But one has to look at anthropological history then and see how the Indigenous/nomadic pre-agricultural societies functioned well enough without either divine rule or any form of class stratification, — Grre

Why do they remain unquestioned? Again, either out of sheer ignorance and class unconsciousness, or out this divinity-encumbant entitlement as part of the very definition. — Grre

. If historically, divine rule is seen as a contradiction to the doctrine of the rule of law (and subsequently other incumbent ideals such as democracy, equality ect.) then under late-stage capitalism, can wealth/money be seen as a parallel to this idea of divine rule, and thus contradictory to the rule of law... — Grre

You're thinking too simplistically in terms of buying influence with direct payments. This is only a tiny fraction of the mean by which money can buy influence.

Tax breaks for the wealthy, for example, are rarely just 'bought'. They're part of a package in right-wing governments which also includes populist legislation. Control of what constitutes popular opinion is disproportionately held by the wealthy.

it isn’t the private citizen who usurps democracy or the rule of law, it is whomever legislates and enforces it. — NOS4A2

The legislature and enforcement bodies are constituted of private citizens and in most modern cases the rule makers are elected by private citizens in at least partial knowledge of exactly what they intend to do, so I'm not sure (apart from historically) what point you're making.

One becomes a public official when he is in a position of official authority conferred by a state. A private citizen has no such power. — NOS4A2

Are you suggesting private citizens are barred from being public officials?

In English we differentiate between those who hold official power conferred by the state—judges, bureaucrats, police etc.—and those who don’t by using those phrases. — NOS4A2

The categorical distinction is beside the point. I'm not denying the it is possible to classify people on the basis of their job, but your categories are not mutually exclusive. The point is that those who are in positions of power are drawn from, and maintained in those position by, private citizens, so saying that power structures are not made by private citizens simply because they cease to be labelled as such when they are thus enabled is tautologous.

I’m mostly speaking about the positions and structures and not necessarily the various people who occupy them. Anyone who occupies those positions are bestowed a power not available to those who don’t. — NOS4A2

Private citizens, rich and poor, would not purchase power or advantage if there wasn’t first someone selling it. — NOS4A2

Private citizens, rich and poor, would not purchase power or advantage if there wasn’t first someone selling it. — NOS4A2

If you have out of control lobbying and inherent structural corruption, don't blame it people that are rich. — ssu

. This is clearly not true because if private citizens wanted to make such a purchase, they would simply elect someone (or themselves stand for office) such as to make such an opportunity available.

That’s clearly not true because it is not easy for any one private citizen to get someone elected or to get elected himself. — NOS4A2

Only the state has the power to usurp ideals like democracy and the rule of law because they are in direct control of, and in power over, the structures of democracy and the rule of law. The private citizen has no such power. — NOS4A2

What barriers are in the way then? Voting in an election couldn't be easier really. Standing for election is slightly harder but still no more so than the average business career.

The private citizen elects the state in almost full knowledge of their intentions. How is that not power to affect such structures?

I’m only saying the private citizen has no control or power over the structures. In order to affect those structures they must vote people into those positions. I’m not saying they cannot vote people into those positions. — NOS4A2

Right... So that constitutes control and power over the structures doesn't it. That they can vote people into positions of control, based on their intentions to exercise such control, constitutes de facto control.

Let’s say you and I team up to affect democracy and the rule of law. Since we have de facto control over both, how would you and I go about doing that? — NOS4A2

It is an ideal...to Plato — Grre

Anyways, my question then, appears to be a pretty straight forward one. If historically, divine rule is seen as a contradiction to the doctrine of the rule of law (and subsequently other incumbent ideals such as democracy, equality ect.) then under late-stage capitalism, can wealth/money be seen as a parallel to this idea of divine rule, and thus contradictory to the rule of law... — Grre

But one has to look at anthropological history then and see how the Indigenous/nomadic pre-agricultural societies functioned well enough without either divine rule or any form of class stratification, let alone based on systems of wealth/property hoarding — Grre

(for lack of a better term to term to describe the conceptual parrarells between divine/unquestionable worship of a monotheistic god (and those deemed to represent Him) and that of wealth accumulation and the wealthy)? — Grre

Eyyeyyey... the entire hoarding behaviour has developed for the necessity of hoarding supplies and food for the tribe to survive over period of non-availability of supplies and food. It was present in the pre-agricultural societies much like in today's societies.