Western Civilization is based on a hierarchy of competence. So while all groups have a pecking order, the pecking order of the West is based on competence. You hire a plumber because of what he can do and how well he can do it. [So as Jordan Peterson points out that all groups going back even to lobsters are based on a hierarchy, still the West is unique that it is based on competence. That is why people like Captain Cochrane [one of the most successful captains that fought against Napoleon] succeeded in English society. So where does this come from? I think this goes back to ancient Rome. Tarquin the Elder went to Rome because in Etruscan society there was no room for his talents. Rome (even way back then) was based on competence. And that is what led to its greatness.["Greatness" does not mean they were sweet. But they did not expand into a world of other peoples minding their own business. (You really think all the other peoples the Romans conquered were peace loving?) All the others were much the same--bent on power and conquest, except in one detail. The Romans won.]
[Steven Dutch pointed out that even so, even though people want a society based on competence and merit, they do not want it purely based on that. They want a little leeway. And Rome was not purely competence based. It was half patrician and half plebian. So while the leaders of the plebs were probably chosen by merit, the senate could only be by born patricians--even though they also had to be elected by the people [citizens which included patricians and plebs]. No one in Rome could hold any position without being elected- at least during the time of Cicero. However, I should add that one was not elected to the Senate. He was first a Questor, and to that position he needed to be elected by the people, and then when that term was up he automatically became senator. But to be a questor in the first place meant one needed to be elected.
