[terminalshort]

There is minimal incentive for corruption in a hereditary aristocracy. Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway. So what incentive is there to make or take a bribe? It won't change who your parents are.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway

Lords being unconcerned with—and constrained by—wealth characterises all (EDIT: none of the) non-market societies that I know of. In part because basic economics constrains the society as a whole, even if they’re ignorant of its principles.

[terminalshort]

Right. I'm not saying anything about economics not applying, only that the incentive for corruption is absent.

[JumpCrisscross]

Sorry, I managed to reverse my argument with a typo.

> only that the incentive for corruption is absent

What historic civilisation are you thinking of?

[TheCoelacanth]

Aristocracy itself is state sanctioned corruption. The law is made to privilege certain people above others instead of serving the common good.

[terminalshort]

Corruption has a meaning, and it's not "the law is unfair."

[TheCoelacanth]

"illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power"[1]

"Corruption is the dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal use of entrusted authority or power for personal gain or other unlawful or unethical benefits."[2]

Every single aristocracy absolutely fits those definitions. The norm in every aristocracy is to disregard the law in favor of what benefits those in power and to apply the law unequally depending on the desires of rulers.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corrupti...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption

[ceejayoz]

This is so deeply wrong on so many levels I'm rather fascinated by it.