I am sorry if I appeared to be trolling/baiting, I was not trying to do so but I can see why you might see it that way. Obviously many of our assumptions are not in common, and obviously I am no anarchist. I mean no offense when I say this, but I posted here partially because I have personally always found anarchy to be a rather illogical ideology, but there are very intelligent people who are anarchists and so I'd like to see what draws them.
Which animals live without hierarchy? Which human groups live without hierarchy? A large reason for my assumptions is that I simply don't know of any counterexamples to this rule - and I realize this may be simply my lack of knowledge, in which case I'd want concrete examples. How are we defining civilization? How can we maintain peace among large amounts of people without it?
I base my ideas of human nature off of psychology. I absolutely could find people with a dozen other ideas of human nature - philosophically speaking, I am a relativist, and I realize that it is very possible my own observations are completely wrong. But I can only engage in rational thought after assuming they are indeed correct, and by my assumptions, science is best way to gain some measure of 'objectivity', for whatever it's worth, and psychology, sociology, and anthropology are the best ways to gain knowledge on human nature. Through research and personal experience, I have come to the conclusion that humans always try to seek power over one another, be it blatant societal power or more subtle versions. The Self Determination Theory states that autonomy is one of our primary needs, basically power over oneself. Often times, people feel the need to legitimize, prove, or make up for a deficiency of personal power by exerting it over other people. Large groups of people with diverse opinions have never really been able to accomplish anything without some sort of power structure. Diverse groups will generally see one another as 'the other' (the outgroup) and actively seek power over the other. Call them assumptions if you will, but please provide me counterexamples to discount these assumptions and I will evaluate them for myself.
How do you define hierarchy then? Why do you think parents don't exact hierarchical power by teaching them values? What makes it an exception?
When the child is a toddler, they were of course be influenced in different directions without the child even knowing it. There is a reason Mother Nature kept the questioning mind and rebellion out of development until much later. If children wouldn't listen to their mothers about how to hunt and gather, they would simply die - this is a common behavior in many animals. However, uniquely in humans, this translates into societal values as well, keeping culture and society alive as well. The hypocrisy is that children must have a moral basis, and if you choose to create an anarchist moral basis by instilling morals in a very top down, authoritarian approach to the unquestioning mind that is inevitable in early parenting, it violates the central ideas of anarchy, no? Aren't we supposed to rid ourselves of power?
Thank you for your reply.