Without a bottom there can be no top.

I know it’s a bit cliche, but seriously even though this article is full of important insights it can literally be distilled into: Capitalist greed.

There is a very good reason for the super rich to support the rule of law: it secures their own wealth and power. Even if they may want to be aristocrats in a highly stratified society like, for example, 19th century Britain rather than a modern democratic welfare state, they don’t stand to benefit from the transition to a modern autocracy. 19th century Britain was very much a nation of laws where the government would protect the lives and property of the super rich whereas modern autocrats quickly co-opt them into personal lenders whose well-being is entirely at the mercy of the autocrat.

Thus, while some super rich individuals currently support populist autocracy either due to idiosyncratic personal beliefs or short-term political expediency, transitioning to it is not in the best interest of the super rich as a class. Rule of law isn’t the same thing as democracy but I don’t see a global movement towards rule of law without democracy - the two are in the present day apparently inextricable.

(China seemed like it could become a powerful example of rule of law without democracy, but Xi’s consolidation of power seems to have returned it to the standard autocratic track.)