Thanks to everyone for your replies!

On Jul 11, 2017 9:16 PM, "Kurt Buff" <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Kevin Gallagher
<kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:
> Here is where I start to have questions. To my understanding, anarchy is the
> rejection of heirarchies. Isn't anarcho-capitalism therefore an oxymoron?

No, anarcho-capitalism is grounded in the understanding that free
trade among free people is a the only road to peace and prosperity.
People arrange themselves in hierarchies all the time, and it's no
crime if they do so freely.

For the life of me I can't think of any heirarchies that aren't, at least in part, founded on deceit or force (or both). Can you please give an example of one?

It's often a benefit. This is as opposed
to anarcho-syndicalism or various other flavors of anarchism, which
are grounded in the belief that money and trade are evil and that love
and unicorn farts are sufficient to sustain life.

I do not know these schools of anarchism, but that doesn't seem like a fair assessment.

> The existence of currency inherently creates a heirarchy based on the amount
> of currency one owns, does it not?

No, it does not. There are lots of things to unpack in that
statemen/questiont, but I'll just mention two:
- Currency isn't money, as such
- Fiat currency creation is used by anti-capitalist forces to
enrich the few at the expense of the rest of us, destroying capital in
the process.

Reading some Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises for starters, would
be an eye opener for you.

Fair enough. I will give some of this a read. If I have any questions, can I reach out to you after I have read some?

Kurt