You started off by asking "So we'll have anarchy with experts?" Well, if by "experts" you mean people who have an "expertise" they have perfected, I would hope so -- will we have anarchy where nobody has any expertise, or where everyone can only develope the base-level knowledge on any topic? The issue is whether having expertise in a field will automatically place someone on a higher social level than others, and I say that need not at all be the case. It seems that to you, having expertise equates to being at a higher level than others or you feel that socially humans are incapable of avoiding hierarchy if any of them has more skill in a particular area than others. That, in my opinion, is precisely the thought process that I think is responsible for such hierarchy, and if we move towards anarchy I presume that at least the majority of us will have overcome such thinking and value judgements -- doesn't that inherently follow in any situation where anarchy exists?

Consider this comparison: biologically, it is simply true that some people will be born more physically strong than others -- so would that not inherently lead to hierarchy based upon brute force? Or force those who are physically weaker to band together to dominate and suppress those with more brute strength? I don't at all feel such conditions would inherently exist, since under anarchy the sort of mentality and socialization that leads to that sort of conflict will not exist, right?

This is no different from the issue of people developing a higher degree of knowledge or skill in a particular area because it interests them more than it interests others. Within an anarchist society, those who do engage in such deeper study and development of skill will also have been socialized to NOT seek higher social status or to use that skill to gain power in society -- and we won't value them more for that skill, it is simply a skill that either provides benefits for the masses or it doesn't and if it does then the person is expected to utilize that skill for maximum benefit for ALL.

The main thing I want to respond to is this quote from your post:
"I think you and Jim want to have it both ways. You envision a situation where person A provides countless benefits to society, where they're permitted to make decisions about bridge safety that affect everyone else, where they're specifically called on to decide how to allocate research resources for cancer, etc. and person B, who, try as they may, is actively prevented from making decisions about bridges, is subjected to rolling eyes when they try to provide input on how to allocate resources for cancer research, etc. And yet you somehow firmly believe that A won't be held in higher esteem than B, that a hierarchical gradient won't result. All I can say is "dream on.""

Nowhere did Jim or did I say that those with skills will be allowed to make decisions for everyone else, decide how to allocate resources, etc. Nor did either of us say or suggest that other people would not be allowed to participate etc, or that anyone will roll their eyes. I'm not sure where exactly you got this from, so I assume it's just a major misunderstanding about some aspect of what either Jim or I have said. Thus, by the way, the issue of a hierarchical gradient developing under such conditions is moot, I assume.

Again, this speaks (in my opinion) to a problem of still viewing post-anarchist social change through the value-system-prism operating in society today. If we are incapable of avoiding people taking and exerting power over others, development of heirarchies, etc in any situation where some people develop particular skills beyond those of most other people, that means humans are incapable of any social structure without hierarchy. I say that because I absolutely reject the suggestion that we can -- or necessarily should -- attempt a social condition in which nobody develops skills in excess of a predetermined "norm", unless that society rejects the actual notion of personal liberty and freedom.