3 ways of getting things done.

There is this unpopular book called "3 ways of getting things done" which I think sums up all power relationships, though I would redefine things just a little.

Hierarchy: Superiors issue orders to subordinates and they obey.
Democracy: Voting or some other system of representation.
Autonomy: Individuals or groups are allowed free reign, usually in the context of certain boundaries and limitations.

I don't know what the big deal is, it seems pretty straight forward to me, we need to use the best system for the task or 2 or 3 when we are unsure. What is the need for all these ideologies?

>>3 I get the picture and it makes sense. Shall we push it a bit further though?

 Is it the individual that limits him/her self to these boundaries and limitations or are they forced upon everyone by an authority like the police? And in the second case (policing), who writes the rules and who controls the police?

 Of course these are rhetoric questions and depending on how we reply can lead us from pure anarchy to absolute totalitarianism.

 This is exactly why I noted >>1's contradiction. Because depending on how each of us interprets the sentence, it can mean a world of different and contradicting things. It is practically a non-sentence that instead of clarifying the subject (autonomy), it blurs it.

 So according to that sentence and your interpretation of it, the system you have in any country right now is autonomy because from Burma to Sweden, individuals are allowed free reign in the context of certain boundaries and limitations. The boundaries and limitations in Burma are a tat harsher than the Swedish :p

What does that say about anything?