4 ms·
I think the one reason hereditary right for particular positions is good because it ensures stability, but means that people in power have the ability to learn
by LeoTinnitus 7y ago
I think the one reason hereditary right for particular positions is good because it ensures stability, but means that people in power have the ability to learn and grow. They also have the power to ignore self interest groups from lobby because they don't have to worry about their money to survive.
I'm not saying traditional feudalism is good, but we're all lying to ourselves if we don't realize the concept still exists today. It's just been masked by a more complicated bureaucracy with a more stratified hierarchy. Everybody knows a Duke tiers above a count and a count above a baron. Nobody knows whether a senior accountant and ma and pas accounting is better than a manager at blank accounting firm.
- stanfordkid 7y agoHave you ever met an heir or an heiress to a large fortune? Most of them are coke heads. Without the actual culture of spiritual and moral training heirs would be incompetent and feudalism would quickly lead to anarchy. I don’t think modern society and culture could produce people like Alexander the Great. Non-western societies (e.g Asia/Singapore) have enough family values that feudal dynasties could work, but wouldn’t bet on it happening in the western world.
- sudosysgen 7y agoAnd those sort of family values come at other, massive societal costs.
- LeoTinnitus 7y agoHowever, oftentimes those morons aren't the puppet masters. Someone else is. But I know it's not a perfect system, nor is it "truly" better than elected officials. I just feel that a system of long term rule with at least a check on the executive similar to an elective monarchy. Or we could do what the celts did and have a Tanistry system of inheritance. The heir is deigned by an election of the eldest/siblings of the current ruler (or if there are none, their parents eldest or cousins, etc, etc).