You copied the definition of Organization, or of Hierarchy, which exuded the very first paragraphs on it, explaining it exactly as I refereed to it:
No, it's simply a System of Organization, look it up, stop defining it by abstractions and misunderstandings. A system of organization, CAPICHE?!
Therefore you selected only what helped your stance, (hardly), and claimed that is what hierarchy meant. It's meaningless because you will not see that when you said "System of Authority" you didn't use the word authority as authority is used in the context of systems, to describe a system of organization but to erroneously point to authority as a system. If you do not understand why you were wrong and how, you won't understand the point that I made when I called Hierarchy a system of organization, or when you avoided posting the paragraphs before your quote, where it said
A hierarchy (from the Greek hierarchia, "rule of a high priest", from hierarkhes, "leader of sacred rites") is an "arrangement of items" (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) in which the items are represented as being "above," "below," or "at the same level as" one another.
Arrangement of items is not a System of Authority, even if you believe authority implies an arrangement of items. An Arrangement of items is A System of Organization.
I'll resurrect the numerous points you tried to abandoned with your strawman of "System of Authority"
No, you got lost in translation. I said that you cannot transfer your authority onto someone else, and have them do or act on your behalf, how they chose. That's an imaginary belief system that has no ground in reality. If that person chose to take your "authority" (yeah absurd as it is, hypothesis sake) and he murdered someone on your authority, does he get blamed? A great example is you're giving your decision over the family finances to someone else, then when they fuck up the finances, you blame them, even though you cannot, because you are to blame. Even if they are malicious, you ultimately chose to do that, you chose to trust that person with doing things that you should be doing. And that's the closes real world example there is to giving your "decision making power" to someone else. We are talking about CONSENSUAL WORK, CONSENSUAL SEX, people chose to work for someone, stop twisting the conversation because you are a moron, examine that basic logic equates absurdity to you.
Please do us all a favor and go back and quote exactly what I said! You're assuming that I'm giving the person I work for the power to make choices in my name! You're assuming that work cannot happen otherwise?! That I can agree to work, consensual?! People can chose to take orders, to follow orders for work, yes. In that is implied agreement, consent. Those people cannot follow order like "kill people" because they have no authority over someone's life, or property. If you let someone with your property, you give them freedom to do what they wish with your property, you basically gave them your property, you understand that? But that only works with property that is yours, that's the one and only thing that is transferable, the fruits of your labor, effort and time implied.