Character cannot be taught. It is learned by exposure, in trial and tribulation.
So is it taught by trial and tribulation at least? You seem to say two contradictory things. The reality is that a kid from a noble family is taught that his future is in national service: he will have the obligation larger than his own family. He observes his father doing his work; his dad will take him to military campaigns and teach him to fight, -- he will learn the military craft, to endure pain, to face fear. A courtier would learn manners, sophistication, arts, basic science, diplomatic and bureaucratic skills. Of course it can be learned. It can also be learned without the family, and so is the case with gained nobility; but the family helps. We actually have that in America as well: we have generations that go to West Point, or into politics.
Nobility can also be lost. Cowardice, disloyalty are not crimes, but they are faults of character and the aristicratic system punishes them.
the establishment of one caste will naturally and invariably create another
That must be why the feudal system did not have castes.
I would again draw a firm distinction between a politician and a statesman.
Yes. There is no question that John Adams, Lincoln, Reagan were statesmen. But our system breeds them not. The early American system, buoyed on Protestant spirituality did so more than ours. Today, even if we have a president dedicated to serve the nation and blessed with the long vision, -- what made Reagan great was his vision of the victory in the Cold War, -- the system discourages that. Notably, Reagan's other agenda, reducing the scope of the government, failed.
Yes, according to legend, anyway... with King Codrus (sp?) being the last. His descendants ruled as hereditary archons (a kind of magistrate) for quite a while, until that was dissolved and archons were made elective, with a term of about a decade (IIRC). However, this is all distant past, and not a part of the Greek confederation of city-states which eventually evolved.
[roamer_1:] Character cannot be taught. It is learned by exposure, in trial and tribulation.
So is it taught by trial and tribulation at least? You seem to say two contradictory things.
Of course, trial and tribulation is a teacher. I am speaking of human teaching. I can pour my children full of myself... teach them in the way they should go - But that is no guarantee. What matters is when the rubber hits the road, when they are beyond all control - The choices they make right there, in that moment, define their character more than anything I can do.
The reality is that a kid from a noble family is taught that his future is in national service: he will have the obligation larger than his own family. He observes his father doing his work; his dad will take him to military campaigns and teach him to fight, -- he will learn the military craft, to endure pain, to face fear.
That is hardly the reality at all - the lion's share of privileged children are petulant and protected. How many fortunes built by the father have been squandered by his heirs? It is few indeed who are raised up in the way you describe. I will admit that THE heir is treated with a double dose of expectation and is given more tutelage in that regard - But that tutelage has hardly paid off historically.
Of course it can be learned. It can also be learned without the family, and so is the case with gained nobility; but the family helps. We actually have that in America as well: we have generations that go to West Point, or into politics.
There is no doubt that one can prepare the child - But no, the chances are that it won't be learned, as in order to learn, exposure is the key. And prolonged exposure at that. It is very seldom that a prince leads the charge. Quite normally, the prince (and the king, as well as his nobles) retire from the field to waiting tents and wagons at the rear of the field.
Nobility can also be lost. Cowardice, disloyalty are not crimes, but they are faults of character and the aristicratic system punishes them.
Hardly. Perhaps upon many and repeated actions so repulsive as to cause ultimate distress - And that only when the fault becomes deleterious in real terms to his direct peers... putting their own reign in jeopardy. But again, history is rife with notable examples of nobles and kings which were a scourge, and who were left to their own devices - Often suffering no effective measure against them at all.
Yes. There is no question that John Adams, Lincoln, Reagan were statesmen. But our system breeds them not. The early American system, buoyed on Protestant spirituality did so more than ours.
I see that being primarily due to socialism - an infection which is not compatible with a federal republic, or with capitalism. We are not in trouble because there is some flaw (there is a flaw, but not the need of an earthly king) in the federal republic, but rather because it is a federal republic no more. The solution is not to call for a king - but rather to return to the root (and the Root) that preserves us. And that notion is exactly what true American Conservatism sets out to perform.