So, once again, I do understand the need to belong a larger group. I do like the idea of clan societies, especially if organised along more democratic lines. I just personally don't like the pseudo-feudal idea of elevating someone to a lofty position that I don't feel they have earned. In the 'auld days' the chieftaincy was not always passed from eldest son to eldest son. If the clan system had survived in its original form, it is unlikely that many of these people would even be chiefs today!

To each his own. I'm not criticising anyone, just offering my personal opinion.
Most clan societies are democratic, though. If there is a clan chief, he/she may appoint a personal represenative/comissioner, but society officers are generally elected from the membership.

And for that matter, feudalism really doesn't hold the monopoly on "elevating someone to a lofty position they haven't earned". I can think of numerous politicians and celebrities in our society that could be described that way as well.

T.