Whenever we walk into a store we can measure how much we’re like everyone else. Imagine a planet where everyone was you. What then would the inside of the store look like? All the things you like would be available in abundance, their prices driven down by economy of scale. How close then is the existing store to the theoretical ideal that serves you best? We can’t expect everyone to be the same in real life; without the purchases of many different people, there could be no store. So we must be willing to sacrifice some of our individual preferences to have a market.
The influence of our own vote though is tiny so we must have some significant overlap with other people for the offerings of the store to yield us benefits. If most customers don’t want some of the same things we want, the store is useless to us. A man, for instance, will likely never have any need for women’s clothing stores because he lacks overlap with the targeted electorate.
Imagine for a moment the store we’ve walked into is a grocery store. The initial overlap in needs is very high. Everyone gets hungry, so we have a great test case. When we look at the store shelves, we see a purer sort of democracy than has ever existed in politics. What’s for sale is what everybody wants.
What if most people want junk food though? The grocery store will have lots of cheap junk food and the substantial food will be scarcer and higher in price. Perhaps it just points to the reason why there never has been a true political democracy. The masses might well make terrible decisions. A people cannot survive leadership without some semblance of order and quality control. But they can survive the consequences of eating too much cookie dough ice cream, at least in the short term.
We can draw a similar analogy with book stores. We want to read, but the store is of no value to us if the only books available are sensational slush. In this case, the mass of other people out there has proven to be a liability to our interests because of their lack of overlap concerning the details of an item we want. And our paltry votes don’t even make a dent.
Let us look at the bestseller lists for books too, and the top 25 in music. Or how about the most popular television shows and movies? In a decently ok world, most items on these lists should be among the best, right? But what if to our horror, we consistently see works of low quality, or insipid mediocrity exalted by the collective?
If you don’t like what most people like, you are in a way living in a zombie apocalypse, surrounded by shambling throngs of people whose tastes and interests run contrary to your own in every way imaginable. Your voice is drowned out while everyone rushes to the theaters to see the next remake of a remake.
If you or I were to conclude our nature and preferences have remarkably little overlap with most other people out there, it does not make sense to make the sacrifices required to participate in their collective pools. Banding with the masses proves more a liability than a benefit. It makes far more sense to find those with a higher degree of overlap even if they’re just a few and pooling one’s demand with them instead, while isolating oneself from the slavering zombie hordes.
It is on this basis of collective compatibility that would underlie a modern caste system. In the case of economics, each cluster of preferences would occupy separate markets from food, to clothing, and entertainment. Perhaps such distinctions already exist informally, but it takes considerable knowledge, deep affiliations, and especially sheer wealth to sort out what belongs to one’s proper sphere.
In a more formalized order, each strata has no need to waste energy on self discovery, they naturally gravitate towards their proper places and live their whole lives therein, their votes compatible with the other voters of their breed. With a more stable hierarchy, less struggle takes place and far more gets done.
If we consider grocery stores again. There already are grocers that cater to different tastes, but they do so mostly through being more expensive. They decisively segregate their clientele using high prices but in so doing produce a form of value signalling rather than pure optimization.
In a correctly stratified caste system, a store ought not to rely first on higher prices as an isolating mechanism but instead be able to focus on being able to provide the best possible value given the votes of the consumers of the higher castes.
We may consider pure status signalling such as paying extra for ‘organic’ produce a penalty that certain voters agree to pay in order to form a barrier. But if such a barrier is already formalized by the agreement of voters, then there is no need to pay such penalties and all effort can be put into providing the best value possible for the voting coalition.
We can imagine similar principles applied to real estate. Those who pay high prices to keep undesirables out of their supermarkets apply the same tactics to property ownership and school districts. Again, the cadre of voters in an unstable hierarchy is forced to pay penalties to segregate themselves into a mutually beneficial electorate. In a stable caste hierarchy, their neighborhoods and schools are delineated by force of their votes, leaving them free to build value rather than spend most of their wealth insulating themselves against incompatible demographics.
As it is, many people try to isolate themselves from the gales of popular mediocrity by working long hours for decades. So hard is their task that they barely manage to reproduce, managing only to replace themselves in the best of times. The most productive creatures effectively barely scrape by at subsistence.
Because their natural habitat is saturated by hostile tribes unless they build cost-prohibitive barriers, they are forced to spend most of their effort just trying to chisel out their desired place, which in a Correct order should be theirs by natural right.
As a final thought experiment, consider how idiotic most advertisements are on television, youtube, and in print. This is what most people find persuasive or these ads would not exist. Every advertisement is a glimpse into the heart of the average person. Don’t like what you see? Then you are participating in the wrong commercial electorate.
How would advertising change then if we dominated the commercial electorate? Would it even exist in the same form?