
Do hierarchies lead to a stronger society? - ahsoli
https://www.ft.com/content/5eabce22-3c4b-11ea-b84f-a62c46f39bc2
======
ip26
No paywall: [https://outline.com/GjXK6r](https://outline.com/GjXK6r)

An interesting read, thank you. Interesting points are made- but very little
attention paid to questions of checks & balances. In other words, I'm curious
how they see their ideal systems remaining resilient when faced with bad faith
actors in positions of authority. I may have to read those books and see if
they talk about it more.

~~~
api
The standard issue answer is that corruption and incompetence in authoritarian
societies is dealt with via Darwinian struggle between societies or by coups
led by stronger factions within.

They never mention the instability this creates or the human toll it takes on
regular people.

Democracy is not about always making the best decision in the short term. It's
about long term resiliency and being "antifragile."

You can see a modern example of the alternative in Africa. Much of that
continent's persistent poverty is due to the warring strong men system of
governance. Why invest in anything when the next revolution, coup, or invasion
will result in it just being looted or destroyed?

~~~
remarkEon
This is different from non-authoritarian societies how?

~~~
api
In non-authoritarian societies there are less disruptive mechanisms for
change, such as party realignments and political (rather than violent)
revolutions. These can be disruptive but nowhere near as much as being invaded
or having a violent coup.

------
LeoTinnitus
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
Have 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.

~~~
LeoTinnitus
However, 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).

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/ukq7b](https://archive.md/ukq7b)

------
pedro1976
"Democracy will die in silence, behind a paywall."

------
vearwhershuh
It's a very shallow article, as one would expect. Most committed liberals (in
the classical sense of the word, NB that in the US both parties are liberal by
this definition) can't conceive that there are any problems created by
liberalism that might be addressed via illiberal systems, and therefore give
both left wing and right wing critics very little hearing.

Despite not being a libertarian or (non-ironic) monarchist at the time, I
found this to be an interesting and thought provoking book:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed)

It argues for monarchism as a better alternative than democracy for
libertarians. The premise, on it's own, is interesting enough and the author
makes quite a case for it.

------
walshemj
Sounds like the sort of author who is a regular on Russia Today.

