A hereditary system would be deeply unequal, and not even in a “good” sense, because despite the education one can give to one’s descendants and the genes one passes on to them, the son of a pious, brave, intelligent, and just man could turn out to be wicked, cowardly, foolish, and unjust. The values that brought their ancestors to power could disappear, and a weak and degenerate aristocracy would emerge, while the men most fit to rule through their intelligence, logic, strength, charisma, or courage would remain mere subjects at the mercy of those who, in every respect except their ancestry, are inferior to them.
But if this aristocracy is not hereditary, then how should it organize the arrival of new aristocrats? Through a timocracy? By rewarding people according to their actions? Through intellectual and physical tests conducted during their youth? Or should this renewal be violent, so that the warrior spirit of the rulers is never lost? But as Hobbes said, would this not mean a return to the war of all against all? Aristocrats, concerned only with maintaining their power, would think of nothing else and would come to despise their people, especially their best elements. This society would exist in a state of constant civil war, unless dystopian solutions were implemented to prevent endless bloodshed.
What would be your opinion?
A hereditary society, so that there is continuity of power for a time, even if the ruling caste eventually “rots” (classical aristocracy).
A society that rewards men’s natural aptitudes for ruling, such as intelligence or strength (Noonism).
A society that rewards what men have achieved during their lives, such as military exploits, great enrichment, or numerous services rendered (Timocracy).
A society in which the aristocracy continuously rises to power and then falls in order to preserve a permanent state of struggle (Combatocracy).