It will probably need to if it's to gain any traction given the baggage such positions carry. I think the core of it is going to need to revolve around a timeless wholesomeness with a focus on community. Everyone deep down has some inkling of what's missing in their lives because it is largely absent in the modern era. More and more we lack cohesive communities that are capable of merriment without abject indulgence in profane vices. It'll take hold again if properly presented and nurtured, I just have no idea how we get there.
It would probably have to support strong extended families and the notion of the extended family as the true source of an individual's "social safety net" and encouraged families to put down roots in their communities. Encourage owner-occupied houses. Discourage large businesses owned by people who live outside the community.
Imagine if each family had its own "government" that had some ability to loan money, insure, and provide charity to and perhaps levy "taxes" from family members. A way for the older generations to provide some access to their wealth to the younger generations starting out, while keeping the accrued wealth in the family and available to successive generations. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would make it easier for families to start building generational wealth.
More advanced versions could take on more attributes of a government such as managing land and property communally owned by the family, enforcing standards of behavior in the family as well as perhaps requirements for marrying into the family.
This would piss both ConInc off (because you would encourage families building wealth instead of it accumulating into large companies) and the left (because you would encourage the family as the source of social safety rather than the state).
Yes there is a component of tribalism. But I think to an extent wealthy/powerful families like the Windsors for example act like their own tribe. I think of it more like "localism taken to its logical conclusion"
Any organization is going to have the problem you describe as people inheriting a birthright will value it less than the person who created it. The hope would be that it would be less likely and take longer to decay than a government institution where people don't have skin in the game.
I would posit that familial generational wealth tends to create progressives though. The 4th generation farm owner is never going to be as as hardened and defensive as the great grandfather who built it all from scratch.
There's an inbuilt solution to that though, a fool and his money are easily parted.
There's very few dynastic families that successfully keep their money. There's probably millions of people that create a fortune for their family, but how many families keep that by the 4th generation?
It will probably need to if it's to gain any traction given the baggage such positions carry. I think the core of it is going to need to revolve around a timeless wholesomeness with a focus on community. Everyone deep down has some inkling of what's missing in their lives because it is largely absent in the modern era. More and more we lack cohesive communities that are capable of merriment without abject indulgence in profane vices. It'll take hold again if properly presented and nurtured, I just have no idea how we get there.
It would probably have to support strong extended families and the notion of the extended family as the true source of an individual's "social safety net" and encouraged families to put down roots in their communities. Encourage owner-occupied houses. Discourage large businesses owned by people who live outside the community.
Imagine if each family had its own "government" that had some ability to loan money, insure, and provide charity to and perhaps levy "taxes" from family members. A way for the older generations to provide some access to their wealth to the younger generations starting out, while keeping the accrued wealth in the family and available to successive generations. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would make it easier for families to start building generational wealth.
More advanced versions could take on more attributes of a government such as managing land and property communally owned by the family, enforcing standards of behavior in the family as well as perhaps requirements for marrying into the family.
This would piss both ConInc off (because you would encourage families building wealth instead of it accumulating into large companies) and the left (because you would encourage the family as the source of social safety rather than the state).
Yes there is a component of tribalism. But I think to an extent wealthy/powerful families like the Windsors for example act like their own tribe. I think of it more like "localism taken to its logical conclusion"
Any organization is going to have the problem you describe as people inheriting a birthright will value it less than the person who created it. The hope would be that it would be less likely and take longer to decay than a government institution where people don't have skin in the game.
There's an inbuilt solution to that though, a fool and his money are easily parted.
There's very few dynastic families that successfully keep their money. There's probably millions of people that create a fortune for their family, but how many families keep that by the 4th generation?