So what's your evidence here besides some hazy gesturing at "kings, queens and nobles"? Because when you look at actual history, you see long-running mutual re

So what's your evidence here besides some hazy gesturing at "kings, queens and nobles"? Because when you look at actual history, you see long-running mutual relationships. E.g. the English Commons system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_land Or you could look at the Mexican ejido system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido Which descends from the Aztec capulli system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpulli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpulli Historically, leadership was tightly bound to productive land, because that's what everybody needed to survive. Your "nobles" could in the long term only be as successful as the people they ruled over, and the feedback loops there weren't long ones. Were there sometimes bad nobles and bad kings? Sure. But overall, the badness was limited because harming the "infrastructure" of the day, land and people, was felt quickly by people higher up the hierarchy. Sustainability was a must. That's distinct from modern capitalism in the age of industry and information technology, because the portability of wealth and the long feedback loops mean executives can get quite rich in unsustainable situations. The elevation of an IGMFY ideology to become the dominant view of the moneyed was only recently possible because for most of history one couldn't escape the consequences like people can now.