Natural Elites

[Stranger]

@Grayson Lilburne

@Stranger

The point is that the natural elite is the opposite of ossified, they are the most dynamic members of society due to their genetic and character inheritance. This is why they continue to lead and continue to excel over many generations.

Obviously I’m talking about the ossification of something else than you, not “all the ways in which the word ‘ossification’ can be applied”.

@Stranger

If you refuse to see this in the leadership of Mr. Toyoda and Ford, you are in pure denial that can only be explained by base egalitarianism.

What part of “anecdotal evidence” don’t you understand?

I don’t understand anything you’re talking about, honestly.

Hoppe makes sense in light of facts. You don’t.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Short answer: no, Lilburne explained why in terms of economics. Those that are successful will be continually tested by the investors and the marketplace (other competitors). If they’re better than most at what they do, they all the reason to be considered the elite at it, but not to be worshiped or held without application of common standard [of performance]. So, I can’t imagine a feudal society coming about as Hoppe imagines. I sometimes wonder if he’s just pulling that stunt to get European conservatives to stand with him on anarchy.

I think he is. He is most likely trying to demonstrate how anarchism is consistent with their preferences.

[Seph]

@ladyattis

I sometimes wonder if he’s just pulling that stunt to get European conservatives to stand with him on anarchy.

I doubt it. Of all the qualities I would use to describe Hoppe, ‘pandering’ is not one of them.

[Byzantine]

@fancyshirtman

And when he says “selective mating” it sounds like he’s talking about social darwinism.

Would you sire children by a woman who was morbidly obese or illiterate?

[Marko]

@Stranger

@Grayson Lilburne

If you’re going to rely on anecdotal evidence, instead of theoretical reasoning as provided the Mises passages above, then for every Toyota and Ford (both of whom have had lackluster performances anyway) there are countless spoiled rotten trust-fund brats who end up consuming capital that their parents accumulated.

You are the one trying to refute Hoppe with irrelevant arguments. The spoiled rotten trust fund brats never become chairmen of family enterprise. I am simply providing the evidence that his theory is correct, that those families that do raise their children with outstanding moral character continue the family’s tradition of leadership and excellence. One generation builds upon another to become an elite class. Denial of this fact is base egalitarianism.

Your disparaging of Ford and Toyota is completely disingenuous. They are the industry leaders now. Ford is the only American automaker that is profitable. Toyota took the number one automaker spot from GM last year.

Would you say the people running Ford and Toyota command authority and are leaders in the social sphere, do you think in a free society they would? Would you say they had been ennobled?

The point you present as Hoppe’s point is only a part of what Hoppe says. Nobody disputes a son of a excellent craftsman is much more likely to become an excellent craftsman himself, which is why indeed a situation where, say, superb carpenters often come from a line of superb carpenters can be easily imagined, but that does not mean we would come to think as those families as noble or the carpenters as commanding authority and their opinions concerning society and values being influential.

If Ford’s grandson is on the board of Ford then that is good for him, but it has nothing to do with anyone. He is not a leader or an elite part of society.

[Stranger]

@Marko

Would you say the people running Ford and Toyota command authority and are leaders in the social sphere, do you think in a free society they would? Would you say they had been ennobled?

Yes, yes, yes.

[Dondoolee]

@Stranger

@Marko

Would you say the people running Ford and Toyota command authority and are leaders in the social sphere, do you think in a free society they would? Would you say they had been ennobled?

Yes, yes, yes.

And I am sure using language like that to set up hierarchies will go quite peacfully with the massive number of “natural plebs”. They won’t take it as insulting or dogmatic at all.

[Stranger]

@Dondoolee

And I am sure using language like that to set up hierarchies will go quite peacfully with the massive number of “natural plebs”. They won’t take it as insulting or dogmatic at all.

Who cares about their feelings?

I’m a pleb. I don’t feel bad about it. I’m not going to hate people who are better than me for being better.

[Dondoolee]

It’s worth caring about feelings if there are enough of them to get pissed and take action about it. And in a society in which people would call themselves “natural elites” and ( “the lessers”) I would bet there would be. This whole thing is a language construct based off subjective value anyway, it could be completely reworded to not create a subjective hierarchy.

Just as there is biologic and economic law, there is also psychological/ sociological law as well. I have a hunch this could be “bad” for those as a whole.

[Lilburne]

@Stranger

I’m not going to hate people who are better than me for being better.

“Better” is a teleological concept. Whose ends are you referring to?

[Stranger]

@Dondoolee

It’s worth caring about feelings if there are enough of them to get pissed and take action about it. And in a society in which people would call themselves “natural elites” and ( “the lessers”) I would bet there would be.

People don’t take action when they are being robbed of all their rights, I doubt they would be moved to action because their feelings are upset.

[Marko]

It would scarcely be a problem. Anybody going around calling himself a natural elite would be ensuring that he is no such thing because he would lose all respect with the people and would come to command no authority or influence. People despise nothing more than people who carry themselves as if they were better than them.

[Dondoolee]

1. The past 300 years have seen much bloodshed, revolution, and philosophies demolishing social hierarchies.

2. Not everyone recognizes the same rights.

3. Many people didn’t like it when others called themselves God approved aristocracy after awhile. People didn’t like people being called the bourgeoisie after awhile, etc.

And in a society in which you want to use the sociological classification to arbitrarily call people “elite” based off a subjective value system they most likely won’t like that either.

[Stranger]

@Dondoolee

And in a society in which you want to use the sociological classification to arbitrarily call people “elite” based off a subjective value system they most likely won’t like that either.

I shudder in fear at what people don’t like.

The people are going to be very angry! Look out!

[Dondoolee]

@Marko

It would scarcely be a problem. Anybody going around calling himself a natural elite would be ensuring that he is no such thing because he would lose all respect with the people and would come to command no authority or influence. People despise nothing more than people who carry themselves as if they were better than them.

It wouldn’t so much matter who calls who what, if you want the main sociological doctrine to pick subjective values and label people better because, it may be a problem. Marx coined / popularized terms that were not in use, and it caused problems

Also, if such a doctrine were to be main text, how could you not expect it to get into some of the “natural elites” heads? Last I thought power corrupts, and when some one has the benifit of language creating / helping to create aa natural aristocracy…

[Dondoolee]

@Stranger

@Dondoolee

And in a society in which you want to use the sociological classification to arbitrarily call people “elite” based off a subjective value system they most likely won’t like that either.

I shudder in fear at what people don’t like.

The people are going to be very angry! Look out!

Well create arbitrary classifications and hierarchies for “science”, tell people the new value system they have to live by in the name of science, and call it truth. I shudder in disgust of giving up my authority, my uniquness, and my elitness to someone else so arbitrarily though.

[Stranger]

@Dondoolee

Well create arbitrary classifications and hierarchies for “science”, tell people the new value system they have to live by in the name of science, and call it truth.

People aren’t interested in value systems.

[Marko]

But it is voluntary. Which ensures it could never happen. What is the relevance of a nobody who commands no influence and is of no consequence saying he is a natural elite and a de facto nobleman? It would make no sense to get upset over it.

If you define noblemen as a person who commands soft power over the plebeians then you are constructing a contradiction in terms. Plebeians are not going to ennoble anyone. They value in their leaders the common touch, not a sense of superiority. So to say the leaders in an anarchic society are going to be akin to nobles does not make sense. There being no force involved the leaders are going to be the people who the plebeians like. But they hate the nobles. So they are not going to make any, and if someone were to call himself such they will certainly not going to make him their leader.

So on the contrary, the people who would in an anarchic society command authority would be natural leaders with common touch. Which at the very least implies not going around calling yourself a natural elite or thinking of yourself as a nobleman.

[Stranger]

@Marko

But it is voluntary. Which ensures it could never happen. What is the relevance of a nobody who commands no influence and is of no consequence saying he is a natural elite and a de facto nobleman? It would make no sense to get upset over it.

I believe you have missed the point. One does not declare himself a natural elite. One is born and raised to be a natural elite. One is a natural elite by nature.

Whether or not people put “natural elite” on their business card, there are some people who are natural elites and others who are not, and those people who are natural elites will always command greater respect and authority, hence they are key to any kind of social order and normalcy.

[Marko]

@Stranger

@Marko

But it is voluntary. Which ensures it could never happen. What is the relevance of a nobody who commands no influence and is of no consequence saying he is a natural elite and a de facto nobleman? It would make no sense to get upset over it.

I believe you have missed the point. One does not declare himself a natural elite. One is born and raised to be a natural elite. One is a natural elite by nature.

Whether or not people put “natural elite” on their business card, there are some people who are natural elites and others who are not, and those people who are natural elites will always command greater respect and authority, hence they are key to any kind of social order and normalcy.

I did not miss the point. I was addressing the concerns Dondoolee stated.

I think you missed the point. You pooh-poohed Dondoolee’s statement that the plebeians would not like such and such people. Missing completely the point that one can not at the same time be disliked by people and be considered as a natural nobleman by them. If there are no kings then only the people can make nobles by acting towards them as if they had been ennobled. But if they hate them, then they are not going to show them that sort of respect if they do not have to.

And actually no. It is not that the natural elites will always command greater respect and authority. It is that the people who command greater respect and authority are defined as the natural elites. But there is no guarantee somebody commanding widespread respect and authority is going to fit your ideas of an aristocrat or an elite.