RE: Yeah, it's kinda like that...
That's a lot of reading for me to catch up to your thinking. When you describe capitalism as an extreme stage of hierarchy, you may be thinking of cronyism or corporatism. Here's a thought experiment Larken Rose used recently which I found helpful for clarification (I may be slightly miswording it):
Let's assume you and I are two capable people on an island. I spend the day creating a bow and arrow. I then use that bow and arrow to catch fish.
Who owns the bow and arrow? Who owns the fish caught? Does your need entitle you to either?
If I make an agreement with you to let you use the bow and arrow to catch your own fish in exchange for something, is that wrong and if so, why?
We could ramp this example up to a more real world situation where I used my justly earned savings to build a factory and employ others voluntarily, etc.
I appreciate the attempt at compassion built into the communist philosophy, but from my perspective, it always leads to redistribution and theft via violence while destroying individual drive to build, create, save, and prosper. I agree, it's a big concern that anarcho-capitalist philosophies don't have a built in mechanism for caring for those with needs who can't care for themselves or don't have the same level of ability to meet their own needs. I challenge ancaps with the question often: "How will we care for those who can't care for themselves?" Though greed is powerful, I also think as we move up Maslow's Hierarchy, we value helping others more and private ownership and savings seem to get people up that hierarchy of needs faster than other approaches. That hierarchy can't be eliminated any more than we can eliminate the forces of nature. Also, the ambitions of humans are vastly different. We will always be unequal there and attempts to force equality will lead to distortions and lowered wellbeing, IMO.
Luke, with all due respect, you can't say “That's a lot of reading for me to catch up to your thinking” and then expect understanding of the terms which are terribly distorted by the hierarchical matrix.
Okay, but you also didn't answer my fairly simple questions. If all that reading can't lead to answers for simple questions like this, I have to question whether or not that reading is the best use of my time.
If I give a short answer to your simple questions, you won't understand it. We would probably be involved in a fruitless discusion like these two guys:
Stefan Molyneux thinks that Soviet Union was communism, and his guest knows that USSR was not communism, but doesn't know what communism is! Stefan asks the same simple question that can't give any answer if you don't define what are you really talking about. That is precisely why philosophical books exist and why everyone should read them. If you don't read, you are open to the manipulation of the hierarchical matrix.
Now, here is simple question for you, that you can answer with “yes” or “no”. May I assume that you support the views of Emancipated Human that you shared from Facebook?
I saw this discussion recently. I do think people should be able to articulate ideas for discussion without having to have others read entire books. I know that's difficult, but the better we understand things, the better we can communicate about them. I think people should read Thinking, Fast and Slow to understand how the brain works and Origins of Virtue to understand more about "human nature" etc. That said, I still have conversations with people who haven't read this books because it helps me better understand their views and my own.
I didn't say answers have to be "yes" or "no". You can expand all you want on them or ask clarifying questions. Some views of Emancipated Human (voluntaryism, non-aggression principle, etc) I support, and I'm sure there are some I do not. I'm not a fan of the tribalism game of aligning with tribes which only causes division. I prefer discussing specific topics. Some of my views fit with some tribes while other views might go against that tribe's opinion.