NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,
I believe meritcacracy is the best government because it tests the people by their ability to do something before they're allowed to do it, this is no diefferent than earning your driver's license before you get to drive, plus its safer too. In meritocracy most of America's problems would be effectively solved because only the worthy would be allowed to do anything.

Thoughts?

Hello,
I believe meritcacracy is the best government because it tests the people by their ability to do something before they're allowed to do it, this is no diefferent than earning your driver's license before you get to drive, plus its safer too. In meritocracy most of America's problems would be effectively solved because only the worthy would be allowed to do anything.

Thoughts?

And who, exactly, would determine someone's "worth?" Would s/he happen to have lightning bolts on his/her sleeve?

How would you gauge a man's ability? Would it be by his strength?, Intelligence? or maybe his sense of morality?


Who would do the gauging? How do you stop them from being bias?

What do you do about people who "Cheat" at life? What would you do with people who are born into wealth?

Hello,
I believe meritcacracy is the best government because it tests the people by their ability to do something before they're allowed to do it, this is no diefferent than earning your driver's license before you get to drive, plus its safer too. In meritocracy most of America's problems would be effectively solved because only the worthy would be allowed to do anything.
Thoughts?

And here I am.

The largest problem with a meritocracy is that it creates a "higher class". The first problem is how the class is chosen in the first place. You claimed only those who earned freedom of speech should get to use it, correct?

If that is true, then theoretically free speech could only be earned by "speaking" things that have already been defined as "appropriate" speech. Those who could not speak "appropriately" would not be given free speech

First, its nonsense to assume that the parameters for gaining "free speech" would not be politically or economically motivted. Or if they werent that way at first, they would become that way.

Why? because those who attained the right would have greater power than those who did not. In fact, now that they exert this over their peers, there is nothing stopping them from rewriting the parameters so only those who agree with them can gain that right.

This follows for every right.

How would you gauge a man's ability? Would it be by his strength?, Intelligence? or maybe his sense of morality?


Who would do the gauging? How do you stop them from being bias?

What do you do about people who "Cheat" at life? What would you do with people who are born into wealth?

Worht in meritocracy depends on the right you want to earn. If its to become a math teacher you must be good at teaching, smart, not abusive, understanding and obviously must know math.

In transportation you must have good judgement and know how to operate the vehicle you want to drive in your job.

In rights like freedom of speech you must be worthy in a way you help society, and not harm others.

Worht in meritocracy depends on the right you want to earn. If its to become a math teacher you must be good at teaching, smart, not abusive, understanding and obviously must know math.

In transportation you must have good judgement and know how to operate the vehicle you want to drive in your job.

In rights like freedom of speech you must be worthy in a way you help society, and not harm others.

Again, who determines what's good and what's bad? Could it be George Bush? Because he's the LAST mofo to tell me what's good and what's bad. Would it be a jury of my peers?

A lot of this is subjective, and like Red_Letter said, you can't keep politics out of it.

And here I am.

The largest problem with a meritocracy is that it creates a "higher class". The first problem is how the class is chosen in the first place. You claimed only those who earned freedom of speech should get to use it, correct?

If that is true, then theoretically free speech could only be earned by "speaking" things that have already been defined as "appropriate" speech. Those who could not speak "appropriately" would not be given free speech

First, its nonsense to assume that the parameters for gaining "free speech" would not be politically or economically motivted. Or if they werent that way at first, they would become that way.

Why? because those who attained the right would have greater power than those who did not. In fact, now that they exert this over their peers, there is nothing stopping them from rewriting the parameters so only those who agree with them can gain that right.

This follows for every right.

I beleive I mentioned before on the other thread that they can't be abusive with their rights so they would not be aloud to rub it in unless someone tried using lies and propaganda on him in which it would be justified because that other person would be breaking the law. Plus if I ran the nation I would make it so that only constructive speech was aloud, no one would be able to say "our religion is the only one, join us or die" "our clique is better than yours" or any other words that have eaten away at society. Removing stupidity from society is the first step towards society's redemtion.

I beleive I mentioned before on the other thread that they can't be abusive with their rights so they would not be aloud to rub it in unless someone tried using lies and propaganda on him in which it would be justified because that other person would be breaking the law. Plus if I ran the nation I would make it so that only constructive speech was aloud, no one would be able to say "our religion is the only one, join us or die" "our clique is better than yours" or any other words that have eaten away at society. Removing stupidity from society is the first step towards society's redemtion.

You honestly don't see the hypocrisy in this?

You honestly don't see the hypocrisy in this?

What hypocrisy? Its simple, we humans have a natural hunch for whose good and whose bad, or most of us, imaging putting only good people in office and giving them rights and making sure that everyones' qualified. Whats so bad with having only good people in government? In fact we have more than enough bad people in government at least Meritocaracy would boot the bad ones out and keep them out.

I beleive I mentioned before on the other thread that they can't be abusive with their rights so they would not be aloud to rub it in unless someone tried using lies and propaganda on him in which it would be justified because that other person would be breaking the law.

They cant? Whats stopping them, the law? Forget the law, in a meritocracy not everyone can vote. Therefore those that have the rights (voting, free speech) can protect them however they wish even to the point where they can restrict others from having it.

Plus if I ran the nation I would make it so that only constructive speech was aloud,

This is exactly what im talking about! You cant define constructive speech, its a matter of opinion, so everyone who wasnt of your opinion is instantly disenfranchised! Now you have a class with rights that is theoretically of the same political persuasion. How can you be sure they wont abuse that power.

Removing stupidity from society is the first step towards society's redemtion.

This always ends in genocide. Except when the countries leaders are hung first.

What hypocrisy? Its simple, we humans have a natural hunch for whose good and whose bad,

*buries head in hands* Oh dear...That is not true at all. Those who have deemed themselves as more righteous and more intelligent, and more holy have commited the worst of atrocities in human history. Dont you see theres nothing to stop a meritocracy from political, economical, or racial supremacy?

In fact we have more than enough bad people in government at least Meritocaracy would boot the bad ones out and keep them out.

It would not do that at all. It would root out the ones that had minority views first, and then, however they are tested: it would root out anyone those politicians didnt agree with either.

*buries head in hands* Oh dear...That is not true at all. Those who have deemed themselves as more righteous and more intelligent, and more holy have commited the worst of atrocities in human history. Dont you see theres nothing to stop a meritocracy from political, economical, or racial supremacy?



It would not do that at all. It would root out the ones that had minority views first, and then, however they are tested: it would root out anyone those politicians didnt agree with either.


Suppose the government was started by the righteous, and wanted what was best and then made the country a meritocracy? What if they judged your merite by whether you had good character traits and moral fiber?

Suppose the government was started by the righteous, and wanted what was best and then made the country a meritocracy? What if they judged your merite by whether you had good character traits and moral fiber?

What if the meritocracy was started by magical monkeys which flew around eastern norway every year handing out spatulas and singing russian folk songs?

Forgive my sarcasm, but everytime a class possesses legally protected power over another, corruption is imminent and unavoidable.

I say that there should be a meritocratic republic instead of democracy. The merit part comes from being able to do one's part in protecting the people from force and fraud, which is the principle duty of the state (and should be the only one.) If people demonstrate that they are willing and able to protect the people from force and fraud, then they should be the ones to control the state's monopoly on force, because they will use that monopoly to protect the people from aggression.

What if the meritocracy was started by magical monkeys which flew around eastern norway every year handing out spatulas and singing russian folk songs?

Forgive my sarcasm, but everytime a class possesses legally protected power over another, corruption is imminent and unavoidable.

Well having everyone equal has the same effect only much worse. Check out Soviet Russia and other modern commie nations, they treat everyone like expendable tools. And in democracy the laws are too loose to prevent corruption.

Well having everyone equal has the same effect only much worse. Check out Soviet Russia and other modern commie nations, they treat everyone like expendable tools.

What's the connection between Soviet Russia and "having everyone equal"?

What's the connection between Soviet Russia and "having everyone equal"?

Communism sees everyone as equal and of equal worth thus everyone is equally expendable.

Well having everyone equal has the same effect only much worse. Check out Soviet Russia and other modern commie nations, they treat everyone like expendable tools. And in democracy the laws are too loose to prevent corruption.

How would a meritocracy be any different than soviet Russia. You were either in the party, or you werent. The same would be true of a meritocracy, those that have rights would only lose power by sharing them.

The corruption in democracy is offset by the ability to remove it.

Communism sees everyone as equal and of equal worth thus everyone is equally expendable.

So you're telling me you'd rather have some people be less expendable and others more expendable?

No, people make their own worth, and I don't want someone changing it so we're all like uniform robots.

No, people make their own worth, and I don't want someone changing it so we're all like uniform robots.

So who do you want to kill first?

I say that there should be a meritocratic republic instead of democracy. The merit part comes from being able to do one's part in protecting the people from force and fraud, which is the principle duty of the state (and should be the only one.) If people demonstrate that they are willing and able to protect the people from force and fraud, then they should be the ones to control the state's monopoly on force, because they will use that monopoly to protect the people from aggression.

Imo, the only people who would be fit to serve in such a system would those who devoted their lives to destroying it. They would be the only ones who could truly say that they were devoted to the betterment of humanity.

Soheran's here!

Imo, the only people who would be fit to serve in such a system would those who devoted their lives to destroying it. They would be the only ones who could truly say that they were devoted to the betterment of humanity.

Soheran's here!

How is destroying a protection against aggression a noble idea? For most states, which have far overstepped their bounds, yes, that might be good, but in a minarchist state restricted utterly to just protect the people it would be folly.

So who do you want to kill first?

Your not telling me you want everyone to be considered the same, what about those obviously in the wrong, especially in your point of view. Suppose it were so and we still had the same opinions. Would you like to be considerd just anotehr clone to me?

Your not telling me you want everyone to be considered the same,

Not exactly, no. But certainly enough that I oppose meritocracies.

what about those obviously in the wrong, especially in your point of view.

Depends on how they are wrong. People who merely disagree with me should be treated equally to everyone else. People who commit grievous moral wrongs should not be.

Suppose it were so and we still had the same opinions. Would you like to be considerd just anotehr clone to me?

No. Would I like to be treated as a moral equal to you? Yes.

Difference is not inequality, even though inequality is usually based on differences.

How is destroying a protection against aggression a noble idea? For most states, which have far overstepped their bounds, yes, that might be good, but in a minarchist state restricted utterly to just protect the people it would be folly.

There are many noble ideas that wreak havoc on humanity, and when did I ever advocate a minarchist state?

Not exactly, no. But certainly enough that I oppose meritocracies.



Depends on how they are wrong. People who merely disagree with me should be treated equally to everyone else. People who commit grievous moral wrongs should not be.

Well in my kind of meritocracy those who commit grievas moral crimes wouldn't have ANY power whatsoever.
No. Would I like to be treated as a moral equal to you? Yes.

Difference is not inequality, even though inequality is usually based on differences.

And it seems we've agreed that communists are bad. And the reason I oppose human equality is because that would mean people like Hitler or Stalin are no different than you or me.

And it seems we've agreed that communists are bad.

We have?

I don't think I've agreed to any such thing.

(<- communist)

And the reason I oppose human equality is because that would mean people like Hitler or Stalin are no different than you or me.

Only that has nothing to do with political or economic equality, and only has a slight relevance to moral equality (because it is an exception that doesn't have much to do with the point.)

There are many noble ideas that wreak havoc on humanity, and when did I ever advocate a minarchist state?

But it's not even a noble idea to destroy that which protects people. I never said you advocated a minarchist state- I said that it doesn't help anything to destroy it, because it's utterly limited to protecting the people.

But it's not even a noble idea to destroy that which protects people. I never said you advocated a minarchist state- I said that it doesn't help anything to destroy it, because it's utterly limited to protecting the people.

But a meritocracy and a minarchy are entirely different things. You cant have a minarchy and a meritocracy because one is devoted to distributing too as many rights as possible and one limits rights to only those who it deems worthy.

A true meritocracy would not be helpful and protecting. It would dengerate quickly into the worst of oligarchies. Anyone devoted to freeing the minds of men deserves distinction- but never a legally protected one.

We have?

I don't think I've agreed to any such thing.

(<- communist)



Only that has nothing to do with political or economic equality, and only has a slight relevance to moral equality (because it is an exception that doesn't have much to do with the point.)

Depends on how they are wrong. People who merely disagree with me should be treated equally to everyone else. People who commit grievous moral wrongs should not be.

I assumed that meant you didn't want absolutely everyone considered the same.

Only that has nothing to do with political or economic equality, and only has a slight relevance to moral equality (because it is an exception that doesn't have much to do with the point.)

I oppose equality for another reason, there are tons of people like hitler only difference is they don't get the power needed to commit genocide and other atrocities. If everyone was equal they would be able to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iToq9CpkQc&mode=related&search= In a meritocracy the event in the link would have never occured because he would have been deemed bad and rightless thus preventing the deaths of our police and those brainwashed by his lies.

I oppose equality for another reason, there are tons of people like hitler only difference is they don't get the power needed to commit genocide and other atrocities. If everyone was equal they would be able to.

And if the Aryans ran the meritocracy? You have Nazi germany all over again. No good can come of handing rights granted out based upon the preferences of the current power structure. Even if started by a good government, it would end in oligarchy and eventually even facism.

But a meritocracy and a minarchy are entirely different things. You cant have a minarchy and a meritocracy because one is devoted to distributing too as many rights as possible and one limits rights to only those who it deems worthy.

A true meritocracy would not be helpful and protecting. It would dengerate quickly into the worst of oligarchies. Anyone devoted to freeing the minds of men deserves distinction- but never a legally protected one.

Why does a minarchy have to be a democracy? The only thing that a minarchy needs to do to be a minarchy is to be utterly limited to protecting people from force and fraud- how it comes to do this is not important.

I argue that in a meritocratic republic, in which power over government's monopoly on force must be earned by demonstrating one's willingness to protect others from force and fraud, would be far better than a democracy. In fact, a democracy has extreme centralized power and acts with an abstract, mystical "voice of the people", which makes people subservient in a way that feudal lords and tyrants could only dream of. It makes a subjugated, complacent, ignorant populace from whom the democratic overlords can easily plunder; rent-seeking, as it is. But if there are no illusions as to such a "voice of the people" existing, those who have the power over government's monopoly on force are those who will use it to protect the people and shun those who would do otherwise, then a truly minarchist state can be maintained with betterment for all.

I assumed that meant you didn't want absolutely everyone considered the same.

I don't. Nor do most communists, if you include people like Hitler.

I oppose equality for another reason, there are tons of people like hitler only difference is they don't get the power needed to commit genocide and other atrocities.

Yes, and if everyone had an equal share of power, they would never get that power.

Hitler was not equal in power to Jews he slaughtered; that's why he was able to do it. Stalin was not equal in power to the Ukrainians he starved; that's why he was able to do it.

If everyone was equal they would be able to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iToq9CpkQc&mode=related&search=

What does that have to do with equality?

In a meritocracy the event in the link would have never occured because he would have been deemed bad and rightless

By whom?

Why does a minarchy have to be a democracy? The only thing that a minarchy needs to do to be a minarchy is to be utterly limited to protecting people from force and fraud- how it comes to do this is not important.

Limiting rights based upon a governments litmus test is so far removed from the values of the minarchian ideal that it hardly bears serious consideration. How can you have a minarchy in a government where rights are restricted from the people until they prove their worthiness to the state! Thats not minarchism, and it sure as hell isnt protecting the people.

I argue that in a meritocratic republic, in which power over government's monopoly on force must be earned by demonstrating one's willingness to protect others from force and fraud, would be far better than a democracy. In fact, a democracy has extreme centralized power and acts with an abstract, mystical "voice of the people", which makes people subservient in a way that feudal lords and tyrants could only dream of. It makes a subjugated, complacent, ignorant populace from whom the democratic overlords can easily plunder; rent-seeking, as it is.

There is no such thing as a perfect system of government. you are vastly overcompensating the effects of democracy though. Rapid and powerful change is capable from within them like no other system. There is always a degree of disenfranchisement but in a democracy it is a far lesser dgree than in a meritocracy.

But if there are no illusions as to such a "voice of the people" existing,

Nope, no illusions at all. The people who can force you, enslave you, and steal from you are entirely evident and are well protected under the law.

those who have the power over government's monopoly on force are those who will use it to protect the people and shun those who would do otherwise,

Until they are actually chosen to have power anyway. When they realize that they are a minority ruling class -and unlike the "capitalist overlords" they have a right to their power- will be the day that this dream crashes and burns.

then a truly minarchist state can be maintained with betterment for all.

Or a class-dictatorship, whatever you want to call it.

Yes, and if everyone had an equal share of power, they would never get that power.

Hitler was not equal in power to Jews he slaughtered; that's why he was able to do it. Stalin was not equal in power to the Ukrainians he starved; that's why he was able to do it.


They had the same amount of rights as their other countrymen, thus making it easy to seize power, when everyone has equal rights some bad nut always finds a way to seize power.

What does that have to do with equality?

They had equal rights as Americans and they were able to seize power.

By whom?

An official who would have all the profiles would immidiatly know this guy was unstable and take away his rights.

What if the meritocracy was started by magical monkeys which flew around eastern norway every year handing out spatulas and singing russian folk songs?

Forgive my sarcasm, but everytime a class possesses legally protected power over another, corruption is imminent and unavoidable.


Sounds like a real improvement to me. Real innovative.

Forgiven.

Free the Proletariat!
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

They had the same amount of rights as their other countrymen, thus making it easy to seize power

Wouldn't that make it harder to seize power? If I have an equal share of power to you, how are you going to exercise power against me?

They had equal rights as Americans and they were able to seize power.

Maybe, but what does one have to do with the other?

An official who would have all the profiles would immidiatly know this guy was unstable and take away his rights.

That's what makes it easy for people to commit atrocities - institutions that give them a huge amount of power in the first place.

Wouldn't that make it harder to seize power? If I have an equal share of power to you, how are you going to exercise power against me?



Maybe, but what does one have to do with the other?



That's what makes it easy for people to commit atrocities - institutions that give them a huge amount of power in the first place.

I've seen people with equal amounts of power rise up against each other successfully, if there's a will there's a way. And in my nationtate everyone's paid for reporting other officials. No one gets corrupt and a false report gets the death penalty, The government would know because they would have witnesses.

I've seen people with equal amounts of power rise up against each other successfully, if there's a will there's a way.

Maybe, but it's a lot harder if you don't have more power than others in the first place.

And in my nationtate everyone's paid for reporting other officials. No one gets corrupt and a false report gets the death penalty,

How do you determine which reports are false and which true? Who decides, and by what standard do they decide? How do you deal with the fact that most people are going to be too scared to make a report?

The government would know because they would have witnesses.

Who is "the government"?

Limiting rights based upon a governments litmus test is so far removed from the values of the minarchian ideal that it hardly bears serious consideration. How can you have a minarchy in a government where rights are restricted from the people until they prove their worthiness to the state! Thats not minarchism, and it sure as hell isnt protecting the people.

But it's not a right, because it obligates a positive commitment of some sort; you can't disobey the laws of a country like you can ignore someone's speech or not associate with a person. Government power is a privilege. Since it is a privilege, it must be given to those who will properly use it. Since government's principle purpose is using a monopoly on force to stop initiation of force and fraud, those who protect people from force and fraud should be the ones to govern this monopoly.

There is no such thing as a perfect system of government. you are vastly overcompensating the effects of democracy though. Rapid and powerful change is capable from within them like no other system. There is always a degree of disenfranchisement but in a democracy it is a far lesser dgree than in a meritocracy.

Democracy is feudalism with a smiley face. The government forces people to bow down to the wishes of its vassal special interest groups, the rent-seekers, but they say it's because "the people" want it, thus placing them in a position of security far greater than that of the kings of old claiming divine mandate. Whatever freedoms left are those that the special interest groups rent-seekers don't see a need to eliminate, or have yet to eliminate.

Nope, no illusions at all. The people who can force you, enslave you, and steal from you are entirely evident and are well protected under the law.

A.) They won't, because they're the ones who have protected the people. B.) In a minarchist state, everyone has unlimited rights to firearms, acting as a deterrent to any expansion of the state.

Until they are actually chosen to have power anyway. When they realize that they are a minority ruling class -and unlike the "capitalist overlords" they have a right to their power- will be the day that this dream crashes and burns.

Or a class-dictatorship, whatever you want to call it.

I'd like to keep the argument on topic and about meritocracy, not hijacked into the tired "class-warfare" crap.

Hello,
I believe meritcacracy is the best government because it tests the people by their ability to do something before they're allowed to do it, this is no diefferent than earning your driver's license before you get to drive, plus its safer too. In meritocracy most of America's problems would be effectively solved because only the worthy would be allowed to do anything.

Thoughts?

The problem with any form of government is that it is run by people, hence corruptible. Your worthy person is no more immune to corruption than anyone else. And when you give that "worthy person" power, corruption will follow. And, since this person is chosen by testing (if you will) and tests are formulated and conducted by people, then the agendas of those responsible for the testing will taint the process. And don't argue that computers can do the choosing, they're still programmed by people.

The best we've had, so far, is representative government with Constitutional limitations on power and a system of checks and balances that limits corruption (although nothing will stop it). It's not good, but it's the best we've been able to find to date.

Hello,
I believe meritcacracy is the best government because it tests the people by their ability to do something before they're allowed to do it, this is no diefferent than earning your driver's license before you get to drive, plus its safer too. In meritocracy most of America's problems would be effectively solved because only the worthy would be allowed to do anything.

Thoughts?
Well, the principle is certainly appealing: Be good at something, be rewarded for it.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that principle.

But the problems have already been made obvious: Who makes up the standards of what's good and what's bad, and how do they do it?

Perhaps the best way to do it would be total decentralisation of the decision process - let every person decide how good everyone they meet is, and let them treat them accordingly. If I meet you, and I think you're a good teacher, I might let you teach my kids. If Soheran meets you and doesn't think you're a good teacher, he won't let you teach his kids.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

But it's not a right, because it obligates a positive commitment of some sort; you can't disobey the laws of a country like you can ignore someone's speech or not associate with a person. Government power is a privilege. Since it is a privilege, it must be given to those who will properly use it. Since government's principle purpose is using a monopoly on force to stop initiation of force and fraud, those who protect people from force and fraud should be the ones to govern this monopoly.

The government is given the privelige to rule, not the other way around. If you arent even familiar with that concept, I am beginning to doubt that you are at all familiar with minarchian philosophy.

Democracy is feudalism with a smiley face. The government forces people to bow down to the wishes of its vassal special interest groups, the rent-seekers, but they say it's because "the people" want it, thus placing them in a position of security far greater than that of the kings of old claiming divine mandate. Whatever freedoms left are those that the special interest groups rent-seekers don't see a need to eliminate, or have yet to eliminate.

This is outright wrong. Study the kingdoms of old and you will find no practical similarity in your defense. It sounds "intellectual" to link the two together, but they are a hollow comparison. A people under a democracy are nowhere near as subservient as under feudalism. All that can be correlated is the foolishness of groupthink- and that will plague your meritocracy as it plagued every system before it.



A.) They won't, because they're the ones who have protected the people.

They will have been the protectors, but the state will choose what defines "protector" and bollocks if they wont define it in a manner which strengthens the state.

I'd like to keep the argument on topic and about meritocracy, not hijacked into the tired "class-warfare" crap.

I wasnt referring to economic class, a meritocracy will inevitably create a class with rights and a class without them. That you think their interests will be equal is in defiance of your own arguments.

B.) In a minarchist state, everyone has unlimited rights to firearms, acting as a deterrent to any expansion of the state.

If you have a people that are denied a voice in government, denied the right to vote, assemble, speak, travel etc. but possess an unchallengable right to firearms, you wont have a meritocracy very long at all. :)

The government is given the privelige to rule, not the other way around. If you arent even familiar with that concept, I am beginning to doubt that you are at all familiar with minarchian philosophy.

No, it has the consent of the governed, in that they are allowed to secede in case of injustice. But consent of the governed =/= a vote. They have to obey the law if it is just, it cannot be escaped. How the laws are created really doesn't matter, just as long as they are just. So, having access to the creation of laws can be a privilege to make sure the laws are just.

This is outright wrong. Study the kingdoms of old and you will find no practical similarity in your defense. It sounds "intellectual" to link the two together, but they are a hollow comparison. A people under a democracy are nowhere near as subservient as under feudalism. All that can be correlated is the foolishness of groupthink- and that will plague your meritocracy as it plagued every system before it.

But they ARE similar, in fact practically indistinguishable in the end. Our situation is as follows: The ignorant populace is having their freedoms and what belongs to them taken away for the benefit of the rent-seekers, that being special interest and politicians, while the rent-seekers invoke an abstract "voice of the people" to justify their actions. It is no different than having serfs being cowed into submission by feudal landlords who tell them that they are being treated so because God says so- in fact, the former is more dangerous because it more thoroughly tricks the people into believing that the rent-seekers are benefitting them. If they haven't had as much freedom taken as in a feudal system, it's simply because the democratic system hasn't gotten that far yet.

They will have been the protectors, but the state will choose what defines "protector" and bollocks if they wont define it in a manner which strengthens the state.

Not if the state is forced to follow rules, at gunpoint.

I wasnt referring to economic class, a meritocracy will inevitably create a class with rights and a class without them. That you think their interests will be equal is in defiance of your own arguments.

Then why did you mention "capitalist overlords" etc.? It wasn't really relevant, and any "class" in the meritocracy I explained would not be a class in the usual sense, seeing as how anyone can get in with relative ease and certainty.

If you have a people that are denied a voice in government, denied the right to vote, assemble, speak, travel etc. but possess an unchallengable right to firearms, you wont have a meritocracy very long at all. :)

Woah, slow down, when did I ever say people shouldn't have those? Never. But voting still isn't a right, because what a vote says forces a positive obligation on others, unlike rights to assembly and speech. Democracy is not a prerequisite of minarchism, because a minarchism just needs to be able to make just laws; how they do so is irrelevant. The other rights you list are, because the government has no right to intrude upon them.

No, it has the consent of the governed, in that they are allowed to secede in case of injustice. But consent of the governed =/= a vote. They have to obey the law if it is just, it cannot be escaped. How the laws are created really doesn't matter, just as long as they are just. So, having access to the creation of laws can be a privilege to make sure the laws are just.

You are really not a minarchist. You will be hardpressed to find any minarchist that believes anything like this. It really is trivial arguing between the two anyway. My purpose in this thread has been arguing the vices of meritocracy, not its adaptibility.

-feudal snip-

You did not add anything to this. you are attempting to rebutt me by reiterating what you have already said. If you going to prove a connection, throw more at me than buzzwords.

Not if the state is forced to follow rules, at gunpoint.

I hold that those armed would refuse to follow this government and likely overthrow it the first chance they had.

and any "class" would not be a class in the usual sense, seeing as how anyone can get in with relative ease and certainty.

You have not even come close to articulating how they people are chosen, and do not forget that the state chooses them. The state has a vested interest in choosing those that would further the states interest.

Woah, slow down, when did I ever say people shouldn't have those? Never. But voting still isn't a right, because what a vote says forces a positive obligation on others, unlike rights to assembly and speech. Democracy is not a prerequisite of minarchism, because a minarchism just needs to be able to make just laws; how they do so is irrelevant. The other rights you list are, because the government has no right to intrude upon them.

You arent even agreeing with the OP anymore. If you want to debate a meritocracy, you will have to figure out what kind of meritocracy is being created. Then I will ask you to contemplate the inevitable end of a government where who gets to vote is chosen by the state.

You are really not a minarchist. You will be hardpressed to find any minarchist that believes anything like this.

So I wouldn't find someone like Robert Heinlein, then? OK.

It really is trivial arguing between the two anyway. My purpose in this thread has been arguing the vices of meritocracy, not its adaptibility.

But by not talking about a specific kind of meritocracy, you avoid talking about meritocracy in its entirety.

You did not add anything to this. you are attempting to rebutt me by reiterating what you have already said. If you going to prove a connection, throw more at me than buzzwords.

You did nothing more to disprove me than say "It's not feudalism! Democracy rules/sucks the least!" Hence why I attempted to clarify myself (And I'm sorry if you don't understand my "buzz words".)

I hold that those armed would refuse to follow this government and likely overthrow it the first chance they had.

Because...? They certainly did not overthrow the Italian republics and the Anglo-Saxons.

You have not even come close to articulating how they people are chosen, and do not forget that the state chooses them. The state has a vested interest in choosing those that would further the states interest.

Not if they don't get to choose who gets in, no. If it's kept simple and visible (like having people perform a term of service against force and fraud with no questions asked), then it will work fine.

You arent even agreeing with the OP anymore. If you want to debate a meritocracy, you will have to figure out what kind of meritocracy is being created. Then I will ask you to contemplate the inevitable end of a government where who gets to vote is chosen by the state.

I am discussing my specific kind of meritocracy, not what can be gleaned from the OP. And I have elaborated enough to show what kind of meritocracy is being created- do a term of service of protecting people from force and fraud, and you're in. It's worked before (Anglo-saxons, Italian republics), and it can work again, especially with a few modifications.

Hi there. I come from the republic of Singapore, a country that is proud of being meritocratically run. South Lizasauria and Greill, your words strike me as extremely naive.

Let me tell you two, so that no doubt is left at all, that your opponents like Red Letter are EXACTLY ON THE MARK when they warn of the dire consequences of meritocracy. My country was founded 41 years ago by Lee Kuan Yew, then head of the People's Action Party, and at that time, a hot-blooded left-wing activist. Greill, you strike me as the slightly more mature of the two, so let me address some of your concerns. Let's take your version of meritocracy, where people serve a term of devotion to fighting force and fraud. Suppose Lee Kuan Yew enters the fight, and comes out the winner. After four years of being the people's champion for justice, wouldn't he stand a better chance at getting elected again, compared to an unknown newbie who just entered? The people will vote for him again. After eight years in office, his chances would be even higher. With greater assurance of reelection comes greater opportunity for abuse of power.

Now, what about getting people to join him? In wanting to attract new talent, the PAP has a lot of an easier time in getting top-notch people compared with opposition parties, simply because they're more successful. Few people would want to join a party that has a dismal election performance.

This is precisely how the PAP started. I won't deny what it was in its founding years: a shining example of a party devoted to advancing the causes of its people, as was its leader, Lee Kuan Yew. But as the party slowly accumulated its years in office (41 and counting), it became a complete opposite of its earlier self, where as Red Letter puts it, it has degenerated into one of the worst of oligarchies. That is precisely the way the People's Action Party has stayed in power for over 40 years, where seats in parliament are given mostly to those who have impressive academic and extra-curricular records, but move their heads up and down in zombie-like agreement.

Over here, we have a parliament of 84 MPs. 82 seats are taken up by the PAP, with only a token representation of two by the opposition parties. Despite the PAP's occupation of 82 out of 84 seats in parliament, the party actually won only 67% of all the votes counted, due to way our election is sectioned up into zones, a system that favours the ruling party, as it can throw up many more candidates to form a squad of five needed to stand for election in each zone. This is not done under the table, but out in the open, using reasons about representation that the public buys into, lending it an air of legitimacy.

Hence Greill, you are very mistaken in thinking that it is only in a democracy that an illusion of representing the people can be engineered by those in power. Even in a meritocratic republic, it can happen too, something that the PAP here has built upon. This also ties in with South Lizasauria's comment about limitations of rights abuse. Here, political powerhouses like Lee Kuan Yew and his son, our current prime minister, have a track record of suing political opponents to bankruptcy (thus rendering them inegligible for election), for apparent "acts of defamation". The most recent one involved a public letter written by an opposition politician that questioned the way the state was spending its finances. These events are painted by our mostly state-owned media as purely acts of self-defense by our gentelmanly, near-holy ministers, instead of the political devourings that they really are. If the state media can fool the majority of the populace as it paints black as white, then what is actually right doesn't really matter any more. It's only a matter of who disagrees with the ruling party.

The people here simply have no way to object, if they disagree at all. Either that, or they believe the hype in the papers that the poor PM is simply protecting his fragile reputation from being smeared and shattered by a horrifically offensive letter written by this opposition lunatic. (I have met the so-called lunatic, imho he is a calm, reasoned, forthcoming man that I can respect) This is a state where ministers freely go for public walks to meet the people, accompanied by their usual troupes of officials, but where opposition politicians are always fined for not having gotten from the licence from the police to speak in public. And of course they don't have the licence..police have never responded to their applications.

Are you getting this clearly, Greill and South Lizasauria? We have to get a LICENCE to speak in public here! Even in our so-called Speakers' Corner, which is a sad parody of the original one in Hyde Park, London. If an opposition politician actually starts to speak there, he will soon be videotaped by Internal Security Department officers who won't even bother to be surreptitious. Nobody would be stupid enough to break the law, but when the law is defined in such a skewed way by our "meritocratic" parliament, it leaves them with little choice. Recently, one of our opposition parties has attempted to reach out to the public through a podcast on their party website. Shortly after, in the recent elections about 6 months ago, a new law banning podcasts during elections was put into effect. All manner of scaremongering speeches were made, where ministers would say that muddying of the waters by a flood of opinions or reported half-"truths" was a bad thing. While such fears can be entertained, this is, imho, a targeted move aimed directly at containing the voice of the opposition.

And this is the hell in paradise that I live in, where, in the midst of a bewildering array of technological conveniences, we are ruled by dinosaurs who refuse to acknowledge the postmodern reality that we live in. This is the apex of power, where crude methods like political jailings, assassination and extortion are abandoned in favour of tactics with much more finesse, like reshaping the law to one's advantage, and using unethical tactics within the boundaries of the law, like an unofficial police ban on approval of public speech licences, that keep our opposition political representation levels at 2 out of 84. This is the tyrannical evolution of the meritocracy that I live in, South Lizasauria and Greill. I've been quite happy to quietly lurk in these forums, until this particular thread appeared. I regret to inform you two that you both haven't thought the issue through quite enough.

As for the need for secession, Singapore is way too small to even consider that possibility, but the need expresses itself nonetheless. The 33% of the electorate who voted for the opposition are increasingly being faced with a hard choice: stay and endure the frustration of not having questions answered, or join the brain drain and migrate.

And finally, to reinforce Red Letter's comment about meritocratic classes, please go to www.technorati.com and search the phrase "Wee Shu Min".

-snip-

You have said much more than I had the experience or background to articulate, so thank you for that. Im glad that my suspicions are well placed. I had no idea that singapore was a meritocracy, or that you needed a liscence to speak in public :eek: .

What if the meritocracy was founded by centrists?

What if the meritocracy was founded by centrists?

Read Singaporns extensive entry. That meritocracy ws founded by heroes of the people. Who and what starts it is completely dismissable. The only concern is that of the inevitabe end.

If one chooses on merit alone, what do we get? Jimmy Carter? He's an intelligent, humane, honest, honorable man and was a failure as president. Merit does not guarantee the abililty to get anything done, it does not guarantee competence.

If one chooses on merit alone, what do we get? Jimmy Carter? He's an intelligent, humane, honest, honorable man and was a failure as president. Merit does not guarantee the abililty to get anything done, it does not guarantee competence.

Thats why one's IQ and mental capabilty must be tested;)

Hello,
I believe meritcacracy is the best government because it tests the people by their ability to do something before they're allowed to do it, this is no diefferent than earning your driver's license before you get to drive, plus its safer too. In meritocracy most of America's problems would be effectively solved because only the worthy would be allowed to do anything.

Thoughts?

juz curious... meritocracy is not a type of government right? its a policy isnt it not? i mean well.. Napoleon's dictatorship was quite meritocratic... so is Singapore's Parlimentry Democracy. but anyways ist always best to have the right people for the right job and they should be granted this job through their merits. however what determines what is good enough is indeed very subjective. i guess it boils down to the job, the society and the values or beliefs in that society. then again a complete and perfect meritocratic government is just plain utopian and even if we claim we are, there are many area's we fall short mainly because we are human and we have our own personal agenda's and desier to see those we see as freind or kin to succed.

plus even the best person for the job doesnt neccesarily mean he well do the best job. even with all the proper credentials, there is just way too many things that are beyond control. plus a person can be good in everything

Hi there. I come from the republic of Singapore, a country that is proud of being meritocratically run. South Lizasauria and Greill, your words strike me as extremely naive.

Let me tell you two, so that no doubt is left at all, that your opponents like Red Letter are EXACTLY ON THE MARK when they warn of the dire consequences of meritocracy. My country was founded 41 years ago by Lee Kuan Yew, then head of the People's Action Party, and at that time, a hot-blooded left-wing activist. Greill, you strike me as the slightly more mature of the two, so let me address some of your concerns. Let's take your version of meritocracy, where people serve a term of devotion to fighting force and fraud. Suppose Lee Kuan Yew enters the fight, and comes out the winner. After four years of being the people's champion for justice, wouldn't he stand a better chance at getting elected again, compared to an unknown newbie who just entered? The people will vote for him again. After eight years in office, his chances would be even higher. With greater assurance of reelection comes greater opportunity for abuse of power.

Now, what about getting people to join him? In wanting to attract new talent, the PAP has a lot of an easier time in getting top-notch people compared with opposition parties, simply because they're more successful. Few people would want to join a party that has a dismal election performance.

This is precisely how the PAP started. I won't deny what it was in its founding years: a shining example of a party devoted to advancing the causes of its people, as was its leader, Lee Kuan Yew. But as the party slowly accumulated its years in office (41 and counting), it became a complete opposite of its earlier self, where as Red Letter puts it, it has degenerated into one of the worst of oligarchies. That is precisely the way the People's Action Party has stayed in power for over 40 years, where seats in parliament are given mostly to those who have impressive academic and extra-curricular records, but move their heads up and down in zombie-like agreement.

A moving testament to the tendency for the powerful to grow complacent and begin to grow into the enemy of what they once stood for. This happens in many forms of government. One might question whether the problem is the meritocratic approach or in the failure of the human intellect that we prize so highly.

So I wouldn't find someone like Robert Heinlein, then? OK.


I would be very careful concerning how literally I take what was originally intended to be a children's novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers), or how literally I take any work of fiction. I would also familiarize myself with the concepts of symbolism and/or metaphor, taking special care to understand how to separate the point, idea, or concept from the vehicle used to express the point, idea, or concept. Finally, I would consider all of the above again, but applied to other of the same author's works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_A_Harsh_Mistress) which appear to express different ideas, or at least ideas in a different way.

I would conclude that trying to read Mr. Heinlein's mind, from beyond the grave no less, is probably less straightforward than it seems.

Hmmmmm I seem to recall from my history classes that we have a meritocracy in America and it is one of the important principles of our nation. It is at the heart of republican government and capitalism. It is the idea that we do not have an aristocracy who own much of the wealth and political power simply because they were born into a noble family.

Everything from the electoral college to representative government tries to separate the general public from direct power in a way that gives ultimate power to the people but places day to day power in the hands of a respected few. This is also similar for shareholders and their board of directors.

This is one of the reasons why we have a death tax. This way everyone to a certain extent has to rise or fall on their merits or weaknesses.

Hello,
I believe meritcacracy is the best government because it tests the people by their ability to do something before they're allowed to do it, this is no diefferent than earning your driver's license before you get to drive, plus its safer too. In meritocracy most of America's problems would be effectively solved because only the worthy would be allowed to do anything.

Thoughts?
America's problems could be easily solved not with Meritacracy but with a nice smouldering crater! :p