4 ms·

There is minimal incentive for corruption in a hereditary aristocracy. Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a

There is minimal incentive for corruption in a hereditary aristocracy. Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway. So what incentive is there to make or take a bribe? It won't change who your parents are.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway Lords being unconcerned with—and constrained by—wealth characterises all (EDIT: none of the) non-market societies that I know of. In part because basic economics constrains the society as a whole, even if they’re ignorant of its principles.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  Right. I'm not saying anything about economics not applying, only that the incentive for corruption is absent.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Sorry, I managed to reverse my argument with a typo. > only that the incentive for corruption is absent What historic civilisation are you thinking of?
TheCoelacanth 1y ago
Aristocracy itself is state sanctioned corruption. The law is made to privilege certain people above others instead of serving the common good.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  Corruption has a meaning, and it's not "the law is unfair."
  - TheCoelacanth 1y ago
    "illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power"[1] "Corruption is the dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal use of entrusted authority or power for personal gain or other unlawful or unethical benefits."[2] Every single aristocracy absolutely fits those definitions. The norm in every aristocracy is to disregard the law in favor of what benefits those in power and to apply the law unequally depending on the desires of rulers. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corruption https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corrupti... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption
ceejayoz 1y ago
This is so deeply wrong on so many levels I'm rather fascinated by it.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway Lords being unconcerned with—and constrained by—wealth characterises all (EDIT: none of the) non-market societies that I know of. In part because basic economics constrains the society as a whole, even if they’re ignorant of its principles.

terminalshort 1y ago
Right. I'm not saying anything about economics not applying, only that the incentive for corruption is absent.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Sorry, I managed to reverse my argument with a typo. > only that the incentive for corruption is absent What historic civilisation are you thinking of?

TheCoelacanth 1y ago

Aristocracy itself is state sanctioned corruption. The law is made to privilege certain people above others instead of serving the common good.

terminalshort 1y ago
Corruption has a meaning, and it's not "the law is unfair."
- TheCoelacanth 1y ago
  "illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power"[1] "Corruption is the dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal use of entrusted authority or power for personal gain or other unlawful or unethical benefits."[2] Every single aristocracy absolutely fits those definitions. The norm in every aristocracy is to disregard the law in favor of what benefits those in power and to apply the law unequally depending on the desires of rulers. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corruption https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corrupti... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption

ceejayoz 1y ago

This is so deeply wrong on so many levels I'm rather fascinated by it.