1. Being more capable at something is not the same thing as having more privilege. Privilege is a social phenomenon, granted by all other persons to a person or group. 

"a special right, advantage, or immunity granted only to a particular person or group of people."

2. Not necessarily. The disabled person might have capabilities which make up for their disability, or the society in which they exist might provide accommodations for disabled people which reduce the inequality. Dis-privilege due to having a disability is a social phenomena, even if general disadvantage doesn't have to be. Privilege =|= advantage. 

3. For starters a "military sniper" wouldn't exist without the state. Nobody's main profession would be to snipe. A boxer is pretty useless against a gun. For those people who are physically weak or incapable of defending themselves, they'd have the ability to form social bonds in order to have equal access to defense. So yes, the capacity to induce violence would generally be equal at a macro-level if it is not equal at the individual level. 

It is only through tax-rents that the state is able to gain a unilateral monopoly on the legitimization of violence which makes its effective power so disproportionate. 

4. That something is against the law doesn't mean it isn't protected. Drug cartels are against the law, but they only flourish because of the actions of the state. Rape in prisons is protected (or at least made possible) by the state. The legitimization of rape against spouses was only legitimated by the state punishing wives who took actions into their own hands, it's only been recently that Western countries have changed their laws to include rape against spouses. Even in western countries, rape against men is not recognized as rape unless they are penetrated by an object or penis. 

That something is illegal doesn't mean it isn't protected by the actions of the state in its enforcement (or lack thereof) with respect to other crimes. 

5. Then stop saying "no world is perfect" as a response to criticisms of the current system. What is the point of it if not to make such a facile argument? 

6. First I never said people would behave the same. Of course they won't. That doesn't mean people's actions can't be limited without statutes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

7.  In both instances I make a promise to do something in the future with what is originally mine (my body or labor-product.) In the first instance I promise to have sex. In the employment scenario I promise to give up my labor-product for a wage. 

Suppose I have control over my labor-product and decide,"Hey, I don't want the wage they promised me, I want to keep that which I produced and sell it myself." I have reneged on my promise, just as what would had happened if I reneged on my promise to have sex.  

Both my labor-product and my body are mine to give and keep, and consequently a violation of either is the same violation -- that of my self-autonomy. 

Hence to stipulate that a laborer can't change the terms of their labor-contract at any time is to imply that a person partaking in sex can't change the terms of their sex-contract at any time. Both depend on consistent consent.

8. I have not denied people have different capabilities. You know that well, I have said it multiple times. It's intellectually dishonest to continually assert this. 

9. Where did you form that conclusion from? As I said, there is some degree to which people mistakenly surround themselves with people who are not in their interests. There is also a point where people surround themselves with people who are not in their interests because they have no other choice, even if they recognize that fact. The latter scenario is what can be diminished to a certain degree by giving people more autonomy and control over their lives. Most people don't join a gang thinking it is especially good for them. Instead they join a gang because it is the least bad option among many. 

10. I am not arguing moral relativism, I am arguing moral subjectivism. While they are similar to some extent, they are indeed different. Moral relativism holds no morality to be better than any other, while moral subjectivism does not necessarily have to hold all moralities to be of equal value, but it recognizes the fact that there is no objective morality, merely many different subjective moralities (as many as there are people.) I subjectively create and modify my own morality and impose my will to enforce it. The capitalist subjectively creates and modifies his morality and imposes his will. He is only better capable at imposing his will because the state privileges him with monopoly access to various social functions/resources: banking/money, the movement of labor/tariffs, access to land/natural resources, and the patent system to name just a few. By eliminating these state-functions I can further my own interests (my morality) much more easily. I recognize the capitalist has his own morality to justify his position, but I reject it as binding me, because my morality (which I define in terms of my interests) is better for me. 

11. When I used "we" I was using it to refer to people who see exploitation as wrong and whom I would associate with. It is just the same as your collective use of "their." So if I am a collectivist for using a collective pronoun, so are you for using a collective pronoun. That an individualist properly uses the pronoun does not make him/her a collectivist. That is such a silly thought. I can recognize that I share qualities with other people without recognizing that I share all qualities with other people. Just as one might recognize that most men have penises, and would say "we" when referring to men and their penises when discussing the probability of penile cancer doesn't make one a collectivist (at least not in a political sense of the word.) It just means they are making a generalization out of expediency. 

12. Right, because the nation-state has existed for how long? There was civilization before nation-states. There will be civilization after nation-states. 

13. Cool. 

14. Please expand on your "understanding" then. So far you haven't substantiated any of your assertions with evidence. If you're interested in me providing evidence of certain assertions I make, I'd happily provide them. 

15. Only in so much as any ideal is unrealistic. That doesn't make ideals useless though. You wouldn't say geometry has no real-world application because a perfect circle is "unrealistic"/can never exist. 

16. I never said they were "entirely" socially-constructed. This has been a trend of yours. Creating false-dichotomies and then assuming that because I reject the absolute statements you make that I believe the opposite absolute. There are degrees to which gender norms are biologically determinable, but since individual humans are complex animals biology manifests differently based on the environmental (including social) context. 

17. That has much more to do with their autonomy (or lack thereof) as a worker than their autonomy as a pregnant woman (I disagree with feminists here.) One could advocate having leave for a variety of reasons (woman or not.) In fact, in many countries men ask for parental leave after a baby is born. 

18. The feminists who say this are wrong, in my opinion. Heck I don't necessarily agree with most feminists about the patriarchy in today's world. Feminists aren't a hive-mind anyway. 

19. Then we don't disagree other than the proportions in which these different factors work in our current society. I'd also like to add that what constitutes success is defined by individuals. 

20. You need to define "intelligence", "bravery", etc and "success" in universal terms for this to be true. Which is an anti-individualist position. I can guarantee you that a Amazonian tribe has better chances of surviving in the Amazon than you do, even if you score higher on an IQ test. Another example is if we were to define success in terms of evolutionary success. There is no reason to believe that in certain ecological niches that these qualities would perpetuate your gene-pool. So I contest the idea that there is a universal metric of success and universal qualities which achieve it. 

21. In the specific setting of the workplace, I believe the capitalist only provides the capital. That is his role. Without the capital nobody would care to associate with him. Tell me, what else does the capitalist provide in this scenario? The capitalist isn't typically the person who sells the goods or services, isn't the person who makes them, isn't the person directly making management decisions, etc. He/she/they are the person(s) providing the money with the aim to gain profits through the work, innovation, and management of others. In other circumstances beyond the workplace? Sure, maybe the capitalist provides something other than capital.

By the way, capital =|= [money], capital = [money, fixed capital, natural resources, etc]

22. Why not? One doesn't need to be the best to adequately manage a firm.This isn't a binary scale between "best = success" and "anything less = failure." Plus plenty of companies last so long because they get special subsidies and privileges, hence the role of the state and its bailouts. Your statement might be true if all markets were perfectly competitive though, but then there would no longer be a super-normal profit-incentive (in a perfectly competitive market; price = marginal cost in the long run) and therefore capitalists would have less dominance (see: market-share of farming cooperatives as an example.) In other words, capitalism would dissolve into Tuckerite market-socialism. 

23. The shape of a normal distribution. 

24. In some circumstances. There are plenty of instances where starting anew is beneficial. Reform can work, but only to an extent. In order to have capitalist liberal democracies we had to destroy (or modify beyond recognition) the feudalism and absolutist institutions which preceded them, through concepts like: the separation of church and state, the elimination of any monarchy power, etc. The same holds true when talking about socialism with respect to liberal democracy. Fundamental characteristics of liberal society like: property, the state, humanism, etc need to be disentangled and modified, if not abolished outright, just as we abolished (in the United States) state churches in our liberal revolution/evolution. 

25. No, it's more like saying because cars aren't perfect we should develop a new, better mechanism of transportation that doesn't have the bad features of cars. Your analogy would work if I said, "We should abandon liberal democracy and go back to feudalism." I am saying, "we should better develop the fundamental enlightenment ideas of liberal democracy, abandon those which aren't that good, and live in a better system of social organization." 

26. lol :D, that is a concession of not having a point without actually admitting it, if I ever saw one. 

27. This would be a fair exchange if all of the coercion around them didn't lead to this dependency of the worker on the capitalist. If the woman (or man) were dependent on the man (or woman) because of coercion around them and they could have been in a better position without said coercion, then yes that would be exploitative. 

28. Sure he started in his garage, and without the capital he would've remained in his garage. He used his social connections (which not all people have) to persuade capitalists to give him capital in order to expand beyond his garage. The future of his business depended on the interests of the capitalist, which might (or might not) be contrary to his own in certain circumstances. 

You simplified my previous definition in order to build a straw man, which again is a typical mode of intellectual dishonesty which you took advantage of in our conversations. This is the definition of capitalist that I provided. 

 Capitalist = = "person who uses the privilege of capital to exploit the labor of others."

Merely exchanging one's capital for labor does not make a capitalist. If I don't make a profit off the exchange, then there is no exploitation. 

29. Nope, I never mentioned Steve Jobs. I spoke of capitalists. You were the one who brought up Steve Jobs. I told you that when Steve Jobs acted as an entrepreneur he was not acting as a capitalist but a worker, working on the behalf of capitalists. 

Just as I can be a producer and consumer in different contexts, so can I be a worker and a capitalist in different contexts. This is true of Steve Jobs too. He started as a worker, and produced value as a worker. When he acted as a capitalist the only thing he provided was capital, which is crucial to value-production, sure, but is in the hands of as few as possible mostly because of societal norms and state laws which bound them. 

30. Except I am not. One can believe that the individual is the fundamental moral agent and the basis from which all social institutions gain their legitimacy, while still believing that the individual worker should control his/her/their labor-product (or an equivalent.) The prior is individualism, the latter is socialism. This was (and is) the consistent and common view of all individualist anarchists. They are individualists because they believe in the primacy of the individual and they are socialists because they wish to solve what they denote as "the labor problem." 

31. Certainly you would agree that a society can be without hierarchy and natural resources can be held in common, right? If not, then what do you say of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies? They did not have social hierarchies, and most things were held in common. Sure, they are not civilizations, but anarcho-communism is intelligible in at least that very context of primitive society, regardless of whether or not it can exist in a modern industrial society. I am personally not an anarcho-communist, and I think it would be unstable (revert into small-state communism or mutualism), but I can understand the concept fine without considering it to be an oxymoron. 

32. Being knowledgeable about the discourse that already exists, rather than reinventing the wheel is actually very important when discussing these topics. It is hubris to think otherwise. Sure you can add innovations and think critically about these works, but understanding what other people have said and believe rather than guessing or assuming (which is something you've done often in our conversations) is important. Just reading a label, and saying "yes that is an oxymoron" based on your internal prejudices of what is meant is very unintelligent. 

33. Citing other people's ideas rather than writing my own book on an internet forum does not make me a puppet. In fact, even if I were writing a book, I'd be doing a lot of citations for the very reason of not reinventing the wheel and being able to get to the point of my new (if any) additions to the discussion. This is a common thing to do whether we are talking about physics, philosophy, mathematics, etc. 

34. This is the definition that is relevant to our discussion. I see no reason why we'd use a different definition when speaking about social systems. 

35. Name a social hierarchy without violence then. Disproof by counter-example is one of the easiest proofs to make. 

36. When you simplify my arguments, sure it sounds silly and dumb. But that is the point of a strawman isn't it? 

37. This only poses a problem if you ignore the ability of people to associate into groups independent of being forced to. A pacifist can have others fight on his or her behalf (even if he doesn't wish them to.) There are also herd effects of reducing violence that benefit the pacifist independent of whether or not he personally fights. 

38. I never said it can be absolutely equalized at the local level, but it can be relatively equalized because it has been equalized in the past. For example, in the 10th century, securing the means to induce violence was dependent on 1. wealth and 2. physical capability. That is how knights had such disproportionate power, and it was the basis of the feudal system. It is no coincidence that once weapons became cheap, and more people were able to use them that feudalism was disposed of. 

It's why generally pro-monarchy philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that in the state of nature people had a generally equal capacity to induce violence. He knew this wasn't absolutely true, but it was true enough for his purposes of deriving what he believed to be a systematic political philosophy. 

Hobbes wished to solve this "problem" by declaring a single sovereign to which people were in awe of. The liberal philosophers which succeeded him switched this sovereign from being an individual person to being the collection of all persons in a society. The anarchist wishes for the sovereign to be the individual and doesn't see the equal capacity to do violence as a problem, because it internalizes the costs of violence to the individual. 

39. All natural resources, the creation of money, the movement of labor, and the patent system. 

40. Private property is more than a single right. Some of the rights he might benefit from, others he might not. Furthermore, the degree to which he benefits might be exceeded by the degree to which the capitalist gains a position of authority which externalizes the costs on to him, and therefore even if he benefits locally (assuming he has property) the capitalist uses his own position of benefiting more (by having more private property) to more easily impose his will in contractual agreements. 

Furthermore, it's not even true that everyone benefits from the appropriation of private property even locally. It was not true when the Native Americans' common property was stolen by colonists. It wasn't true when the common peasant lost their access to the common fields because their lord or a capitalist decided to enclose the property which they used to sustain themselves. It is not true today, when a renter is evicted by an absentee landlord or a laborer loses any bargaining power over his wages.

But private property isn't the only privilege the state grants anyway. It grants subsidies and regulations which help rent-seekers through regulatory capture. 

41. Yes, but who do I have a better chance of bolstering my position against? My neighbor Harry or the fucking federal government and its police/military? In which circumstance can I get more of my interests reconciled in any dispute resolution? Hence, the crucial adjective "unilateral" before the noun "violence." 

The reason why I bring it up is because in one group I have a greater say and more autonomy than I have in the other group. 

42. "Stating the obvious" is merely an excuse for being intellectually lazy and holding your sacred positions religiously. 

43. They were self-appointed representatives of the people, and so the religiously held myth goes. I have strong doubts that thirty people represented a population of almost four million. 

And they certainly didn't represent anybody born after the fact. Furthermore, where was the representation for women, black people, Native Americans, etc? Were the slave-holding southerners who counted black people among their population representing their slaves? And you want to lecture me about what is collectivism and individualism while holding representative democracy as legitimate. 

44. He gave some facts, and some opinions. You can dispute the truth-values of the facts, and discuss the viability of his opinions yes. 

45. Sure, but the state doesn't necessarily represent a consensus. It represents a majority at best, and more often than not a very small minority. Disputes over what is or is not appropriate still exist, and different laws in local contexts still exist. Anarchism is merely taking the ideas of (con)federalism, pluralism, individualism, and self-government seriously, rather than using them as religious reasons to support one particular state over another. 

46. Oh I don't deny it has a purpose. I deny its purpose is what you say it is. The state is there to extract tax-rents so that it can subsidize the costs of those whom control it. In so much as it does anything else, it is for this ultimate purpose. 

"Being more capable at something is not the same thing as having more privilege. Privilege is a social phenomenon, granted by all other persons to a person or group. "

so... you don't acknowledge that people tend to give more authority to people that are more capable in various fields? for example a carpenter obviously has more skill in building structures than a programmer right?

so which person do you wager gets more work in the construction industry?

this is a bad example but its that i struggling to even comprehend why i'd have to clarify how the differences between people lead to privilege...

"The disabled person might have capabilities which make up for their disability, or the society in which they exist might provide accommodations for disabled people which reduce the inequality."

ok lets take my example with the person with no legs, what capabilities would make up for that? do they sprout wings or some shit?

and yes our society currently accommodates for disabled people, not perfectly of course but society does

" Dis-privilege due to having a disability is a social phenomena"

lol i don't even know what to say to that

"Privilege =|= advantage. "

what? privileges are not advantages? what?

"For starters a "military sniper" wouldn't exist without the state. Nobody's main profession would be to snipe."

i thought you were an individualist? 

"For those people who are physically weak or incapable of defending themselves, they'd have the ability to form social bonds in order to have equal access to defense."

in modern society we call this the police

". So yes, the capacity to induce violence would generally be equal at a macro-level if it is not equal at the individual level. "

which assumes unrealistically that different groupings of people would have the same capacity for violence

i suppose all of the wars throughout history aren't enough of a demonstration that this idea is wrong

"It is only through tax-rents that the state is able to gain a unilateral monopoly on the legitimization of violence which makes its effective power so disproportionate. "

well no its more that most people support the government or at least believe that if its corrupted presently that it can be fixed eventually... 

"That something is against the law doesn't mean it isn't protected. Drug cartels are against the law, but they only flourish because of the actions of the state."

drug cartels are not what i referred to which was specifically murder and rape

can you logically explain how murder and rape within a country that has outlawed them are protected by the government?

"The legitimization of rape against spouses was only legitimated by the state punishing wives who took actions into their own hands, it's only been recently that Western countries have changed their laws to include rape against spouses."

well that's the past i figured we were actually talking about now, the present, linear time

" Even in western countries, rape against men is not recognized as rape unless they are penetrated by an object or penis. "

yes due to the definitions of rape that are used, can you explain logically how rape as it is described in the law is protected by the government?''

"That doesn't mean people's actions can't be limited without statutes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism"

the point i'm making is that the people of the group have to agree on certain social rules in order to respond to an offender who violates them... which is pretty much the same thing

" In both instances I make a promise to do something in the future with what is originally mine (my body or labor-product.) In the first instance I promise to have sex."

huh? because you have sex with someone presently that automatically means you have promised to have sex with them in the future?

let me be generous and assume you are referring to the actually act itself... uh no starting to have sex with someone does not in anyway mean that there's a promise to continue...

"Suppose I have control over my labor-product and decide,"Hey, I don't want the wage they promised me, I want to keep that which I produced and sell it myself.""

again... when you work a job you consent to an agreement that your labour will be exchanged for money.... i don't see what's so hard to understand about that

"consequently a violation of either is the same violation -- that of my self-autonomy. "

you express autonomy when you consent to do the job on the employers terms... when you then turn around and claim that you're too stupid to understand those terms then that's on you not the employer

"Both my labor-product and my body are mine to give and keep"

no one is stopping you from establishing your own business but again as i said you agree to certain terms on a job using your autonomy to make that decision

"Hence to stipulate that a laborer can't change the terms of their labor-contract at any time "

of course they can but obviously it wouldn't be retroactive because then you'd be a double talking idiot for agreeing to certain terms initially

"is to imply that a person partaking in sex can't change the terms of their sex-contract at any time. "

ok lets do a proper comparison here - the man has inseminated the woman and he now feels that he wants his ejaculate back in his testicles... how is that going to work?

"I have not denied people have different capabilities."

you have on many occasions and i expect that you'll continue to do so because your ideology depends on this idea

"As I said, there is some degree to which people mistakenly surround themselves with people who are not in their interests. There is also a point where people surround themselves with people who are not in their interests because they have no other choice, even if they recognize that fact. "

and thirdly there are also people who WILLFULLY CHOOSE TO ASSOCIATE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN THEIR INTERESTS... good i corrected that for you

"Most people don't join a gang thinking it is especially good for them. Instead they join a gang because it is the least bad option among many. "

and some do it because they want to feel like a big man

"The capitalist subjectively creates and modifies his morality and imposes his will. He is only better capable at imposing his will because the state privileges him with monopoly access to various social functions/resources: banking/money, the movement of labor/tariffs, access to land/natural resources, and the patent system to name just a few. "

yeah the state just gives all business owners their shit, they never have to work and strive towards anything 

and again with this bullshit about employers imposing their will on people who CONSENT

"When I used "we" I was using it to refer to people who see exploitation as wrong and whom I would associate with. "

how collectivist of you

"It is just the same as your collective use of "their." So if I am a collectivist for using a collective pronoun, so are you for using a collective pronoun. That an individualist properly uses the pronoun does not make him/her a collectivist."

it was not the pronoun but the context of the pronoun which you reiterated above

" I can recognize that I share qualities with other people without recognizing that I share all qualities with other people. Just as one might recognize that most men have penises, and would say "we" when referring to men and their penises when discussing the probability of penile cancer doesn't make one a collectivist"

men are a collective yes, thanks for establishing that for me

"I never said they were "entirely" socially-constructed."

and i didn't say you did i said "if"

" That has much more to do with their autonomy (or lack thereof) as a worker than their autonomy as a pregnant woman"

how is their autonomy as a worker affected?

" The feminists who say this are wrong, in my opinion."

that's strange, their "patriarchy" is the same boogie man as your government/capitalism

"Feminists aren't a hive-mind anyway. "

what makes a person a feminist?

" I'd also like to add that what constitutes success is defined by individuals. "

nonsense, people always define success by looking at what other people are doing and that's a fact

and furthermore i think that its this phenomenon that is pushing so many people towards this equality nonsense because they look at the people who are successful and resent them and just wish to pull them down while claiming that its really about helping the poor, that's my opinion

"You need to define "intelligence", "bravery", etc and "success" in universal terms for this to be true."

success does not need to be defined universally in that example since its relative to the environment

with regards to the traits if i really need to define what "bravery" for example is then this  discussion really has plummeted off the deep end

" I can guarantee you that a Amazonian tribe has better chances of surviving in the Amazon than you do"

yes, most likely, and that is because they went out into their environment and gained an understanding of it which requires firstly the bravery to move into unknown territory, then the willingness to interact with the various problems that arise such as venomous snakes or whatever and finally the intelligence to be able to come up with effective strategies

these traits are used at all times by all people when it comes to becoming successful in their environment and the opposite traits  -cowardice, withdrawal, stupidity do not ever lead to success  and that's a fact

ultimately the point is that these vary across people which causes differences in success rates between people and that is innate, its not something you can stop unless you control everyone

"Why not?"

lol i'm done

". The shape of a normal distribution. "

so the shape of a normal distribution proves that all traits are distributed the same way across all people?

"Fundamental characteristics of liberal society like: property, the state, humanism, etc need to be disentangled and modified"

you want to modify humanism in what way?

" This would be a fair exchange if all of the coercion around them didn't lead to this dependency of the worker on the capitalist. If the woman (or man) were dependent on the man (or woman) because of coercion around them and they could have been in a better position without said coercion, then yes that would be exploitative. "

lol this is a response to whether a man moving something for a woman is exploitative or not? are you trolling right now?

"Sure he started in his garage, and without the capital he would've remained in his garage."

no... he sold products, without investors his growth would've been slower but the point is that he had started a successful business

"He used his social connections (which not all people have)"

i'm proud, you're finally beginning to understand apparently

"The future of his business depended on the interests of the capitalist"

well this is just an assertion that you can't back

"Merely exchanging one's capital for labor does not make a capitalist. If I don't make a profit off the exchange, then there is no exploitation. "

and steve jobs did so according to you steve jobs was a capitalist from the start.... i'm glad that we were able to clear that up

"He started as a worker, and produced value as a worker. When he acted as a capitalist the only thing he provided was capital, which is crucial to value-production"

what incoherent nonsense

"while still believing that the individual worker should control his/her/their labor-product"

this is not socialism, you are saying that if i take a pile of wood and make a dog house out of it, then that is socialism 

"Certainly you would agree that a society can be without hierarchy and natural resources can be held in common, right?"

only in a society that suppresses individuality... but obviously such a society could never be anarchist

"then what do you say of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies? "

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways

The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared.

so the stronger people were pretty much forced to support the weaker people... doesn't sound like anarchy to me

"The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passivelyegalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone--especially if some young man--attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown."

so pretty much individuality was discouraged, and passivity was forced on men

you couldn't have brought up a better example to bolster my point that its nonsense

"but anarcho-communism is intelligible in at least that very context of primitive society"

how you can say this while acknowledging that they relied on coercion to force sharing among other things while equating this with anarchy is baffling

"I am personally not an anarcho-communist"

what you've been saying sounds pretty much the same to me

". Just reading a label, and saying "yes that is an oxymoron" based on your internal prejudices of what is meant is very unintelligent. "

well its a good thing that i backed what i said up with your own example

" This is the definition that is relevant to our discussion. I see no reason why we'd use a different definition when speaking about socialsystems. "

look the idea that you are pushing that an authority is needed for hierarchies to form is stupid, just going out into the world and observing how people behave instantly destroys that idea

on a construction site for example workers naturally tend to follow the lead of the most skilled person and this applies to any situation where people attempt to perform some type of task

"Name a social hierarchy without violence then"

as i mentioned above people sort themselves into hierarchies based on skill as one example and this does not require an authority to tell them to do so

violence of course forms hierarchies under certain circumstances obviously but to claim that this is how all hierarchies form shows such a lack of understanding of people that its absolutely amazing to me

"This only poses a problem if you ignore the ability of people to associate into groups independent of being forced to. A pacifist can have others fight on his or her behalf (even if he doesn't wish them to.)"

suppose they refuse to fight for him? well he's fucked right?

again that's why we have a police force and laws

"Yes, but who do I have a better chance of bolstering my position against? My neighbor Harry"

how big is harry and how big are you?

"Furthermore, where was the representation for women, black people, Native Americans, etc? Were the slave-holding southerners who counted black people among their population representing their slaves?"

they declared that all men are equal and the civil war addressed the slavery problem and feminism addressed the problem for women

"And you want to lecture me about what is collectivism and individualism while holding representative democracy as legitimate. "

please tell me you are not american while claiming that america was founded as a democracy

" Sure, but the state doesn't necessarily represent a consensus."

no system does... again the world is not perfect, you will never be able to construct a system that appeals to every single person and that should be obvious... therefore your concern should be focused on certain fundamental rights everyone should have access to which is what happened

Why do you always format your posts so that they're so hard to read?

The problem with Communism is that the few who gain power will alter the rules of the playing field. People are greedy in general and that's the rule we need to assume. Look at Mainland China in the past and even today. Mao became a mad king and set China backwards several decades. He killed any and all wealthy people, even though, logically, not all rich people are bad people. By killing off the wealthy (people who were well educated), he was left with farmers and other low level workers. Not to mention, he tried to destroy 5000 years of Chinese culture. After Mao's death, the Party did change course, but to this day, China isn't the kind of place people can truly find happiness in.  Today, they have a Capitalist economy mixed with Socialism and Dictatorship. People do not own property as they all have an expiration date of 70 years. People do not have human rights; if they speak up or protest, they get thrown in jail. The air quality is the worst in the whole world. Wealth gap between rich and poor is so bad it even surpassed the United States. When you have connections with Government officials, you have a much higher chance to become wealthy. There is no public funded healthcare. Many people have become selfish, throw trash on the ground, pick fights with you, spit in public, etc. It's funny that a so called Communist country has the most people who worship money.

Contrast all that to a different country, The Republic of China (Taiwan). When the Nationalists fled to the island of Taiwan after losing the Chinese Civil War to the Communists, they moved the Republic of China Government from Mainland China over to Taiwan. While Taiwan was ruled under decades of Dictatorship, the ROC constitution was one that set eyes on Democracy. The founding father of the ROC, Sun Yat-Sen, fought for Democracy since 1911. Taiwan today is a successful, stable Democracy, with full human rights protected under their constitution. Their wealth gap is one of the lowest if not the lowest in all of Asia. Freedom House even ranked Taiwan more free than the United States this year. They maintained more of the 5000 year Chinese culture than Mainland China does to this day. They have a successful single-payer healthcare system since 1995. They have affordable housing overall with average wages twice as high compared to Mainland China. Their people are well mannered, cheerful and helpful. They take their recycling very seriously and their air quality is much better. In a lot of areas, Taiwan functions like a Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism. 

I am a Social Democrat as I believe people need to be given the right to own property, but there needs to be strong social programs that benefit society as a whole. From the examples above, it is clear why I believe what I believe.