But my god, the idea that just having some half-layabout half-managerial luxury class that random waifs are born into? So gross. This seems like a sure way to have culture constantly destroyed, sacrificed, by unearned no goods, & manipulated into exploitation by nakedly self interested power mongers.
The article itself talks about a nearby concern, criminals, who will exercise flexibility,
> An honest person will never commit criminal acts but a criminal will readily engage in legal acts. Let us call such minority an intransigent group, and the majority a flexible one. And the rule is an asymmetry in choices.
I have a hard time imagining a class of blessed society defining people as being able to ever resist decaying into such flexibility, as being willing to self sacrifice to uphold a better society. Especially when they will constantly have to be negotiating with various intransigent elements.
It's interesting that the Dictatorship of Small Minorities is about, somewhat, populous minorities. There's still a bae of significantly squeaky wheels raising bloody hell.
Where-as in compare, this submission surfaced recently in the Apple/Jon Stewart discussion, where paying eternal uncritical lip service to various authoritarian global powers has become a funnel that capitalists find themselves having to walk down to insure continued market access. Those governments thus become taste-setters & content-setters for all global commerce, even though they do not represent the global desire; they are the intransigents. Rather than be for example a small minority of people who want an outright ban abortion, the small minority in this scenario are a handful of dictators & party watchdogs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37966643
Which is what it feels like aristocrats are & would become. A group mantled in their permission to be intransigent.