The evolution of governments into aristocratic forms

Frank Herbert, author of the well-known Science Fiction universe of Dune, was a keen observer and student of human societies and history. Certainly as great or greater as Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein.

Let’s consider this statement:

We certainly see this as an accurate summation. And a reason to oppose mandatory human government in all its forms. A simple way of looking at it is Acton’s dictum: power corrupts. Government is corrupt and grows more corrupt with time and increased power.

Of course, there are always people who view it differently. One correspondent told us,
“I think he’s actually wrong. Pharaonic Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, Chin Dynasty China, Greece, Rome – they all started as monarchies or dictatorships. That’s actually the first form of government on earth. Only when a group of people succeeded in kicking out the kings did any republic start.”

TPOL believes this is not correct. Indeed, we believe the opposite is true, in all these cases. None of these societies (civilizations, if you prefer) started out as aristocratic entities. Rather, they were first family and clan groups (societies) in which there was a large degree of individual, personal liberty and responsibility. Perhaps even egalitarian in nature, with deference to elders because of their experience and knowledge. Indeed, many were “communistic” in the original, most benign meaning: share and share alike. A family, and then an extended family: a sept (tiospaye) or even clan or tribe. But such societies are not visible, especially not when looking back centuries or millennia. And humans are, of course, human: they lust after more than they have and some are stronger and less constrained by morals. They seek and gather power over others, and followers to share in the illicit fruits of that power.

Cooperative efforts, voluntary in nature (even if responding to dire threats), are soon replaced by those who become a ruling class. Formally or informally, they assume power over others, and part of this power is the ability to glorify themselves. A power which provides opportunities and methods of gaining more power. And wealth.

Undoubtedly, though we may never know how often this happened in the past, there were times which the creation of “aristocratic forms of government” was prevented. When enough people realized what was happening and took action to stimie those who seeking to take control, and prevented it.

But, as Herbert implies, this is not what we see in history, looking back. When a crisis is upon a society, it is natural to seek those who can and will take charge. And rapidly, silence and neuter those who are unwilling to join into a “common effort” led by those emergent leaders. In some cases (even some recorded in history), once the crisis is resolved, that leadership steps back, retires. (The classical example is Cincinnatus of Rome. We might also consider Devorah of Issachar and Barak of Naphtali or other Judges of Israel, such as Gideon of Manassah. Some point to George Washington of Virginia.)

But what we see the most is those in power who retained and even increased their power after the crisis was resolved. Octavian (Augustus), Gideon’s son Abimelech, Napoleon Bonaparte, Santa Ana de Lopez, are a few that come to mind.

It is these, or their successors in later generations, who had the power to push through the construction of the great monuments our correspondent sees as proof of a society’s or nation’s existence. But such feats as the building of the Pyramids of Egypt (or of the Maya or Azteca), the construction of vast defensive walls (in China, Germany, or Britain), or magnificent temples or cathedrals were not done at the beginning of those civilizations. They were the result of what statist-minded historians like to call “mature” cultures.

(We argue that this is true even of cathedrals and modern, grandiose church buildings: the power necessary to get that wealth to build those edifices is not physical but moral and “spiritual” – the aristocracy of religious hierarchies.)

Fortunately, we see time and time again where the newly-established or long-established aristocracies (the “powers that be”) overstep themselves and push enough people to rise up against them, bring them down, and change things. That happened in ancient Israel when the dictatorial rule of Abimelech was overthrown. It happened numerous times in Egypt, and in Greece. It happened in ancient Rome, overthrowing Tarquin in 509 BC. In the Thirteen Colonies, against George III and Parliament. In France against Louis XVI, and again against Napoleon III.

Unfortunately, many times such revolutions simply bring a new aristocracy into power – or a new set of shills to rep for the actual aristocrats. But there are times when that is not the case – just too rarely does it happen. And sometimes, it is a matter of appearances only.

The lessons to be learned are many. Part of The Price of Liberty is that eternal vigilance, to recognize when and how that tendency that Herbert writes about is developing, growing stronger. With, of course, the courage and willingness to cooperate to do something about it. Not just to stop, but to reverse the changes. Perhaps the real key is to take steps to ensure that any manmade human government to be tolerated must have as little power as possible, and handicapped in every possible way.

We shall probably look at this further, and the discussion caused by posting Mr. Herbert’s writing, in another commentary.

READ MORE

Source: https://freedombunker.com/2026/08/15/the-evolution-of-governments-into-aristocratic-forms/