The Value of a Hereditary Elite

[Drychnath]

After much debate, I have determined to place this here, for while it does concern morality and politics, it really is a question of culture.

The value of a hereditary elite can be simply stated. They are raised for their purpose. In example, a President, who is an elected official, spends his whole life doing things other than being the President. He may acquire valuable experience by being in the legislature or another member of the executive, such as a governor, but his experiences are at best a microcosm for the responsibilities he would face as President. An heir, by contrast, is raised from birth for his future office, and trained extensively in all things with which he would be concerned as King, or Emperor, or whatever.

Ideally, at any rate. The trouble with hereditary systems is that they have a disturbing tendency to develop in a manner so that ultimately the elite, secure in their positions owing to their blood, cease to be concerned with performing their duties. A hereditary system then is a double-edged sword; for while the levels of success with a single, gifted individual wielding prodigious power cannot otherwise be matched, a simpleton or fool could likewise cast a nation into the dust. The question then becomes, how to mitigate this downside?

I've ideas of my own, but I thought I might leave the first suggestions to you folks, for a change.

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

i'm sorry dude, i just...don't see how you could avoid having a hereditary elite become bloated, wealthy, lazy, and uncaring about the littel people? i mean, only thing i've been able to come up with is foster care for the little ones. but man, there's no way to know whether that'd work for sure, at the risk of sounding cliche...never mind i WILL sound cliche, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. i really just dont' think hereditary titles'd work.

[Drychnath]

Well, it is true that hereditary title systems have a tendency to develop that way, but it should also be noted that hereditary systems worked famously all over the world until...well...the last 200 years or so. Only when Democracy came into ascendance in terms of wealth and power did hereditary systems start failing all over the place. The only real argument we have against hereditary systems is France before their Revolution; but that hasn't happened most places. The Russian Czars were individual failures, for the most part, and that was why they fell; in England Parliament became the preeminent power after the nobles and merchants defeated the King and the peasants in civil war. Come to think of it, most democracies came to be that way for one of two reasons: they were forced to do so by the U.S, England, and France (Japan, Germany, Italy...Iraq), or they did so hoping to imitate the success of those same nations (all former Soviet states, Spain, many other democracies in the world). In most cases, it seems to me, it wasn't a question of the oppressed throwing off their yoke as a result of the heinous upper-classes, but rather a question of trying to do better than they were.

[DarkNeopagan]

I have two problems with a Hereditary Elite (1) they can never know what it is like at the bottom, and therefore cannot really know what there people want or need, I mean look at movie stars kids, they don't live in the real world. (2) It inevitably leads to inbreeding, to keep the bloodlines "pure".

[Arcadian]

I have no quarrel with warrented elitism. Though it needs to be warrented. Those who are worthy of it should be able to reap what they have sown.

[PoeticInjustice]

meritocracy is the way to go!

[Drychnath]

The primary problem with wealthy heirs, especially in our contemporary times, is they have no responsibilities. They have no duties to fulfill, no power except what their wealth and undeserved fame gives them, and no expectations for them as adults. They are not being raised for a purpose, but merely being allowed to mature. If there is sufficient emphasis on the powers and the responsibilities one must hold as a member of the highest class, than they will have far less time for being spoiled, party-going drags on society.

And as for a meritocracy, it has its merits *cough cough* to be sure; but keep in mind that there is no tyranny more absolute than a perfect meritocracy. How comforting will it be for the lower classes then, to know that absolutely and without equivocation they hold such position because they are inferior?

Edit: and on a related note, not all children of the incredibly wealthy are spoiled, good-for nothing brats. I daresay all the ones you don't hear about are probably the worthwhile ones.