It provides an additional check. Much like a monarch, a noble's interests are tied to the welfare of the country itself. Without the country, they're just a toff with some money and an overinflated sense of self-importance.
Your fortunes are not inextricably tied to your country any more than mine are. I've lived in four countries; am now a citizen of two. I have no passive incomes or sociolegal status which is tied to an estate or a title in a country that must continue to prosper or that status and wealth will diminish. If I see shit going sour, I'll sell my farm in Ireland for twice what I paid for it, move somewhere else, and still be a commoner.
It’s difficult for me to respond to these comments. I have to argue against the idea that there is virtue to setting up a hereditary parasite (passive income) who can do good for his/her country because they have, well, passive income.
Why can’t we just not do that? People, i.e. commoners, already have a stake in their country by virtue of living there. Even outlier globetrotters like you do.
I didn’t stutter. People criticize so-called democracy and then I take that as the charitable premise: we are indeed discussing genuine democracy, not just the fake and typical democracy of only politicians having any power.
