There may be some who disagree with me, but I take it to be true that knowledge is, to some degree, intrinsically hierarchical (the question in the title here is genuine though, if you don't think it is, persuade me it's not!) This is just to say that there are some things which cannot be known until other things before them are known. Understanding of some concepts cannot be achieved without first having understood others. In my view, this implies hierarchy.
I also take it as a general truth of Human society that in the vast majority of possible worlds, we are better off with a society that has more knowledge than a society that has less knowledge.
Human beings enter the world as babies without any knowledge, aside from basic sensory data, if that can be construed as knowledge. This implies that there are always going to be some individuals who have less knowledge than others. If our society values knowledge, as I think it should, then because of the intrinsically hierarchical nature of knowledge, those who have more knowledge are in a position of authority relative to those who have less.
Many people understand anarchy to be the absence of hierarchy (as opposed to the common 'folk' view of anarchy, which often suggests that anarchy means either chaos, or an absence of order, both of which I disagree with). If this view on anarchy (absence of hierarchy, but not necessarily absence of order) is correct, then is valuing knowledge thus incompatible with anarchy? Can the two be reconciled?