The opposite of aristocracy's "rule by the best," is kakistocracy's "rule by the worst," which is proabably how most empires and civilizations end. The thing about being an aristocrat is it isn't enough to be noble, you have to prevail, which is the "-crat" part.
A lot of what happened appears to be people solving for the -cracy part, and when you have that, who cares what kind of -crat others think you are. In that view, power is its own justification and end, and an aristocracy of occupiers is a contradiction.
Nobility is still possible in a kakistocracy where there is the possibility of some freedom and dissent, but I think what defined the dystopias of the 20th century was that the societies were so deeply compromised that even individual dignity was almost impossible. For a consensus to emerge that someone had any dignity at all made them an immediate target because it reminded others that they were reduced to crabs in a bucket, and so they policed themselves.
Jefferson's natural aristocracy was an ideal that encouraged people to have dignity and develop nobility, with the hope that they can prevail in their own governments - and establish an aristocracy that has the legitimacy of popular desire. It's pretty far off today, but it's a useful reference point for what's possible. The foundation for that dignity was the American concept that you can achieve dignity by taking liberty and preserving it.
We get concerned today about efforts to crush dissent, but without understanding why it's so important to the people doing it. The reason they crush dissent is to liquidate any dignity that could yield a consensus of nobility that stands as a counter-example to their undesirability and illigitimacy. Nobility acts as a waypoint and ideal that reveals and coordinates honest desire in others. This is the thing tyrants and technocrats hate and fear the most because their whole understanding of winning is when they prevail over the desires of others. It's a kind of sickness, but unless you can choose some individual dignity that yields nobility and organize to establish a legitimate and desirable aristocracy, you get the government you deserve. I still think there is the possibility of a natural aristocracy, but they've got a very steep climb ahead of them.
> Jefferson's natural aristocracy was an ideal that encouraged people to have dignity and develop nobility, with the hope that they can prevail in their own governments - and establish an aristocracy that has the legitimacy of popular desire.
If only Jefferson could have upheld his own ideals, but, like the author, the only aspect of his life that could equal his self-regard was his hypocrisy.
If you have no ideals you have nothing to hold people to account, and without that you reduce them to animals that have no resposibility of their own. I get that it's appealing to pull others down to one's level and imagine we're all the pitiful vicitms of the same unjust gods. However, people and societies with ideals grow and thrive, and the ones that don't are mainly just nihilists in simulated zero-sum attrition games.
I’m not knocking ideals, and I will take for granted that humans are fallible. The key question is whither humility — not a lot to be found in this article.
Jefferson’s business was enslavement. Lonsdale’s business is killing people. Lots of words about ideals can’t paper over those facts.
It's a bit of a street hustle to invent a condition where someone has to defend slavery to reason about another idea. I'll give this line of criticism some standing when its proponents lift a finger to type something against its current incarnations and its beneficiaries. It's like me saying it's impossible to consider your argument seriously because it was typed on the backs of Congolese child laborers in cobalt mines and unless your comment justifies their suffering, you might as well be chaining them there yourself. It a trolling tactic for policing weak minds.
Sure. But that is an easy snide remark that does not consider the simple truth that humans are fallible and, well, human.
For an example, I do not subscribe to any particular denomination, but on average I can see long tail benefit to society as a whole from people trying to be better humans than they were yesterday.
A lot of what happened appears to be people solving for the -cracy part, and when you have that, who cares what kind of -crat others think you are. In that view, power is its own justification and end, and an aristocracy of occupiers is a contradiction.
Nobility is still possible in a kakistocracy where there is the possibility of some freedom and dissent, but I think what defined the dystopias of the 20th century was that the societies were so deeply compromised that even individual dignity was almost impossible. For a consensus to emerge that someone had any dignity at all made them an immediate target because it reminded others that they were reduced to crabs in a bucket, and so they policed themselves.
Jefferson's natural aristocracy was an ideal that encouraged people to have dignity and develop nobility, with the hope that they can prevail in their own governments - and establish an aristocracy that has the legitimacy of popular desire. It's pretty far off today, but it's a useful reference point for what's possible. The foundation for that dignity was the American concept that you can achieve dignity by taking liberty and preserving it.
We get concerned today about efforts to crush dissent, but without understanding why it's so important to the people doing it. The reason they crush dissent is to liquidate any dignity that could yield a consensus of nobility that stands as a counter-example to their undesirability and illigitimacy. Nobility acts as a waypoint and ideal that reveals and coordinates honest desire in others. This is the thing tyrants and technocrats hate and fear the most because their whole understanding of winning is when they prevail over the desires of others. It's a kind of sickness, but unless you can choose some individual dignity that yields nobility and organize to establish a legitimate and desirable aristocracy, you get the government you deserve. I still think there is the possibility of a natural aristocracy, but they've got a very steep climb ahead of them.