Tag: businesses

The Importance of Voluntary Hierarchies

By Jack Parkos | United States

The basis of leftist movement has been an anti-hierarchy mentality. That all hierarchies are evil and should be abolished to obtain a state of egalitarianism. Far leftists use words like “patriarchy” or “class struggle” to get their point across. The leftist view is that all hierarchies are authoritarian. These include capitalism, the nuclear family, and sometimes the government.

While it is true, that hierarchies can be tyrannical, this certainly does not mean all hierarchies are such the case. Hierarchies are, in fact, natural and do much good.

The wolf pack is a great example of why the hierarchy is naturally occurring. Wolves are very social creatures and form packs to work together to survive. Every wolf plays its role in the pack. In the wolf pack, the leader is the Alpha. The Alpha is in charge of the hunts and makes group decisions to benefit the pack. Below him is the Beta, and at the end is the Omega, the last in line. Such a system allows wolves to survive and work together. Many other social creatures use similar systems.

Humans too are social creatures, and thus require interaction with people. Groups can form from people with common goals and belief not only just to survive, but to thrive. Humans also maintain the idea of rights that can prevent a hierarchy from being tyrannical.  Let’s take a farming community for example.

The community needs to plan what crops and livestock will grow and where it will grow. Amongst all the debate, a natural leader will rise and take charge, allowing groups to compromise and figure out a plan as to what to do. He leads the community through the harsh winter with his leadership ability. As the work expands, he must have people below him, but above the average man. This new group may manage certain areas of the land.

This is the common business model. There’s the CEO of the business. Below him may be managers, and below them is the average worker. This works best for business. Without such a leader, the average workers would all have to run the business equally. This could not be done. Suppose there are disputes, which are common in the workplace. How would they be solved? One may say a vote would be a good resolution. But democracy (voting) creates a hierarchy of the majority over the minority, which can be dangerous.

Thus, natural rulers must take charge and run things. They should not be tyrannical as no one would follow them. Such hierarchies, like in the business world, should be voluntary. The leader should not disregard the rights of people. If so, the people can leave. Each man should be in charge of his own property. But, if they choose to form a group based on common defense and beliefs and have a leader, then this is not authoritarianism.

Natural and Unnatural Hierarchies

One may observe the wolf packs can be vicious, the Omega being “bullied” by the higher ranking groups. Such is a tragedy. But in human hierarchies, this can be protected. Humans, again, have greater thinking abilities. Only humans truly grasp the idea of property.  As long as a leader respects the people’s property, they cannot be tyrannical. The modern state does not respect private property.

The unnatural hierarchy rises from elites attempting to rule over the people.  Through force and violation of rights. The natural hierarchy rises by the will of people to have order and protect property. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe puts it:

Natural order defends these basic property principles. Locations were selected by defensibility. Leaders of small communities were able to act as courts by shunning wrong-doers and directing compensation to the victim. Law was discovered, not created. Taxes in the modern sense did not exist. The king, lords and nobles established protection villages against invaders.

People, having property rights, will need a defense for their property. If they agree to join a group of property owners and establish law, is it authoritarian? Certainly not. Law is necessary for any society, and law can create hierarchies (Reminder: these laws are not forced on the people).  Law should be local, decentralized, and non-tyrannical. Law should serve to protect life, liberty, and property. These rules could be established via a contract, perhaps a constitution of sorts. If laws go beyond these intended uses, property owners should have the right to leave such a contract.

A Non-Hierarchal Society

The common myth that hierarchy is anti-libertarian or anti-freedom is a lie from Marxists. Not only is it ineffective, but it’s also a lie about libertarianism. Libertarianism is not about chaos. Libertarianism is about peace and voluntarism. Libertarians aren’t against rules, but rather cohesive violent rules.

Assume all hierarchies were abolished. Unless we ignore human nature, humans will still require interaction. With interaction comes disputes. If two people cannot agree on something, how can it be solved? Removal of the hierarchy is the removal of the law. Without any sort of law, there is no way to solve disputes without violence.

Moreover, without hierarchies, there is no private property. If people cannot keep what they own, there is no incentive to work. Without an incentive to work, there can be no production. Without production, no food, technology, etc.

Assuming people would work for the betterment of the group, how is it decided what gets done? Who decides what is done? Suppose we use the farming example again. Say there is a dispute over whether land should be used for crops or livestock. How would this be solved? Again, the only way would be through either violence or democracy. However, as stated above, democracy is a hierarchy of the majority. This hierarchy gains its power simply from the majority, not from any natural leading ability.

The hierarchy is a natural part of human nature. Capitalism is not tyranny. The tyrannical hierarchy is not part of this. While the tyrants who use the law for personal gain should be overthrown, there must be a replacement with leaders. These leaders must only have authority based on consent from individuals. These leaders must be decentralized and have their only purpose to protect their property, as well as the people who they have engaged in a contract with.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Advertisements

Minimum Wages Only Hurt the Economy

By Jack Parkos | United States

Recently, a couple states have been not only playing with the idea of a minimum wage, but trying to pass bills on it. However, this is a bad idea. Not only is raising the minimum wage going to hurt the economy, but any minimum wage is detrimental. It hurts workers, business owners, and consumers.

The concept of a minimum wage implies that the government owns a business and its money. To believers in minimum wage laws, I have a simple question to ask. What gives the government the right to decide wages? The answer is, simply, there is none. A business is the property of the owner, not the government. The economy, not the government, is ultimately responsible for deciding wages.

This brings me to my next point. Many economists agree, a minimum wage is bad, let alone a higher one. Let’s assume we go with Delaware’s proposal to raise minimum wage to $10.25 by 2021. This is a $2 increase to the current price floor for labor. This may not seem like a lot, but for a business owner it could be disastrous. Raising the minimum wage to $10.25 an hour, or $15 an hour like many advocate, would be a disaster for the restaurant industry. On average, restaurants make only 5 dollars in profit for every 100 dollars in sales. It is already hard enough on restaurants to pay employees (which is why waiters get tips in exchange for lower wages). However, this is not always the case, and in many cases, employers would be forced to cover the full increase in the minimum wage.

This will lead to two major detriments. First of all, employers may need to cut back on their staff. A small business with a low profit margin may not be able to pay its employees a higher wage. As a result, the employer will likely lay off some workers to afford the wages of others. Also, a minimum wage increase may lead to an increase in prices. To afford to pay higher wages, employers are likely to have to raise their prices. However, any government policy that leads to price hikes is bad for the economy. Prices and wages should go up and down based on market forces of supply and demand.

Conversely, proponents of the minimum wage argue workers will be taken advantage of. Many claim workers will not be paid their fair share. Yet, this is simply not the case, and economic competition disproves the notion. Prices on labor follow the same economic forces as prices on goods. Just as nobody will pay 20 dollars for a cheeseburger, no one will work a job that pays 10 cents an hour. Thus, a business owner will look at profits and determine a wage that people would be willing to work for. That’s how it works for all jobs, and laws cannot substitute this process efficiently.

My final point is that minimum wage jobs are simply not meant to be a career. They ares stepping stones to that point. Many people’s first jobs are minimum wage jobs. The jobs are often marketed to high-school or college students trying to gain experience. Also, many of these workers, given good performance, receive a raise in their first year. Clearly, wages would be determined by the economy, not by government.


Featured Image Source