Samuel Bostaph wrote:  
>----------------- HES POSTING -----------------  
>By using the term "the division of labor" I did not intend to imply its  
>simple-minded form in Book II of Plato's REPUBLIC or in Smith's pin factory  
>example.  The "sequencing of tasks" conception captures the essence of the  
>idea.  It applies to one person preparing dinner as well as to the division  
>of knowledge within an entire economy.  George Reisman ably covers this in  
>his CAPITALISM.  
  
But I was answering your question of how D of L   
was connected with hierarchy. The "pin-factory"   
is the commonly accepted meaning, and it leads to   
a multiplication of a pointless, expensive, and   
inefficient management structure.  
  
If by division of labor you merely mean that some   
men are cobblers and some are carpenters, then it   
is difficult to see how it functions as a "law."   
A law in science is a rule or measure of the   
necessary relations between objects or phenomena.   
Thus, the law of gravity gives the relations   
between massive bodies. What measure does the   
division of labor give us such that we would be   
permitted to call it an economic law?  
  
  
John C. Medaille