Thanks to everyone for your replies!
   On Jul 11, 2017 9:16 PM, "Kurt Buff" <[1]kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:

   On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Kevin Gallagher
   <[2]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

References

   1. mailto:kurt.buff@gmail.com
   2. mailto:kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu