What are you actually talking about? Describe it in as much detail as humanly possible please and don't resort to euphemisms or "as they like to put it".
The issue is that people agree to work under the directions of others?
If I hire someone to work my land, is there a problem with that hierarchy of the workplace?
What's the issue with hierarchy you misguided vengeance seeker?
(just seemed that you didn't want to clear the premmise but rephrase the question, so that's what I said in case you missed it, to answer your Yes and No question, I needed to know exactly what you were asking with hierarchy in the workplace, which equates to exactly to "I was actually just curious if you people accept workplace hierarchy in your construct. So if you get payed for "being raped" as you like to put it, it is OK?", you can repeat your question, rephrasing it, but it didn't do it for me because it only raised even more questions to understand your question.
But.
You have the assumption that BOSS means rape, do you realize that? You believe in the idea that "without a boss" is forced onto you and and you have no choice but to be "raped", unless you ban the boss?
I think you must also believe that EVERYONE ELSE sees it like RAPE, and OBLIGATORY RAPE, but I want you for a second to imagine, that when I hire someone to help me, it's CONSENSUAL, when I work for someone, it's Consensual. Just try that little exercise for me and then do ask me the question again, you literally want to ban sex, you do realize that's what you're asking.
Hierarchie is a system of Authorities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OK, you read it, sry for the accusation.