I favour aristocracy as the best engine of cultural and intellectual refinement: concentrated wealth, leisure, and standards of taste allow a minority to create the ornaments of civilisation that others later enjoy. Yet aristocracy carries the danger of arrogance, and unchecked political despotism stifles art and thought—so it must be tempered by a tolerable measure of liberty. The ideal aristocracy is elastic and meritocratic, open to anyone who proves aesthetically or intellectually fit, and demonstrates superiority through superior work and behaviour rather than ostentation. Democracies and mob rule, having no strong incentive for high achievement, tend to live off and eventually exhaust what aristocracy produces. Thus government should protect an independent, cultured elite enough to create and sustain civilisation, while remaining kind, accessible, and restrained.

>>513650635 (OP)
well it really wasnt aristocracy so much as patronage that contributes to cultural and intellectual refinement. the crisis of the modern movement is ultimately reflected in the poverty of its aristocracies. those who can do do; those who cant do pay: this ethos was lost and relegated to romanticist opinion.

>>513650635 (OP)
a republican system tries to be a caring aristocracy

>>513650635 (OP)
>open to anyone who proves aesthetically or intellectually fit
You're understanding it wrong. This should no be allowed for it to work lmao. That's why the modern western civilization is failing. People will only be concerned with upward social mobility 100% of the time. This is the hidden cause of many of the problems we have today etc low birth rate