I mentioned here a few days ago that we live in a political regime based on the fact that different rules apply to each group, and that those rules are set up to create as many differences between people as possible. Is it possible for that to work? Of course it can!
Medieval societies of three peoples are an example, with different rules for the peasants, different rules for the clergy, and different rules for the nobility. It is assumed that harmony will arise precisely by treating everyone as they see fit, and that this will create three units that need and complement each other. Considering the immense brutality with which this had to be enforced, it does not seem so harmonious. However, it has provided stability.
Since the Enlightenment, equality has been a fundamental principle. Today, we don’t realise what a revolutionary change it was. How perverse and contrary to nature it must have seemed to many people at the time. After all, Aristotle already wrote that some people have such a nature that they are destined to be slaves. And suddenly everyone is supposed to have the same rights. Nevertheless, it has taken hold.
It is possible to argue about what such equality actually entails. On the other hand, there is no dispute that the ideal has never been fulfilled perfectly and sometimes even extremely badly. However, the very fact that society was founded on such an ideal changes the situation completely.
In our time, that ideal is disappearing. Quite naturally, the medieval model of a society divided into groups for which different rules apply is returning. Only it is not justified by Aristotle, but by a very selective application of liberal economics and the theory of racial guilt. It is criminal to invoke equal rights. But unlike the medieval model, it does not even lead to temporary stability.