Not much of a critique, but:
ziq's essay in response to Chomsky's justified authority type stuff did the job, it gave readers plenty lines of thought to help them think things through themselves.
Instead of going "there are no justified hierarchies", I've come to appreciate the full embrace of all justifications for what they are: Examples of how useless and impotent anyone's authority really is.
Putting it more bluntly: All hierarchies are justified — and as anarchists we reject even the most perfect and sound justification. Construct the most coherent and harmonious system of justifications for archy, the anarchist is still the one to go for something very different.
Anarchists are not trying to become "just" before God or before the law. Which, as far as I can tell, is where all that justification business came from.
Anarchist justice (and 'right'), if any such a thing is possible or desirable, doesn't "come before" anyone or anything. It is relational, immanent, it is our own, and only ever approximate — never subordinate to empty absolutes.
Chomsky's hierarchies, principles of authority, and systems of government are all legitimate and justified. I simply have no means or reasons to recognize them as anarchist.
If there is an anarchist story to tell about fellow traveler Chomsky and anarchism, it's the one about how he didn't really bother with any of it.
The guy is what, a hundred years old, and all he had to offer was some regurgitated quotes from libcom Guérin and syndicalist Rocker.
"Useful idiot" comes to mind.
If anarchists were any less boring, they would have a big laugh about the liberal academic who has all sorts of nice words for us while sending us waves of anarcho-curious progressives, only to get nothing but ridicule in return. Undermine liberals and academics and the intellectual man on TV, all in one go. Instead it was decades of "semantics" and "I love that guy". Missed opportunity.