Torrocca wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
Electing a hierarch sounds like it pretty much forsakes the idea of anarchism.
That's... not at all what I said, really, but considering plenty of Anarchists argue against unjust hierarchies (as in, ones that people have little/no say in, among other concerns that'd make a hierarchy unjust) but are okay with just hierarchies (something like parents:children, perhaps something like a leader that the community democratically decides on who's entirely accountable to the community, etc.) that doesn't necessarily go against Anarchism. Basically vertical hierarchies bad, horizontal ones okay.
An elected official is a vertical hierarch.
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:No, they couldn't. The idea of anarchism is that no one is told what to do unless they're violating the rights of others,
Right. Voluntarily agreeing on having a leader in a non-hierarchical or horizontally hierarchical role where said leader is still essentially an equal to all others isn't something that goes against Anarchist principles.
There's no way in hell every single person is going to agree. Thus, the minority are being unvoluntarily told what to do.
and no one having more authority than anyone else, right?
Technically right, with nuance as stated above.
That completely jettisons both those ideas.
Not necessarily; if the community has the collective power of democratic decision making, they could feasibly create a non-hierarchical (or horizontally hierarchical) leadership position where everyone has a turn in the role and those leading are wholly accountable to the community.
Not without either everyone agreeing perfectly, or the people who don't agree being told what to do. That is coercion, and a hierarchy. Not anarchy.