I see now. Thanks for the clarification. You're pointing to the dangers of the concentration of power and of the authority to decide on cultural values, and you're contrasting this with the modern (democratic and capitalistic) ideal of the decentralization of power, of the empowerment of Everyman as a sovereign individual.

I agree with the criticism of elite gatekeepers, and I've written a lot on how the concentration of power is corrupting. Yet I see the free market as being in conflict with the natural law of oligarchy and thus with the reemergence of elites in a new, modern guise. Capitalism and democracy are sold on this ideal of decentralization, but what we see in practice is the rise of monopolies and of plutocracies despite the theory of how it's all supposed to work. Power in these free societies is less concentrated than in a monarchy--or perhaps power has shifted outside the government to the rulers of the private sector.

At any rate, would the decentralization of the ability to decide on cultural values still be ideal if the masses were trained to be infantile consumers? Wouldn't this be far from a meritocracy? Our "modern, progressive" values might be as self-destructive as those of a child who wants to eat candy all day.

These doubts aside, I take your point. A decentralized system seems more stable than one with a central, more easily corrupted command.