Comment by shadowofneptune

The Roman Empire example that the article goes into is more interesting than it makes out, and can be an example of the wrong sort of redundancy being applied to a problem.

The reforms in the 3rd century were not just an increase in taxes, but a restructuring of society to keep the army strong. Price controls were placed on goods to make sure that people and the state would always have reliable access to goods. Tax collection on private property was formalized and made much higher. Peasants were bound to the land to make sure they always were able to produce. This makes sense based on the view the Emperor had of the empire: an empire is like an army, so this strict control should boost resilience and redundancy.

The tax collection was incredibly onerous and led to a lot of small estates going under. The price controls didn't work at all, in part because it didn't understand that price differences can be caused by things other than greed. The remaining landowners increasingly pulled out of the money economy and the cities and instead focused more on their own estates and the newly bound peasants. It is often stated as the starting point of feudalism, and ultimately did more to weaken the empire's structure than sustain it.

When you ask for redundancy, it's important to think about what kind of redundancy you want, and who it serves.