot of people - including a lot of self-described anarchists - confuse the political philosophy with practical application thereof. In my own view, anarchism is a set of beliefs about how things should be. It's a way of viewing the world and a set of negative guidelines governing how people should interact with one another (e.g. "A person should not use of threaten force to get what they want") The political and social institutions that would arise from a society founded on the precepts of anarchism needn't be stable, or even predictable.