The importance of hierarchies lies in the fact that not all individuals possess the same abilities or interests, and there exists a natural elite with a greater capacity to lead. Just as within a firm there are different levels of responsibility, there is no reason to believe that social order should not reflect a similar structure. Richard Weaver rightly observes that social and family relationships are hierarchical, since parents cannot be equal to their children, nor the young to the old, nor the rich to the poor—a point captured in the old saying: “if two ride a horse, one must ride behind.”
In this regard, Wilhelm Röpke argues that leadership, responsibility, and the exemplary defense of the norms by which society is governed should fall to a small elite, hierarchically organized according to each individual’s merits, and voluntarily accepted with the respect it deserves. This small ruling group constitutes a nobilitas naturalis, with recognized authority and noble titles stemming from prestige—an elite accessible only to a few who demonstrate an exemplary life, unwavering integrity, and a steadfast defense of truth and justice. It is an aristocracy of voluntary altruism, capable of perceiving economic problems, unclouded by immediate interest and short-term thinking, and thus advocates for the market economy—on which the survival of the free world depends.
Joseph de Maistre notes that the first revolutionary blow was struck against the Church, through the invasion of its properties and the imposition of the constitutional oath, which filtered out the clergy. And, in the effort to claim representation of the people—an impossibility—they abolished all hierarchy and hereditary function. Yet they failed to establish any new transcendent institutions on that basis because, as he writes, “all imaginable institutions, if they are not grounded in a religious idea, are ephemeral. They are strong and lasting only insofar as they are divinized.” Robert Nisbet observes that after the revolution there existed no corporation outside the state: charitable societies were declared illegal, and literary, cultural, and educational associations were made subject to legislative control.
According to Nisbet, revolutionary legislation destroyed the traditional associations of the ancient regime, such as guilds, the patriarchal family, or the class system, thus opening the door to forces capable of destroying the Christian moral order. Institutions such as family or religion are not external products of human action but systems of belief and conduct that precede the individual; without them, the individual is left alone and unprotected before demonic fears and heightened passions. With the revolution emerged political rationalism—the belief that most ends could be achieved through political and economic planning. From this moment on, society sought to recover the lost sense of community through new associations, though ones mediated by the state. Totalitarian political movements are one example, offering hope to the frustrated and excluded. Thus, the revolution signified the destruction of the moral order and the disintegration and disorganization of family and community life. The real crisis created by the revolution was the forced abandonment of the roles traditionally fulfilled by the family or the Church—mutual aid, welfare, and education—ending the family’s function as the basic cell of society, the one that educated, cared for the disabled and elderly, and preserved religious values.
Following Alexis de Tocqueville, as aristocratic institutions decline, state power increases. In a democratic society, in which only isolated individuals and the state exist, government assumes more and more functions—charity, education, and control over religious life. A democratic government gains power simply by existing; in democratic times, centralization becomes the natural form of government. Consequently, the number of public officials must also grow to replace the aristocracy, ruling in two contradictory ways: through fear of government agents and through the hope of becoming one of them in the future. Moreover, for Tocqueville, the danger of despotic government is tied to the rise of materialism and hedonism in modern society. The passion for physical comfort is characteristic of the middle class which, once in power, promotes it both upward and downward.
According to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, democracy achieved what monarchy barely managed: the destruction of natural elites. Their fortunes disappeared, and their intellectual and spiritual leadership faded into oblivion. The nouveaux riches replaced the old aristocratic families, and their conduct was not marked by dignity or virtue but reflected a proletarian mass culture focused on the present and on hedonism—whose opinions carried no lasting weight. As Hoppe also explains concerning these new rich:
They do not have to get involved in politics themselves. They have more important and lucrative things to do than wasting their time with everyday politics. But they have the cash and the position to “buy” the typically far less affluent professional politicians, either directly in paying them bribes or indirectly, by agreeing to employ them later on, after their stint in professional politics, as highly paid managers, consultants, or lobbyists, and so manage to decisively influence and determine the course of politics in their own favor. They, the plutocrats, will become the ultimate winners in the constant income and wealth redistribution struggle that is democracy.
