> unless the renumeration you give that field hand is worth significantly less than the surplus value you obtained via his cooperation.
So... how do we figure that? Seriously: How do we do the math in every possible case to ensure I'm not exploiting the person who freely agreed to work for me?
> Moreover, most anarchists object to an entire society being based on that model, not simply the existence of it.
Most anarchists need to study the Sorites paradox.
> But most anarchists are not opposed to the existence of structures of government, but rather the existence of the nation-state.
This means there still would be a hierarchy based on the fact that, one, a government with no ability to make binding resolutions is pointless; two, unless some group has the ability to veto others the body gets mired in endless debate due to bikeshedding; three, despite the previous point, most people don't want to govern nearly as much as they want to argue over the trivial things they feel entitled to have an opinion on, so trying to even things out by putting everyone into government would require a draft backed by, you guessed it, the threat of force.
> Again, I'm not saying these are all 100% coherent or viable political options, I'm just trying to articulate my understanding of an anarchist position.
I understand this. I wonder what someone who actually believed in this would be saying.
"So... how do we figure that? Seriously: How do we do the math in every possible case to ensure I'm not exploiting the person who freely agreed to work for me?"
By "freely agreed", do you mean it in the restricted sense that the worker was not physically coerced to work?
> By "freely agreed", do you mean it in the restricted sense that the worker was not physically coerced to work?
Only as a first step; it has to be more complex than that, which is one reason unions exist (in the ideal world with ideal unions that accurately represent the needs of the people they represent).
So... how do we figure that? Seriously: How do we do the math in every possible case to ensure I'm not exploiting the person who freely agreed to work for me?
> Moreover, most anarchists object to an entire society being based on that model, not simply the existence of it.
Most anarchists need to study the Sorites paradox.
> But most anarchists are not opposed to the existence of structures of government, but rather the existence of the nation-state.
This means there still would be a hierarchy based on the fact that, one, a government with no ability to make binding resolutions is pointless; two, unless some group has the ability to veto others the body gets mired in endless debate due to bikeshedding; three, despite the previous point, most people don't want to govern nearly as much as they want to argue over the trivial things they feel entitled to have an opinion on, so trying to even things out by putting everyone into government would require a draft backed by, you guessed it, the threat of force.
> Again, I'm not saying these are all 100% coherent or viable political options, I'm just trying to articulate my understanding of an anarchist position.
I understand this. I wonder what someone who actually believed in this would be saying.