Anarchism vs. Libertarianism: Hierarchies

[Mike Christ]

Because you have no idea the kind of shit CEO's have to deal with.
They work 24/7 and almost have no life.
Why do you think CEO's are so hard to find.

CEOs direct several aspects of businesses.  If you've been following the rest of this thread, it has been pointed out that the subsidies provided to corporations (which cannot exist without government) allow them to survive.  Without those subsidies, you are more likely to see smaller, more local business, meaning there is no longer a need for corporate positions.

But as I said, it's not rocket science; you're merely pointing out that they have a lot of work to do.  You're not making an argument against the idea that the normal Joe can be a CEO, even if we're assuming huge business can thrive; I'm arguing that people are fully capable of running businesses without the overhead.

[1715386070]

1715386070

[1715386070]

1715386070

[1715386070]

1715386070

[ronimacarroni]

Because you have no idea the kind of shit CEO's have to deal with.
They work 24/7 and almost have no life.
Why do you think CEO's are so hard to find.

CEOs direct several aspects of businesses.  If you've been following the rest of this thread, it has been pointed out that the subsidies provided to corporations (which cannot exist without government) allow them to survive.  Without those subsidies, you are more likely to see smaller, more local business, meaning there is no longer a need for corporate positions.

But as I said, it's not rocket science; you're merely pointing out that they have a lot of work to do.  You're not making an argument against the idea that the normal Joe can be a CEO, even if we're assuming huge business can thrive; I'm arguing that people are fully capable of running businesses without the overhead.

corporations can exist without government.
They would just hire private contractors to defend their property instead of the government and would be open to more competition and risk.
And whiny people like you would buy their products just like you do now.
I'm just saying it'd be better if there was a government in place so there wouldn't be complete chaos and people could focus on being productive instead.
And no people are not going to do what you tell them unless you force them to with your dictatorship of the proletariat shit.

[Mike Christ]

corporations can exist without government.
They would just hire private contractors to defend their property instead of the government and would be open to more competition and risk.
And whiny people like you would buy their products just like you do now.
I'm just saying it'd be better if there was a government in place so there wouldn't be complete chaos and people could focus on being productive instead.
And no people are not going to do what you tell them unless you force them to with your dictatorship of the proletariat shit.

That's great, just stop pushing your ideas on me.

[ronimacarroni]

corporations can exist without government.
They would just hire private contractors to defend their property instead of the government and would be open to more competition and risk.
And whiny people like you would buy their products just like you do now.
I'm just saying it'd be better if there was a government in place so there wouldn't be complete chaos and people could focus on being productive instead.
And no people are not going to do what you tell them unless you force them to with your dictatorship of the proletariat shit.

That's great, just stop pushing your ideas on me.

you know what else is great?
The slowly but surely worldwide collapse of welfare states and bitcoins as a means to take power away from their power of issuing currency.

[Mike Christ]

you know what else is great?
The slowly but surely worldwide collapse of welfare states and bitcoins as a means to take power away from their power of issuing currency.

Although that is completely irrelevant to the OP, I agree.

[ronimacarroni]

you know what else is great?
The slowly but surely worldwide collapse of welfare states and bitcoins as a means to take power away from their power of issuing currency.

Although that is completely irrelevant to the OP, I agree.

K glad we can I agree on something.
Sorry I got carried away.

[ronimacarroni]

man i dont know why i get so wound up over politics, i dont really have much at stake
 in it anyways.
ill take a break from talking about politics/ religion.
damn alex jones getting me all worked up.

[hawkeye]

It's no coincidence that so many big businesses need government assistance and ultimately need to be bailed out.   I think in a voluntaryist society you would probably not see such levels of centralisation because they tend towards big inefficient bureaucracies.  And the free market tends to punish inefficiency. 

Yes; everything government does to subsidize big business would no longer be possible, making it more efficient for local business to flourish, than for one huge business to have a store in every city, some on every other street (like McDonalds.)  In this way, the hierarchies go away on their own; since local business does not need to pay the overhead of corporations, they keep more of their profits, and thus are able to pay their own employees better wages.

Not to mention, with low-level work being replaced steadily by machines, it seems we're on our way, as a species, to every job being highly skilled work that only humans are capable of.  It seems more important than ever, then, for any economy to thrive, that people not be trained to be mindless workers, but just the opposite, thinking and participating.  The hierarchy seems to push this idea, where you have the few who think and the many who work; perhaps this is the natural push for people to take more control of their work, which would make those hierarchies smaller, since the low-level work only becomes more and more scarce.

Although, of course even small businesses have a hierarchy of sorts.  It is just a lot smaller and closer.   There is generally someone/people who own the business.  There will always be people more experienced who will be able to steer a business better than those less experienced.   We all start out inexperienced and then gain knowledge and experience as we go along.  Well, not all of us...

I agree with you about the big hierarchies generally being for the worker bees and that work is becoming more specialised and the lower level stuff being mechanised which is further driving the decentralisation trend.   I've walked away from contracting for businesses myself and generally now do my own work and am looking to do more so in the future.  Not to mention the fact I can do it over the internet so I don't have to live close to work anymore.  Or even in the same country.

Regarding the paying better wages, I think inflation is the killer in this regard.  I think wages would generally go down, as all prices do in a deflationary environment, but people's gains in experience would offset this and that prices of products in general would go down faster.  I think in a free market it's likely that people would be in high demand.  Because at the end of the day, we are the smartest most capable "robots" out there.  No robot can match even the dumbest humans yet.  When robots can match us, we're all out of jobs anyway at that point, but I think that is a long way off and I think we will merge with machines before that happens.  But that's a whole other topic...

[Bit-Gods]

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?

Modern industrial civilisation has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilisation has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits in the classic formulation.

[Beliathon]

The difference between a socialist/anarchist and a libertarian/capitalist ultimately comes down to our differing view of human nature. We know that the universe is indifferent to our suffering, so our civilization ought to be sensitive to it.

As a student of science I hold that Homo Sapiens are neurologically hardwired for empathy and compassion, basically we want to be kind to one another by nature, and it is capitalism culture that poisons us against each other. Because pre-civilization life in Nature was extremely dangerous for primates, it is/was evolutionary advantageous for us to be bonded together extremely closely, a bond reinforced constantly by sexual pleasure from many different mates.

This argument is laid out far more articulately than I can here in Sex At Dawn:



Give it a read and contemplate what our lives could be, if we wanted. Spoiler: more and better orgasms for everyone, far less violent.