This really seems like it only makes sense in the context of contrived definitions of "authority" and "hierarchy". Expert Authority (authority deriving from an individual's expertise in a particular field) is a well-established and widely recognized concept.

"Hierarchy" does not inherently imply that the relationships are involuntary. If you want to call such structures "involuntary hierarchy", knock yourself out, I'll agree with everything you say against them. But voluntary hierarchies are still hierarchies by the actual definition of the word, and when the structure is based on expertise (judges, teachers, trades experts, administrative coordinators, etc) they are extremely effective.

Redefining words to exclusively refer to the most negative aspects of the common definition is bad rhetoric, intellectually disingenuous, and ineffective at spreading a message. Like I said, if you would like to be specific, and append an appropriate adjective to existing words to refer to a particular subset of a concept (involuntary hierarchy, arbitrary authority) you'll have much more luck convincing those who know what the base words mean.

No True Scotsman would ever have a hierarchy!

I know it's semantics (er...is it diction?) and at the end of the day pretty pedantic, but this is the first time I've seen the suggestion that hierarchy necessitates authority, and that authority necessitates compulsion (or an institution, or a command/control relationship). I mean yeah, they definitely have those connotations, for sure. And maybe in the context of anarchist theory, this is their functional definition.

But in a general sense, we still have hierarchies that are completely outside of the realm of social organization, like top down hierarchical categorization of...things...right? Like, stuff? And similarly, we have authorities that aren't necessarily relevant to compulsion, like an authority on a particular niche subject. I guess we're compelled to believe them, but, I dunno...

I'm kinda thinking out loud here. But I guess if I met, say, a master woodworker, and she was guiding me through building a bookshelf, I'd still say she is the authority over my actions, even if I decided to do something contrary to her commands. For sure, she has the right to tell me how to build the bookshelf -- she is the expert, I recognize the authority over me in this matter -- and she retains the authority even if I defy her. Idk maybe I'm talking about a different definition of authority.

That greatly depends on who you ask. There are plenty of kinksters who make no distinction between those terms.

Workplaces, at least under capitalism, aren't a voluntary hierarchy. You have to sell your labour to survive.

That's different, workplaces buy your time from you.

It's all so second nature to me at this point that I had to spend a good bit of time thinking about all the ways I incorporate my anarchist values in my practice. I'm sure there are more, but these are the most significant ones I could think of

• No insurance, so I'm not forced to pathologize my clients and I'm not beholden to a third-party constraining what we're allowed to work on, etc

• Extremely low cost, with no means testing, and I even accept bartering

• Full therapeutic self-disclosure to help dissolve the power dynamic

• Conduct sessions in neutral or client-centered environments (I have no public office- I meet clients virtually, outdoors, or in their home)

• Peer accountability with a fellow anarchist in the medical field

• Consent and boundaries are iterative and explicit

• Session structure, modalities, etc, are collaboratively negotiated

Edit: I realize this list probably sounds normal and benign to leftists, but libs react very strongly to these things