3 ms·

Extremely weird take. I can see why this system tends towards this kind of corruption but what do titles do except make the system even more profoundly corrupt?

anovikov 11mo ago
Because people with titles of nobility were forbidden from participating in business at the risk of losing their titles; projecting to modern era, they'd be also forbidden from owning stocks at all. They must derive their means of existence from land rents and public/military service. Pretext was that engaging in commerce or business was "dishonourable" and below their status, in practice, it was a useful tool to avoid conflict of interest. To think of it, there's something tempting in physically separating owning class from ruling class, isn't it?
- nathan_compton 11mo ago
  I find all this rather flaccid, frankly. While the advent of capitalism provided an avenue for non-titled people to become wealthy, a lot of titled people also took that opportunity and I would guess a lot of generational wealth today still finds its ultimate source in entitled people. In any case, I doubt society could successfully enforce this behavior in a contemporary context.
- burkaman 11mo ago
  > people with titles of nobility were forbidden from participating in business at the risk of losing their titles I had never heard of this so I tried to look into it, here's a starting point for anyone else curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9rogeance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9rogeance. It seems like this was true in some countries, like France, but not all, and where they did exist these restrictions were beginning to fall in the 18th century. Projecting to the modern era, it seems obvious that a societal ruling class would not voluntarily block themselves from the center of power and make themselves irrelevant. Commercial restrictions made sense to them when the main mechanism of gaining power was acquiring and holding land, but they stopped restricting themselves once commercial activities became more important. > it was a useful tool to avoid conflict of interest I couldn't find any evidence for this and I find it pretty hard to believe. I don't even think the concept of "avoiding conflicts of interest" would make sense to historic nobility. Their interest was ruling over others, what would be the conflict in amassing wealth to expand their rule? Edit: For a literal example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitrose_Duchy_Organic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitrose_Duchy_Organic. This is a fairly successful company created by King Charles when he was the Duke of Cornwall, and is still owned by the current Duke. And obviously modern British royalty do own stocks, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#Private_estate_of_the_Sovereign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_..., and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#Lobbying_and_legal_exemptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_.... These are immense conflicts of interest that nobody seems to be in a hurry to resolve.

anovikov 11mo ago

Because people with titles of nobility were forbidden from participating in business at the risk of losing their titles; projecting to modern era, they'd be also forbidden from owning stocks at all. They must derive their means of existence from land rents and public/military service. Pretext was that engaging in commerce or business was "dishonourable" and below their status, in practice, it was a useful tool to avoid conflict of interest. To think of it, there's something tempting in physically separating owning class from ruling class, isn't it?

nathan_compton 11mo ago
I find all this rather flaccid, frankly. While the advent of capitalism provided an avenue for non-titled people to become wealthy, a lot of titled people also took that opportunity and I would guess a lot of generational wealth today still finds its ultimate source in entitled people. In any case, I doubt society could successfully enforce this behavior in a contemporary context.
burkaman 11mo ago
> people with titles of nobility were forbidden from participating in business at the risk of losing their titles I had never heard of this so I tried to look into it, here's a starting point for anyone else curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9rogeance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9rogeance. It seems like this was true in some countries, like France, but not all, and where they did exist these restrictions were beginning to fall in the 18th century. Projecting to the modern era, it seems obvious that a societal ruling class would not voluntarily block themselves from the center of power and make themselves irrelevant. Commercial restrictions made sense to them when the main mechanism of gaining power was acquiring and holding land, but they stopped restricting themselves once commercial activities became more important. > it was a useful tool to avoid conflict of interest I couldn't find any evidence for this and I find it pretty hard to believe. I don't even think the concept of "avoiding conflicts of interest" would make sense to historic nobility. Their interest was ruling over others, what would be the conflict in amassing wealth to expand their rule? Edit: For a literal example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitrose_Duchy_Organic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitrose_Duchy_Organic. This is a fairly successful company created by King Charles when he was the Duke of Cornwall, and is still owned by the current Duke. And obviously modern British royalty do own stocks, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#Private_estate_of_the_Sovereign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_..., and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family#Lobbying_and_legal_exemptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_.... These are immense conflicts of interest that nobody seems to be in a hurry to resolve.