Whether or not it’s ideal from a moral perspective, having a recognised aristocracy under the law allows the law to have a higher standard of behaviour for them, for example requiring military service. There were also social moral constraints on their behaviour as a consequence of their recognition. The attempt to make society equal has in fact blatantly replaced a recognised aristocracy with an unrecognised one which has no such restraints on its conduct, as we see every day in the vile behaviour of the international globalist monied elite.
It is true that giving the elite a defined social status can work to control their behaviour, but the aristocrats of the Middle Ages were, to be blunt, too powerful to be really restrained in such a way, given that the Medieval kings functioned more as "firsts among equals" than real sovereigns.
@Lord Sovereign did bring up the example of the British nobility of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, who were genuinely virtuous and did try to live up to the values they preached; but they were restrained far more by cultural and religious factors than by legal ones, which IMO are generally less powerful.
It's easier to do something that's *merely* against the law than the sort of thing that's Not Done, or that which would be sinful. One of the key problems with enshrining cultural or religious values into civil law, in fact, is that it works to debase them and turns them from an issue of morality into one of *mere* legality; and a law is always easier to break than a taboo.
The medieval aristocrats were also "globalist" in the sense than they had more in common with fellow aristocrats from across Europe than their fellow countrymen of lower social status - which again, is one of the problems with our current set of elites. So I don't see how going back to a defined aristocracy could then solve it.
In such a situation the predominant problem with the current elite classes isn't
legal but
cultural and
religious; and a legislative solution doesn't really work for those problems.
Walt Disney certainly came from no aristocratic bloodline and possessed no special legal status, but he lived virtuously and was loyal to his country against its enemies both in WW2 and the Cold War because of the culture and religion in which he was brought up.
Despite how blatantly this equalism has failed, opening us to the rapacious tyranny of an unchecked, lustful elite which sells its own people for gold, equalists claim that the solution is more equalism—but we already know where that leads, a third kind of elite called the “apparatchiki” who will escalate their contempt for their countrymen by sending them to gulags by the job lot in the name of ideology.
I mean, the industrialists of the 19th and early 20th centuries were undoubtedly patriotic towards their countries and philanthropic towards the lower classes; but this was an issue, again, not of the law making them act in such a way but the culture and faith they were raised and inculcated in.
So, what, fundamentally is the problem? I personally would peg it as the great crisis that was the World Wars severely damaging cultural self-confidence and religiosity, not an "ideal of equalism mutating into one of communism". The Second World War really set back the recovery from the first, both in that it was an even more appalling bloodbath of atrocity, and that it allowed the Communists to associate cultural self-confidence with the toxic racial ideology which motivated the genocidal slaughters that took place during it (a racial ideology which
actually came from them ultimately, too). This has generally had bad effects on
all of society, not specifically the elite classes.
I mean, the current problems only date back to the mid-late 20th century - casting them as the inevitable result of the way things have been for the past two centuries is jumping the gun a bit!
The behaviour of Communist apparatchiks is again, a case of the elite having no cultural, legal or religious reason to behave in a virtuous way - which inevitably makes them run amok with their power.
