Isn’t it the case that the traditional conception of the relationship between the classes is mediated by God? Isn’t the understanding of that social organism missing something if it doesn’t account for their conception of God, and God’s nature? My understanding was that betraying the King was taught to be a sin by the Church, which saw itself, in many respects, with supplying (reinforcing? gussying up?) authority to the King. Wouldn’t the Latin Church’s inclination to scolasticism and rational evolution of the Faith explain the whole drive TO write things down, eventually (Popes and Emperors were especially FDRish in their interpretation of who was on top); rationalism is rejected in the Orthodox tradition, did that make a difference?

Nudge was written by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.

Tacitus (Annals III.27): “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

The notion of checks and balances goes back even to Polybius’ discussion of the Roman constitution. He emphasized how the magistracy (monarchical power), the Senate (oligarchical power), and the assembly/tribunes (democratic power) all had limitations to keep any one kind of power from dominating the others. At the same time, Polybius made it clear that it was the ability of each of these three agencies to act in concert and to not put the system of checks and balances to the test that made Rome so powerful.