You said every transmission of decision making power is "not possible". And your argument was pretty much shouting "rape!" at me. So I am not sorry if you struggle a little to keep up with my thought process.
No, you got lost in translation. I said that you cannot transfer your authority onto someone else, and have them do or act on your behalf, how they chose. That's an imaginary belief system that has no ground in reality. If that person chose to take your "authority" (yeah absurd as it is, hypothesis sake) and he murdered someone on your authority, does he get blamed? A great example is you're giving your decision over the family finances to someone else, then when they fuck up the finances, you blame them, even though you cannot, because you are to blame. Even if they are malicious, you ultimately chose to do that, you chose to trust that person with doing things that you should be doing. And that's the closes real world example there is to giving your "decision making power" to someone else. We are talking about CONSENSUAL WORK, CONSENSUAL SEX, people chose to work for someone, stop twisting the conversation because you are a moron, examine that basic logic equates absurdity to you.
Hierarchie is a system of Authorities.
No, it's simply a System of Organization, look it up, stop defining it by abstractions and misunderstandings. A system of organization, CAPICHE?!
To stay in the realm of your logic, you said (correct me if I got that wrong): Letting other people make decisions for you is like letting other people have non consensual sex with you. As I told you, I do not agree with this strange metaphor. But according to your logic it is OK to if you take money for transfering power.
Please do us all a favor and go back and quote exactly what I said! You're assuming that I'm giving the person I work for the power to make choices in my name! You're assuming that work cannot happen otherwise?! That I can agree to work, consensual?! People can chose to take orders, to follow orders for work, yes. In that is implied agreement, consent. Those people cannot follow order like "kill people" because they have no authority over someone's life, or property. If you let someone with your property, you give them freedom to do what they wish with your property, you basically gave them your property, you understand that? But that only works with property that is yours, that's the one and only thing that is transferable, the fruits of your labor, effort and time implied.
Thanks for not looking the article I linked you. You would drop the "vengeance seeker", but it helps to protect the narrative if you ignore what people say that are not from your camp and get hung up on your defintion of the words they used, doesn't it? I am used to this behavior when talking to people who are on the establishment side, but I think you are the first Anarcho that I see "debating" that way.
No, you want vengeance, you are for FORCED REHABILITATION on top of vengeance.
Copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy
Got you good buddy, don't mess with me when it comes to clean definitions.
Your next try is adorable as well. Read exactly what you posted... vengeance can imply retribution. You try to somehow twist my words by adding meaning to them. Classic.
I advice you to avoid using big words. It is obvious that you are trying to mask your intellectual incapabilities behind them.
Actually you are the first anarcho I am aware of who debates me that way. Not sure if those guys from my Climate Change Hoax Post were anarchos. I usually agree with anarchos on most problems and even on some solution.
For some reason you tried to bring camp- thinking and a vs-mentality into the debate with me. Not sure why you are so triggered.