Can a society, or even a microcosm of society such as the workplace, function without hierarchy? Is it human nature to be superior/inferior to others, to create specific roles for specific people? Why, even in schools, do people assume power, or others become automatically submissive? Why is there hierarchy even in the animal kingdom? Is hierarchy a social construct or simply in our nature? Could we possibly live in total anarchy?
Depends on how the red tape is applied. If it applies to production, then it will limit the amount of supply that is legally produced, decreasing overall supply.
If the red tape is applied to consumption, supply will still be limited as companies would limit themselves from producing more than can be sold.
In either case, the cost of the red tape is included in the price.
I would believe that a company is more likely to own its land in a capitalist society.
This may depend on the cost red tape. For example, if a business is paying more on the interest to acquire the land, than they would get as a tax rebate for renting (as some governments allow), the logical business decision in terms of cost benefit is to rent. On the other hand, they may be able to offset the loss as a tax deduction as well, which is only feasible in large companies with multiple income streams, as opposed to local proprietaries where the business is wholly dependent on the one income.
However, if the machine is owned by the machinists, or there is a fee for operating it, the problem is avoided as the machine ceases to be commons.
The fee could also be reasonably used to maintain the machine. On the other hand, it depends how you treat the fee. If it counts as a share in owning the object, in capitalism the worker has a claim to an ROI even if they do not actually use the machine themselves. In communal ownership, even if the person does not operate the machine, they may derive a benefit from the products of the machine, and thus have a motive for it's upkeep. It sort of depends on how close to the problem the person is. People look after their own backyards first.
In theory it sounds good, but honestly it's against human nature. That's why communism didn't work very well; someone will always try and rise above the others - it's a survival instinct and I don't think our brains are developed enough to override it.
The human nature argument is pretty weird as far as I'm concerned. People throw the term around like everyone just has an inherent understanding of what "human nature" actually means.
If human nature is some sort of Platonic essence of humanity, then you'd have to have some sort of proof for that, and since no human exists in a vacuum, it's basically all speculation. I could say that human nature is fundamentally non-competitive and it's just as valid.
If human nature is simply "what humans do" then surely co-operation and mutual aid is just as much a part of human nature as anything else is?
I find people trot out the human nature argument as the clincher: "they'll never talk their way out of this one." When in fact it's a statement that doesn't actually mean anything.
In my post, I meant human nature to be the combination of all of the basic instincts - self-preservation, etc. I don't think personally that human nature is "what humans do" but I was just a little too lazy to word my explanation better. :-)
The true problem with anarchy is that it is not truly attainable. All anarchy only seems to be anarchy, but in total chaos the biggest and the brightest still hold power.
As an example, look at the teen fiction series GONE or Lord Of The Flies. In both books all the adults are removed from the equation and the kids are thrown into total anarchy. Yet even in this anarchy, the biggest and the strongest reign supreme.
In my opinion, anarchy is just a guise for a dictatorship. It gives people the idea of freedom, but in reality people are still controlled. In this case though, the rulers are cruel and punishing. Anarchy does not leave everyone as equals so therefore it can not be without a hierarchy.
If I had any way of looking up the name of this documentary I would but I don't so you'll have to take my word on it.
Anyways it was a documentary I had to watch in class. It took place in the 80's I believe and it was about one of the more primitive tribes out there. These people completely differed from what we're used to in the sense that they don't have any concept of hierarchy. Even the members of the tribe that do more work share among everyone else equally. They don't have a concept of anything but operating as a group.
Now I assume this was developed as a survival technique but it does basically prove the theory wrong that humans have to fight for a position to be on top no matter what. There are going to be ways to circumvent that, however complicated and unlikely they are.
Not to mention even if group anarchy was doomed to fail there's still individualism.
As long as everybody knows they're going to get screwed if they follow someone elses command then no real hierarchy would emerge, even if some people try to take my for themselves. It's kind of a hard ideal to create but going from a dictatorship or old-style-kingdoms to democracy was a major leap as well and that worked. It doesn't work perfectly every time but that doesn't make it unobtainable.
Anarchy does have some problems, as does every system, and the only big one is the inability to form a coherent military. So yeah it's all the dominos fall or none of them. Anarchy is a hard system to reach but giving up for that reason is just being lazy. If something is worth obtaining it's best to go for it.
if everyone wanted that then yeah it would work. it would take a select group of individuals who all want the same thing
I don't think we can get rid of hierarchy, or authority entirely, and I don't honestly see the need to. In it's essence it's quite useful for simplifying complex tasks and challenges involving billions of people. We can do something about how it is emphasized in our social constructs though, like how much privilege and obedience those in charge of things are entitled to, or how much gap we place between each other. It's quite clear that having too much emphasis on hierarchy is not the way to go.
I think workplaces and small communities can function as anarchies, but they'd still need a division of labor and assign certain people with certain skills to do or be in charge of doing certain thing, and obviously they would or should then have more authority when it come working out exactly how that should best be done. It's no reason to involve everyone in everything all the time. I's very wasteful.
There are many things I think are best handled by various forms of authority, without it having to be absolute. For example, let's pretend that the world in it's entirety were made up of tidy spread out anarchies and we didn't know that lead was poisonous. It's quite unnecessarily complicated if every society should have to discover that for themselves. Of course in cases where dangerous things like that is discovered, it could be beneficial to have as little to none hierarchy as possible, but in the interest of discovery and making things known, it is best to have several widespread organizations of some authority to look into and make the call on certain things.
In essence I think moving towards different kinds of anarchies, or less hierarchy, in various fields and situations is a desirable pursuit, but I don't think we can have one anarchy that fits all needs and purposes.