Yes, higher or lower in the 'pecking order'

I.e. aristocracy

There is no guarantee that warlords will take over, but being content with the state we have now IS

How would the cheiftain be payed, would they be appointed it while they work their main job, or would it be an elder.

If it was an elder who is unable to work, what would happen?

"As long as there is no coercion or involuntary payment to the chief" <- magical thinking right here

One sec brb

Chieftain tax for sure

It could be negligible though, equating to the adverage wage

With mediaeval tech it can encompass a whole country

Modern tech can encompass the whole world, which is what seems to be happening

https://twitter.com/BrexitTory_/status/1043406446711513088

Ok so how is it magical thinking? @MuChaDo

"As long as there is no coercion or involuntary payment to the chief" - if the chief is the one who makes the rules, how is this to be guaranteed?

Anarchism doesnt work, never worked, and will undoubtedly end in death as people accumilate power within the system.

individual localised cases are irrelivant since they operated on tribalism

You are stating the itent for a anarchistic system, which is where there are no heirachies

In a tribe of ten, I dont think the chief will have much of a chance if he starts creating crazy laws for his tribe. Considering the chief is often quite older aswell @MuChaDo

you arent talking about tribalism if you want ANARCHAL capitalism

Tribalism and Anarchy are opposing ideologies

anarchy works until the guy with the gun shows up takes over the power and anyone that refuse get a bullet

Tribal Capitalism is the only example you have mentioned that worked. They do not operate through Anarchy

Yes, I know that hierarchies are inevitable in the private sector, but I see no reason for a select group of people to take the fruits of our labour by force and encapsulate us in their geographic region of operation. Force is active and therefore carries the burden of proof, this is the one thing the state has not fulfilled

@Nordhand Not when there are 100 people with guns also pointing theirs at the agressors head

"In a tribe of ten" - what limits tribes to 10? This is survival of the strongest isn't it?

what you say you want is not Anarchal

Also noted is that you accept the existence of tribes but somehow object to the notion of warlords

it is defined as "Neotribal capitalism"

I have heard this point by lib-socs before, the definition of anarchy has changed from "no hierarchies", to "no state" @Dwarforn

but at the end of the day its semantics

@MuChaDo In most tribes the peasants are greater in numbers than the rule-developing entity

But not in firepower

i.e. military capability

yes, but the employers of the said peasants have more power

becuase they have greater wealth

Screw communism, but what stops them becoming the societal equivalent of Tsarist nobles

Also the 'rule developing entity' functions as a single entity, but the 'peasants' are individuals or at best small groups

Well not really, both the employer and the employee benefit from eachother symbiotically. The employer values the labour more than the $10 and the employee values the $10 more than the labour. Therefore what stops them from becoming agressive cunts is the fact that productivity is lessened when the incentive to work is decreased seeing as you will die if you work as quickly as if you dont @Dwarforn This was one of the failures of the USSR

@MuChaDo Ancapistan will most likely be formed in America, a country where the rate of firearm ownership is greater than the fucking population and this is WITH the state's added "protection", once thats gone I expect it will increase drastically making it almost impossible for an agressor

(Tsarist Nobility is clearly PRE COMMUNISM since its "Tsarist") Russian Nobles could claim Estateless nobility: obtained without the allotment and securing of a landed estate

The "fucking population" has limited military capability

Ancap = chess game in which neither player has to follow the rules. First move wins