NationStates Jolt Archive

The basis of a just and meritocratic society is that each citizen in a nation has an equal access to opportunity. In practise what this means is that quality education is available to all, to a high level, regardless of the means to pay. Thus private education, and thus by implication a two-tier education system, are an anaethema to any nation that claims to be a meritocracy (that is - a society in which people succeed or fail based on their abilities rather than as a result of their birth.)

Socialism has generally been shown to be an inadequate system for distributing wealth - not least as a result of the opportunities for corruption and waste in a centralised system. Farmers who own their own land work harder than those who serve on collective farms. They also tend to grow the right crops. The market system is therefore an excellent way to distribute food amongst a population.

However, it is an awful way to organise healthcare or education as, over time, it will tend to increasingly localise power (be it expressed in terms of access to healthcare or education) in the hands of a few. This is not in the interests of a meritocratic society.

So the best system for running a modern meritocratic nation is a limited market system, in which the fundamental aspects of life (such as access to education, healthcare, housing, water, etc.) are guaranteed by the state in order to provide a fair starting point for all citizens.

Wouldn't you say?

Yes but no.

Because two-tiered education systems and one-tiered education systems are both non-meritocratic. Public school in general is non-meritocratic, and private schools provide a way out of those dungeons for those who have money. That is not totally meritocratic but its more so than forcing people to go to a public school where their minds are engineered to fit the quotas required by the division of labor.

For you see, capitalism cannot have *too many* "well-educated" people in the workforce, or those who are knowledgeable will be cleaning toilets, for instance. As a result, those on a "higher career track" in public schools who don't do as well as the others on that career track are placed in classes where less effort is required in general to succeed so they become part of a "lower" career track...

...so the schools work to limit the amount of education people recieve in order to keep the different "career tracks" intact.

This is not meritocracy.

But under socialism, in theory, you can have an unlimited amount of educated people since altruism, not money incentives, would be the norm.

And a socialist would also argue that among those basic rights you listed would be the right to be employed.

--------

I agree with you that capitalism is the best economic system we have so far, but the reasons for your support of it are off.

Capitalism is the closest to meritocracy as we can get.

Why? Because the government doesnt have enough ressources to give the best avaiable to everyone. That means if you want the best, you have to pay for it.

At least capitalism gives you all the freedom you need to grow properly. Of course, if the economy is not growing, you will have a harder time. But, in theory, if you work long enough and is good at what you do, you will get the proper rewards.

The basis of a just and meritocratic society is that each citizen in a nation has an equal access to opportunity. In practise what this means is that quality education is available to all, to a high level, regardless of the means to pay. Thus private education, and thus by implication a two-tier education system, are an anaethema to any nation that claims to be a meritocracy (that is - a society in which people succeed or fail based on their abilities rather than as a result of their birth.)

Socialism has generally been shown to be an inadequate system for distributing wealth - not least as a result of the opportunities for corruption and waste in a centralised system. Farmers who own their own land work harder than those who serve on collective farms. They also tend to grow the right crops. The market system is therefore an excellent way to distribute food amongst a population.

However, it is an awful way to organise healthcare or education as, over time, it will tend to increasingly localise power (be it expressed in terms of access to healthcare or education) in the hands of a few. This is not in the interests of a meritocratic society.

So the best system for running a modern meritocratic nation is a limited market system, in which the fundamental aspects of life (such as access to education, healthcare, housing, water, etc.) are guaranteed by the state in order to provide a fair starting point for all citizens.

Wouldn't you say?

Yes but no.

Because two-tiered education systems and one-tiered education systems are both non-meritocratic. Public school in general is non-meritocratic, and private schools provide a way out of those dungeons for those who have money. That is not totally meritocratic but its more so than forcing people to go to a public school where their minds are engineered to fit the quotas required by the division of labor.

For you see, capitalism cannot have *too many* "well-educated" people in the workforce, or those who are knowledgeable will be cleaning toilets, for instance. As a result, those on a "higher career track" in public schools who don't do as well as the others on that career track are placed in classes where less effort is required in general to succeed so they become part of a "lower" career track...

...so the schools work to limit the amount of education people recieve in order to keep the different "career tracks" intact.

This is not meritocracy.

But under socialism, in theory, you can have an unlimited amount of educated people since altruism, not money incentives, would be the norm.

And a socialist would also argue that among those basic rights you listed would be the right to be employed.

--------

I agree with you that capitalism is the best economic system we have so far, but the reasons for your support of it are off.


Holy crap!
You have both made intelligent and debate-worthy contributions, and neither of you have resorted to personal attacks.

Are you sure you belong on NSG? I'd really hate for a debate on here to actually stay on track and not descend into religion bashing...

The meritocratic system, taken to an extreme, suggests a Brave New World scenario that channels everyone into exactly the right ratios needed to produce an efficient equilibrium. But capitalism in its current rampant form wherein all other measures become secondary to financial concerns is too dehumanising.
I propose a system whereby basic living is *guaranteed* - no matter what choices you make, a bare minimum of daily food, shelter and healthcare is always available - anything less is ultimately cruel.
To not reward effort however is to simply discourage it - and to penalise effort and skill is to inevitably drive it underground, and thereby focus it's efforts against you!
So a balance of: provision of basic human rights, balanced by a fair reward system that reflects true merit and achievement.

And fairies will dance upon doorsteps and bless the occupants of the dwellings, and in 2012 the stars will align themselves and a great cosmic change will transform all into sweetness, light, and interminably cloying sentiments.

I struggle with this debate - how do you provide for all, yet still encourage individual achievement?

A meritocratic society? You mean like in the future envisioned by the Star Trek franchise?

A meritocratic society? You mean like in the future envisioned by the Star Trek franchise?

Ah!. Now geek-bashing, on the other hand, I can appreciate...

The basis of a just and meritocratic society is that each citizen in a nation has an equal access to opportunity. In practise what this means is that quality education is available to all, to a high level, regardless of the means to pay. Thus private education, and thus by implication a two-tier education system, are an anaethema to any nation that claims to be a meritocracy (that is - a society in which people succeed or fail based on their abilities rather than as a result of their birth.)

Socialism has generally been shown to be an inadequate system for distributing wealth - not least as a result of the opportunities for corruption and waste in a centralised system. Farmers who own their own land work harder than those who serve on collective farms. They also tend to grow the right crops. The market system is therefore an excellent way to distribute food amongst a population.

However, it is an awful way to organise healthcare or education as, over time, it will tend to increasingly localise power (be it expressed in terms of access to healthcare or education) in the hands of a few. This is not in the interests of a meritocratic society.

So the best system for running a modern meritocratic nation is a limited market system, in which the fundamental aspects of life (such as access to education, healthcare, housing, water, etc.) are guaranteed by the state in order to provide a fair starting point for all citizens.

Wouldn't you say?

on a fundamental level, i agree.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499585

Ah!. Now geek-bashing, on the other hand, I can appreciate...What do you mean? Isn't this exactly the issue here? A society where knowledge and merit determine one's fate, and not descent or wealth.

Why should anyone want a meritocratic society?

Why should anyone want a meritocratic society?To achieve greater equality among humans.

To achieve greater equality among humans.

Then wouldn't the desire be for an egalitarian society, not a meritocratic one?

The two are not synonymous.

Then wouldn't the desire be for an egalitarian society, not a meritocratic one?No, why? Let those reign who have demonstrated that they are competent.
The two are not synonymous.And?

Let those reign who have demonstrated that they are competent.

Why? Why does their competence give them a right to rule?

I think the trouble would be there would be no way to limit people in the education system. Everyone would be all be an engineer, scientist, doctor, or lawyer.

We would have little clerks, bricklayers, steamfitters, and skilled trades people. I think we all agree it would be excellent for humankind.

Ability and desire would be the only limiting factors.

To some degree we do strive for this with low interest loans for education and scholarships. We could always do more.

Wage levels and productivity levels would tend to rise as people became better educated assuming you could get people on the assembly line.

The trick becomes how are we going to pay for it? Education is expensive for a reason.

I think the trouble would be there would be no way to limit people in the education system. Everyone would be all be an engineer, scientist, doctor, or lawyer.

We would have little clerks, bricklayers, steamfitters, and skilled trades people. I think we all agree it would be excellent for humankind.


people limit themselves.

If we weren't in such an advanced society this wouldn't be an issue. A simpler society could be meritocratic with much less difficulty because there aren't such complex systems in play. But then everyone insists more technology is better. :rolleyes:

No, why? Let those reign who have demonstrated that they are competent.
And?

how does one demonstrate one is competent when others have advantages of birth over you?

or alternatively it is far easier to prove oneself competent if one is given a better start in life.


this is the reasoning behind equality of opportunity (meritocracy).
the modern capitalist system is far from meritocratic, whatever some people choose to believe.


read Rawl's work on the veil of ignorance :)

how does one demonstrate one is competent when others have advantages of birth over you?Like the genetic impact on IQ?

or alternatively it is far easier to prove oneself competent if one is given a better start in life.That's why everyone should be given equal opportunities, but after that the results will show who made better use of these opportunities to improve himself and the rest of humankind

this is the reasoning behind equality of opportunity (meritocracy).
the modern capitalist system is far from meritocratic, whatever some people choose to believe.Did I imply that it was?

read Rawl's work on the veil of ignorance :)maybe

The market system is therefore an excellent way to distribute food amongst a population.

Then why are there people without food?

Like the genetic impact on IQ?

That's why everyone should be given equal opportunities, but after that the results will show who made better use of these opportunities to improve himself and the rest of humankind
true, with neccesary constraints to ensure a minimum quality of life for all via the welfare state and correction of market failures.

equality of opportunity is the prime ideal, but some equality of outcome is required to grant all citizens positive rights (ie what Nozick hates so much)

Did I imply that it was?


no. just a general comment.

One of the fundamental flaws with the American education system is that it has overfocused on the merit of intellectual education while letting the technical trades go down the toilet. Even the concept of a liberal education is failing because of the failure in educational quality.

If you have a meritorious system you must exclude people who aren't qualified. Merit is not equality. Merit is making sure the most intelligent and capable rise to the top regardless of race, class, religion, and other qualities. Over focus on absolute equality is causing a real problem.

People have different abilities. They are not equal, the problem is that those who have real ability often can never develop these abilities. Equal opportunity is about giving those who are able the chance to rise up to the point of their maximum capability.

A meritocratic society? You mean like in the future envisioned by the Star Trek franchise?

The Earth as depicted in Star Trek is the ultimate socialist state. Yet modern capitalists aren't afraid of watching it. Irony.

(that is - a society in which people succeed or fail based on their abilities rather than as a result of their birth.)How do we objectively measure merit?

Socialism has generally been shown to be an inadequate system for distributing wealth - not least as a result of the opportunities for corruption and waste in a centralised system. If we accept this to be the case, there's always decentralized socialism.

Why? Because the government doesnt have enough ressources to give the best avaiable to everyone. That means if you want the best, you have to pay for it.Or, this means that nobody should have exclusive access to the best, and everyone should share it.

That's why everyone should be given equal opportunities, but after that the results will show who made better use of these opportunities to improve himself and the rest of humankindEquality of opportunity is impossible to sustain without equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity is impossible to sustain without equality of outcome.I disagree.

I disagree.Then how do you prevent people with more "merit" from passing it along to their benefactors?

I think the trouble would be there would be no way to limit people in the education system. Everyone would be all be an engineer, scientist, doctor, or lawyer.

We would have little clerks, bricklayers, steamfitters, and skilled trades people. I think we all agree it would be excellent for humankind.

Ability and desire would be the only limiting factors.

To some degree we do strive for this with low interest loans for education and scholarships. We could always do more.

Wage levels and productivity levels would tend to rise as people became better educated assuming you could get people on the assembly line.

The trick becomes how are we going to pay for it? Education is expensive for a reason.

No, when more people have college degrees, they just up the qualifications for lower level jobs. It used to be you only needed an eighth grade education to be a teacher. But more people with college educations meant they could raise the bar. It used to be a trained monkey could manage a bar or restaurant. It required minimal education (and in all reality still does). But now most bars and restaurants require a college education to enter management. As the masses become more educated, the bar will continue to rise.

I was just thinking of multi-tiered education last night...

No, when more people have college degrees, they just up the qualifications for lower level jobs. It used to be you only needed an eighth grade education to be a teacher. But more people with college educations meant they could raise the bar. It used to be a trained monkey could manage a bar or restaurant. It required minimal education (and in all reality still does). But now most bars and restaurants require a college education to enter management. As the masses become more educated, the bar will continue to rise.

Im beginning to think my degree isnt worth that much. Nowadays just to get into uni you need better grades than it took to get into cambridge and oxford 10 or even 5 years ago. And people arent getting smarter. The problem is not that everyone has access to higher education, but that Even average people can now get great A levels and then be spoon fed a degree. In terms of actually getting a job, a degree is worth about as much as 6 months shop work experience.

My point is that the bar isnt actually raising. while mundane jobs now require a higher level of education, the people getting those jobs are no better educated than the ones ten years ago. Its like if everyone had twice as much money, but everything cost twice as much. We would all seem privileged, and dumb people would think they were, but it would be no different.

And that is the reason I am working nights doing IT support.

Then how do you prevent people with more "merit" from passing it along to their benefactors?1 abolition of money
2 education of all to pursue a common cause

1 abolition of money
2 education of all to pursue a common causeEven if you abolish money, the purpose of a meritocracy is that people with more merit are rewarded more, be it with more money, more things, or more power. How do you prevent them from passing it along to those they favor?
As for #2, please explain further.

Even if you abolish money, the purpose of a meritocracy is that people with more merit are rewarded more, be it with more money, more things, or more power. How do you prevent them from passing it along to those they favor?
As for #2, please explain further.1. I account responsible behavior as merit. I would reward those with posts (decision power) who have demonstrated to do good for all.
2. I would educate everybody to fully comprehend and implement that not the pursuit of riches but the pursuit of knowledge and the improvement of the individual as well as humankind as a whole is the ultimate goal.
I guess that's what Gene Roddenberry envisioned in his Star Trek franchise. Apart from all the adventurous stuff, it is this model of a future society that made the success of the franchise.

I am looking for a truly meritorious society where everyone is well educated enough to compete with the elites so ordinary people can kick the people who run todays society out of power and create a system that is based on merit and common sense, not nonsensical political systems like capitalism, communism, socialism, and anarchism. It will reach a point that the guy who manages walmart is as well educated as the guy in congress. This is when we will see some real change. My own rant.

1. I account responsible behavior as merit. I would reward those with posts (decision power) who have demonstrated to do good for all.If you believe that their decisions are best for all, then wouldn't it be easier for them to convince the people that their instance of favoritism is what's good for all?
Furthermore, who is it that does the rewarding?

2. I would educate everybody to fully comprehend and implement that not the pursuit of riches but the pursuit of knowledge and the improvement of the individual as well as humankind as a whole is the ultimate goal.That's good, then.

Why? Why does their competence give them a right to rule?

Generally because they aren't worthless.

bump

The basis of a just and meritocratic society is that each citizen in a nation has an equal access to opportunity. In practise what this means is that quality education is available to all, to a high level, regardless of the means to pay. Thus private education, and thus by implication a two-tier education system, are an anaethema to any nation that claims to be a meritocracy (that is - a society in which people succeed or fail based on their abilities rather than as a result of their birth.)

Socialism has generally been shown to be an inadequate system for distributing wealth - not least as a result of the opportunities for corruption and waste in a centralised system. Farmers who own their own land work harder than those who serve on collective farms. They also tend to grow the right crops. The market system is therefore an excellent way to distribute food amongst a population.

However, it is an awful way to organise healthcare or education as, over time, it will tend to increasingly localise power (be it expressed in terms of access to healthcare or education) in the hands of a few. This is not in the interests of a meritocratic society.

So the best system for running a modern meritocratic nation is a limited market system, in which the fundamental aspects of life (such as access to education, healthcare, housing, water, etc.) are guaranteed by the state in order to provide a fair starting point for all citizens.

Wouldn't you say?


I think that's what we call welfare state.

Then wouldn't the desire be for an egalitarian society, not a meritocratic one?

The two are not synonymous.

I think they mean diffrent things, but they are linked

Meritocratic refers to a society where you get up the ladder by your ability, not how much money your parents have or from what background they came from etc

Egalitarian means everyone is considered equal. That would be true in a meritocratic society. Everyone would have to be treeted equally if you wanted everyone to get forward on the basis of merit

The Earth as depicted in Star Trek is the ultimate socialist state. Yet modern capitalists aren't afraid of watching it. Irony.

It depends on how much Star Trek you watch.

TOS said really nothing about their culture. They were military men.

TNG (including First Contact, where all the "evolved sensibility" stuff comes from) was idealistic, with all the 'money no longer drives us' stuff. That's probably becuase the series was devoted almost entirely to exploring individuals and bizarre thingies (starship-draining baby entities, intergalactic prostitutes, Q)

But if you've seen DS9 and (to a lesser extent) Voyager, you would note that there is a lot of division amongst the peoples of the Federation (racism isn't right...speciesism?), gold-pressed latinum is often used as a precious commodity for trade (and bribes), drug use is a problem (though they are always really subtle about it), the Federation is actually very territorialist, and has done some rather unsavory things to people who would rather not be a part of their utopia.

If a culture where bribery, intolerance, drug abuse, and aggressive territorialism is the norm is the ultimate socialist state, modern capitalists can rest assured that they've already constructed the ultimate socialist state, many times.

As to the actual topic...

A perfect meritocracy would, by definition, be perfect. Everything would be awesome, everybody would be happy, and the world would be a better place.

Just like with the perfect democracy, the perfect socialism, the perfect anarchism. The thing is, none of these systems has ever, nor is it sensible to assume that they will in the future, fuctioned perfectly.

There are always unforeseen issues. As my country's Declaration of Independence states, it is always preferable to try to fix the current system than to dash it to pieces and begin anew (heavily paraphrased, naturally).

For you see, capitalism cannot have *too many* "well-educated" people in the workforce, or those who are knowledgeable will be cleaning toilets, for instance.

The ease with which this can become a direct quote from A Brave New world is terrifying. Round pegs in square holes? This goes back to what the system is actually for. Is it to make everybody happy, or to ensure basic rights and freedoms to everybody? At what point does it become ok to deny basic rights (that of an education) and freedoms (that to change careers to whatever) in order to ensure happiness (actually getting the career you try to switch to)? Besides, in this place where Welfare will cover you if you don't make it into your new career, what will it matter? You can live off of the government teat until you find your place.

Thank you all very much for entering into an intelligent debate, albeit with most of us holding much the same positions. May I offer some replies to your responses.

Capitalism is the closest to meritocracy as we can get ...in theory, if you work long enough and [are] good at what you do, you will get the proper rewards.

Only if society tries to ensure that we all get an equal start. Otherwise power and money will tend to collect in the hands of a few. My point was exactly the same - capitalism is fine given a level playing field.

So a balance of: provision of basic human rights, balanced by a fair reward system that reflects true merit and achievement.


Yes.

I think the trouble would be there would be no way to limit people in the education system. Everyone would be all be an engineer, scientist, doctor, or lawyer.

No. Only the cream of the crop would be able to enter the top professions. I am simply arguing that the "cream" should be defined on the basis of merit, not birth.

That's why everyone should be given equal opportunities, but after that the results will show who made better use of these opportunities...

Yes. That's what I think too.

...some equality of outcome is required to grant all citizens positive rights (ie what Nozick hates so much)

Possibly. Ensuring equality of outcome would indeed create a society with equality of opportunity, but at the cost of the system that rewards hard work with resources.

Over focus on absolute equality is causing a real problem.

People have different abilities. They are not equal, the problem is that those who have real ability often can never develop these abilities. Equal opportunity is about giving those who are able the chance to rise up to the point of their maximum capability.

I quite agree. Over focus on equality of outcome is the problem.

Equality of opportunity is impossible to sustain without equality of outcome.

Then how do you prevent people with more "merit" from passing it along to their benefactors?

Which brings us to the meat of the matter, I suspect. Another necessary component of a system of that provides equality of opportunity is a very high rate of inheritance tax. Possibly even 100% inheritance tax. Arguably the passing of wealth from parents to children is the single biggest factor in the creation of an unequal sociaty. But can we really abolish inheritance?

Which brings us to the meat of the matter, I suspect. Another necessary component of a system of that provides equality of opportunity is a very high rate of inheritance tax. Possibly even 100% inheritance tax. Arguably the passing of wealth from parents to children is the single biggest factor in the creation of an unequal sociaty. But can we really abolish inheritance?Sure you can. Of course, people who want to will get around it by simply giving gifts before they die.

Egalitarian means everyone is considered equal.

Yes, and that means that we smash the "ladder" as an abominable crime against the dignity of human beings, whatever standard is used to judge who should rise or fall on it.

Everyone would have to be treeted equally if you wanted everyone to get forward on the basis of merit

If everyone is treated equally, there is no "forward" - and, more importantly, no "backward."

If everyone is treated equally, there is no "forward" - and, more importantly, no "backward."

I'm sorry - it's early and I fail to grasp this. Do you mean to say that one of the three spacial dimensions is negated by equality? Surely egalitarianism is a self-evidently desirable goal. The question is how to achieve that goal.

The point made above about gifts made to avoid a tax on inheritance is a valid one. The truth is that, indeed, it is not possible to prevent people from passing wealth to their offspring. And perhaps that is for the best - it is surely an essential part of the human condition to wish to pass on to one's progeny.

Given that is the case, any attempt to bring about a more meritocratic society would therefore focus not on equalising wealth, but rather on ensuring a high quality of publicly-available services. To the exclusion of private alternatives.

That is - if you can't make sure that people start life with an equal amount of money (which you can't) then you need to make sure that all people in your society have access to the highest level of education and health services regardless of their access to resources; and also to ensure that greater access to wealth does not enable some members of society to get a 'better start'.

Thus:

A FAIR SOCIETY = PUBLIC EDUCATION

and that private schools are one of the root causes of injustice in modern society.

Neh?

That is - if you can't make sure that people start life with an equal amount of money (which you can't) then you need to make sure that all people in your society have access to the highest level of education and health services regardless of their access to resources; and also to ensure that greater access to wealth does not enable some members of society to get a 'better start'.

Thus:

A FAIR SOCIETY = PUBLIC EDUCATION

and that private schools are one of the root causes of injustice in modern society.

Neh?I have no problem with the idea of banning private schools, but the fact remains that not all public schools are equal. Furthermore, education is not a one-size-fits-all service; different methods of teaching work for different students. Those students who can learn with the default method will have a head start over those students who need some other method.

I'm sorry - it's early and I fail to grasp this. Do you mean to say that one of the three spacial dimensions is negated by equality?

No. Is it your contention that when Neo Sanderstead said "forward" he meant "forward" in the literal, spatial sense?

Given that is the case, any attempt to bring about a more meritocratic society would therefore focus not on equalising wealth, but rather on ensuring a high quality of publicly-available services.

Since it is early where you are, and you are having trouble grasping what I am saying, let me highlight it for you: I am opposed to a meritocratic society.

My objective is not a more meritocratic society, but rather a more egalitarian society - and that would indeed focus on equalizing wealth.

For what it's worth, I think the idea of a "meritocratic society" is nonsense. It will never happen; class systems always entrench themselves, and once you have an entrenched class system, there is no meritocracy.

You and others have already mentioned several of the reasons for this.

if you can't make sure that people start life with an equal amount of money (which you can't)

Yes, you can. You just can't do it by abolishing inheritance. Alternatively, you could just maintain economic equality.

A FAIR SOCIETY = PUBLIC EDUCATION

A fair society needs a good deal more than that.

My objective is not a more meritocratic society, but rather a more egalitarian society - and that would indeed focus on equalizing wealth.

For what it's worth, I think the idea of a "meritocratic society" is nonsense. It will never happen; class systems always entrench themselves, and once you have an entrenched class system, there is no meritocracy.

... you could just maintain economic equality..

Okay. So what you propose is essentially equality of outcome - that everybody in a society should have equal access to resources (wealth) regardless of their overall contribution to society. You are, of course, quite correct in suggesting that class systems entrench themselves, and that this is a huge obstacle in the pursuit of a fairer social system, but it does not therefore follow that a meritocratic system is nonsense.

You suggest that you would like to "equalise wealth" and to "maintain economic equality" and I cannot help but to respectfully question the practicality of such a system. Given a society with equalised wealth (ie. equality of outcome,) where is the motivation for work and progress? Why study to be a doctor or a teacher when one could have far less responsible/serious employment and still expect the same rewards? Why improve anything when wealth ends up being equally distributed anyway? Why, indeed, do any work at all? You made an oblique point about moving forwards and backwards above (apologies for my sarcastic response) but I suggest to you that a society that strives to maintain equality of opportunity, unlike one that stresses equality of outcome (the equalisation of wealth that you propose) is still able to progress.

You also suggest that there are other ways to redistribute wealth. What do you suggest?

Okay. So what you propose is essentially equality of outcome - that everybody in a society should have equal access to resources (wealth) regardless of their overall contribution to society.

Not exactly - I could see sanctions for severe, long-term non-contribution, for instance. But certainly I would not determine wealth based on "merit" or "talent."

If you're good at something, great. That doesn't mean you should be privileged economically for it. This is a ludicrous notion whose widespread acceptance is quite strange to me. (The "incentives" logic is a different matter; I'm referring to the notion that more "talented" or "meritorious" people deserve more.)

You are, of course, quite correct in suggesting that class systems entrench themselves, and that this is a huge obstacle in the pursuit of a fairer social system, but it does not therefore follow that a meritocratic system is nonsense.

Yes, it does, because if you privilege people you define as "merited," they will use their power to set up the system for their own advantage, and suddenly it will no longer be based on merit.

You suggest that you would like to "equalise wealth" and to "maintain economic equality" and I cannot help but to respectfully question the practicality of such a system. Given a society with equalised wealth (ie. equality of outcome,) where is the motivation for work and progress?

I am against work and I'm not all that fond of progress. Human activity should be uncompelled.

Why study to be a doctor or a teacher when one could have far less responsible/serious employment and still expect the same rewards?

Because you enjoy being a doctor or a teacher more. Why should we have a society that pressures people into choosing jobs for any other reason?

Why improve anything when wealth ends up being equally distributed anyway? Why, indeed, do any work at all?

How much money are you making from the present conversation?

You made an oblique point about moving forwards and backwards above (apologies for my sarcastic response) but I suggest to you that a society that strives to maintain equality of opportunity, unlike one that stresses equality of outcome (the equalisation of wealth that you propose) is still able to progress.

Sure. And it's still able to oppress, exploit, marginalize, alienate, and so on.

You also suggest that there are other ways to redistribute wealth. What do you suggest?

Me? I don't believe in redistribution. I believe in distributing it right the first time, through collective control of the means of production and egalitarian distribution of the product of production.

Dear Soheran

With respect I would like to suggest that the model you propose is utterly impractical. You suggest that merit is no better a justification for privilege than birth, and this argument hold some water on a theoretical level but makes no sense in the real world. Some people contribute more to society than others, and should be correspondingly rewarded. You are "against work and... not all that fond of progress" and believe that "human activity should be uncompelled." So what, exactly do you suggest? Who, exactly, is going to ensure that your distribution of wealth is equal? Who is going to grow your food, develop your medicine or build your houses when there is no system to reward those who do? Are you really asking us to accept that people will do difficult, dirty work simply because they love it? Experience, particularly in the Soviet Union, suggests otherwise. If you remove an individual's direct attachment to his/her work then you dramatically reduce efficiency, sometimes to the point of significant scarcity - this is a problem when it comes to food production.

Newsflash! Human activity is compelled. We need food, water, clothing, education, healthcare, entertainment and a multitude of other input to our lives. Resources on the planet are limited, and any system for distributing them must be sufficiently robust and provide sufficient incentive for things to continue. The redistribution that you propose (and it is a redistribution as resources are currently distributed already) would simply not create such a system.

Add to that the fact that your system is unachievable in any practical sense, I would like to modestly suggest that my proposal is more realistic, more achievable, more suited to the individual nature of the human condition and, ultimately, more just as it would reward those who make a greater contribution to society. You are quite right to suggest that society needs more than the abolition of private schooling. However, I suspect it would be a major step in the right direction.

Best wishes

Tharkent

I have no problem with the idea of banning private schools, but the fact remains that not all public schools are equal. Furthermore, education is not a one-size-fits-all service; different methods of teaching work for different students. Those students who can learn with the default method will have a head start over those students who need some other method.

That's quite true. But a properly funded public education system would take account of, and cater to, the individual differences that you describe. There is no reason why education needs to try to be a one-size-fits-all service, or to have a default approach.

And even if the system weren't perfect, at least we would be rewarding people on the basis of at least some kind of ability rather than birth.

With respect I would like to suggest that the model you propose is utterly impractical.

With respect, I would note that if any system is impractical, it is the present one, with its very serious chance of causing the extermination of the species (and several other species with it.)

With competition like that....

You suggest that merit is no better a justification for privilege than birth, and this argument hold some water on a theoretical level but makes no sense in the real world. Some people contribute more to society than others, and should be correspondingly rewarded.

Why?

You are "against work and... not all that fond of progress" and believe that "human activity should be uncompelled." So what, exactly do you suggest?

I think I've made myself fairly clear.

Who, exactly, is going to ensure that your distribution of wealth is equal?

Who ensures the present distribution of wealth in our society?

Who is going to grow your food, develop your medicine or build your houses when there is no system to reward those who do?

Again, are you being paid to converse with me?

Are you really asking us to accept that people will do difficult, dirty work simply because they love it?

No. I am quite serious when I say that I am against work. I do not support pressuring people into doing difficult, dirty work; I support abolishing it.

Experience, particularly in the Soviet Union, suggests otherwise.

The Soviet Union did not practice voluntary labor.

If you remove an individual's direct attachment to his/her work

What is best at removing an individual's direct attachment to his/her work? Compelling her to do something? Or letting her choose for herself what work to do?

The best way to get someone to do a task, and to do a task well, is to get her to enjoy it. Not to mention that that method is far preferable if we are actually concerned about freedom.

Newsflash! Human activity is compelled. We need food, water, clothing, education, healthcare, entertainment and a multitude of other input to our lives.

Maybe, but not at anywhere near the present levels, and certainly not as they are compelled by the present system.

Resources on the planet are limited,

Of course. But the notion that this implies scarcity in any relevant sense is purely cultural; things are not scarce until demand exceeds supply, and demand beyond basic necessities (which are hardly scarce) is always cultural.

We need not retain it.

The redistribution that you propose (and it is a redistribution as resources are currently distributed already)

Well, yes - there will be one redistribution.

I would like to modestly suggest that my proposal is more realistic, more achievable, more suited to the individual nature of the human condition

More "realistic" and "achievable" I will grant you; new excuses to maintain class systems are generally more well-accepted and less strongly resisted than attempts to eradicate the abomination in its entirety.

As for "more suited to the individual nature of the human condition," I doubt it; part of the "individual nature of the human condition" is that we like to decide things for ourselves, not to have things decided for us at the whim of the rich or the state.

and, ultimately, more just as it would reward those who make a greater contribution to society.

What does that have to do with justice? A severely disabled person may make little contribution to society; should she be punished as a result?

You are quite right to suggest that society needs more than the abolition of private schooling. However, I suspect it would be a major step in the right direction.

Certainly, especially in areas where it will force well-off parents to campaign for better public schools.

Respected class warrior,

Firstly, we are in agreement regarding the imperfection of the current system. Clearly we as a species find ourselves in the position of threatening our own existence and the existence of much life of the planet. Without a doubt we are not running things well at the current time.

You ask me why individuals who contribute more to society should be more rewarded. My answer to this is that, to me, it is more fair that it should be thus. I am not advocating abandoning the less fortunate amongst us - you raise the issue of a severely handicapped individual. As it happens, my younger brother is severely handicapped and this is a subject close to my heart. I believe strongly that any civilised society will provide for the needs of its citizens who are unable to contribute. This should not be a matter for private charity but rather it should be a matter for the state. Caring for the less fortunate amongst us is what defines us as human beings. But I do not believe my brother should receive the same material rewards as a heart surgeon. Surgeons carry out high pressure, extraordinarily serious work that benefits society in a considerable way. It is not unfair to reward them correspondingly.

I also asked you how, in your system, you would ensure that wealth would be distributed equally. It seems to me that you need an implausibly altruistic being in a position of ultimate authority. You evaded the question and asked, "Who ensures the present distribution of wealth in our society?" The answer is that the market does so. Imperfectly. If you have a better idea then please let us know.

Also, whilst in theory I wholeheartedly support the idea of abolishing difficult, dirty work, I can't help but think that may not be possible in the real world. I'd love to hear more details. Although I don't get paid for talking to you, I do nonetheless work 7 days per week and would like a holiday...

That's quite true. But a properly funded public education system would take account of, and cater to, the individual differences that you describe. There is no reason why education needs to try to be a one-size-fits-all service, or to have a default approach. How can you be sure that all schools will be properly funding? What exactly is the proper level of funding?

And even if the system weren't perfect, at least we would be rewarding people on the basis of at least some kind of ability rather than birth.How do we objectively measure ability?

But I do not believe my brother should receive the same material rewards as a heart surgeon. Surgeons carry out high pressure, extraordinarily serious work that benefits society in a considerable way. It is not unfair to reward them correspondingly.

Yes, it is.

It's true that it would be unfair to RIGHT NOW go up to all heart surgeons and declare that from now on, we'll only just pay them the same as everyone else. If we did so, we would indeed be ignoring the high pressure and the extraordinarily serious quality of the work they chose to undertake UNDER THE CONDITION that they would get paid a whole lot more than average.

But if we craft a society where wealth is evenly distributed, and everyone knows that wealth is evenly distributed, then when someone chooses to become a heart surgeon, they are CHOOSING that high pressure, extraordinarily serious work for themselves without the promise of a reward. They chose it themselves. We need not compensate them because they have different preferences than others, even if we, personally, do not have those preferences.

To return to the point, it is unjust to pay heart surgeons more for the simple reason that talent at heart surgery is not an equally distributed good. Why should I be paid less simply because my genes, or my early home environment, or whatever, caused me to be incapable of becoming a heart surgeon? Is that my fault?

I also asked you how, in your system, you would ensure that wealth would be distributed equally. It seems to me that you need an implausibly altruistic being in a position of ultimate authority.

No, I believe in federated autonomous communes run on the basis of more or less direct democracy, if you're trying to ask me what political system I advocate.

You evaded the question and asked, "Who ensures the present distribution of wealth in our society?" The answer is that the market does so.

Yes, sort of, but not in the sense I meant. Our society has made a choice - let wealth be distributed according to a capitalist market with certain amounts of state interference. The enforcers of this decision (the "ensurers" I was getting at) is the justice system; the police arrest you if you steal or don't pay your taxes, the courts deal with contract violations, and so on.

As an anarchist, my idea of law enforcement is somewhat different from the present one, but we need not get into that. The important element is that just like the present society, someone who broke the economic roles - say, someone who hoarded the wealth belonging to the community - would be punished for it just like in our society.

Also, whilst in theory I wholeheartedly support the idea of abolishing difficult, dirty work, I can't help but think that may not be possible in the real world. I'd love to hear more details.

It is, as you no doubt expect, a problem where my principles are significantly ahead of my proposals, at least in my less extreme moments.

First, we must keep in mind that almost all of it is unnecessary - "unnecessary" in that the human species can survive and even prosper without it, at least with a much lower population level (and I don't necessarily support implementing all my proposals now). We don't NEED to live in cities, which are the sources for much of our dirty work. We don't NEED to throw away as much as we do. We don't NEED all the junk we produce for ourselves. If necessary we can just get rid of a whole lot of dirty work.

Second, some of it can be automated. Automation, so far, has typically meant more stuff, and not more leisure time - but this will be hard to maintain when, in order to get someone to do something, you must ensure that it is enjoyable. What is useless in market capitalism will become essential after class inequality is abolished.

Third, a whole lot of it can be replaced. Recycling and such can provide us with sources for goods that minimize the dirty work involved.

It will require major changes in our lifestyles, yes - but once the cop-out option of "make some desperate poor person do it" is removed, I think our society has enough ingenious people that solutions to most of the problems can be found.

How can you be sure that all schools will be properly funding? What exactly is the proper level of funding?

Sufficient money to ensure enough well-trained and motivated teachers that schools can keep class sizes well under control and offer a variety of teaching methods to the students. I'm no expert. As much as people who know about this think we need.

How do we objectively measure ability?

We wouldn't need an objective measure. Given a level playing field, the most able/motivated/skilled/hard-working /lucky would rise to the top. I'm just saying that a level playing field is better than a sloping one, and suggesting that the abolition of private schooling wold go a long way to levelling it.

Dear Soheran,

With respect, I don't believe your system would work. My wife is the daughter of subsistence rice farmers and finds the idea that anybody would choose to be a farmer out of the simple pleasure of the work patently absurd. It is hard, dirty work with long hours and little intrinsic reward. You would abolish unpleasant work? Then you would need robots to grow the food. Perhaps that seems like a plausible option where you are; come to rural Thailand and think again.

Tharkent

My wife is the daughter of subsistence rice farmers and finds the idea that anybody would choose to be a farmer out of the simple pleasure of the work patently absurd.

Thankfully, the idea that anyone would need to be a substinence farmer if communism were implemented in, say, the United States, is also patently absurd.

Quite so. But the point stands - who's going to grow the food if all work is entirely voluntary?

Quite so. But the point stands - who's going to grow the food if all work is entirely voluntary?

I don't think the work of growing food with advanced technology is as dirty and awful as substinence farming is. Indeed, plenty of people seem willing to do it today, and without lavish incentives. Nor are they so poor that they are coerced into it by desperation.

Sufficient money to ensure enough well-trained and motivated teachers that schools can keep class sizes well under control and offer a variety of teaching methods to the students. I'm no expert. As much as people who know about this think we need.Will all teachers be of equal ability? If not, wouldn't the students of the better teachers have an advantage?

We wouldn't need an objective measure. Given a level playing field, the most able/motivated/skilled/hard-working /lucky would rise to the top. So then those with more luck have more merit? Is that really what you want?

I'm just saying that a level playing field is better than a sloping one, and suggesting that the abolition of private schooling wold go a long way to levelling it.Certainly, but why must there be a playing field at all?

I am stunned at the level of civility in this debate. I agree with Tharkent (BTW Tharkent - Sawadee Crahp. I was raised in Thailand for 7 years off of Sukumvit RD - Soi 11 - Pi Chi!!) and disagree with Soheran with regard to the dirty work argument. If you redistribute the wealth, then everyone must be granted the same land space. That would certainly limit the need for people to cloister in cities which are hubs for resource distribution - I will give you that. Food comes from the farms, but farmers distribute their produce in cities since those are centers of consumers and hence, revenue.

So everyone would have to grow their own food on their own land. What happens if there's a drought and say - 50,000 people can't grow food on their own land? Who's going to feed them? If I am having to do my own dirty work and don't like it (and I don't) I'm not going to beak an extra sweat for the people in the dust bowl. There's simply no motivation for me to do it. The dirty work portion of your argument is the hardest one to support. I don't believe you can limit human compulsion to the degree that you propose. Human nature gets in the way. We as a species are descended from primal forms that are and were very territorial and sometimes aggresive. We have drives - some of us have stronger motivations than others. While most of us have evolved beyond being driven by primal fears and wants, we still have alphas, betas, omegas and all the social castes in between defined by our behavior and abilities.

I don't see us aggregately capable of disposing of that because of our uniqueness as individuals.

Soheran, I also greatly respect you and the other debaters here for your intelligent statements here. Everyone here is well spoken and brings up good points.

So everyone would have to grow their own food on their own land. No. People would still come together and form communities, with farmers being just some of the laborers in the communities. Only those people who did not wish to belong to a community would be growing their own food.

No. People would still come together and form communities, with farmers being just some of the laborers in the communities. Only those people who did not wish to belong to a community would be growing their own food.

If that's the case, then you don't have equality. Real estate is a commodity and therefore a unit for measuring wealth. If you want to be fair, everyone gets the same size piece of land (and equality is hard to establish there as well since not al land is equal either). Even if NO one owns any land, you aren't going to have people motivated to grow food for any but their own families.

If that's the case, then you don't have equality. Real estate is a commodity and therefore a unit for measuring wealth.In free market capitalism, perhaps this the case. Not so in the system we propose.

If you want to be fair, everyone gets the same size piece of land (and equality is hard to establish there as well since not al land is equal either). Not everybody is going to use the same amount of land, why would everyone get the same amount?

Even if NO one owns any land, you aren't going to have people motivated to grow food for any but their own families.Really? People wouldn't join a community and grow food for the community to get some of the things that a community provides?

Not everybody is going to use the same amount of land, why would everyone get the same amount?

because it would be fair.

Really? People wouldn't join a community and grow food for the community to get some of the things that a community provides?
They aren't going to be motivated to produce maximum results, no. The dirty job of food growing is not going to be done by someone that loves back breaking work because you won't find someone, or enough people that love back breaking work. I'm not going to go out and work for 14 hours a day (like modern farmers do). I'll work enough to grow for my own family and that's about it. Because there's no incentive to do more.


Not everybody is going to use the same amount of land, why would everyone get the same amount?

Who decides who gets how much land? Now you're saying that your system is not equal. Giving some more than others gets you right back to the "people aren't equal" argument that the rest of us maintain that prevents your proposal from being feasible.

because it would be fair.That's one way of measuring fairness, there are others.

They aren't going to be motivated to produce maximum results, no. The dirty job of food growing is not going to be done by someone that loves back breaking work because you won't find someone, or enough people that love back breaking work. I'm not going to go out and work for 14 hours a day (like modern farmers do). I'll work enough to grow for my own family and that's about it. Because there's no incentive to do more.Why should anybody need to work 14 hours a day? No wonder people don't like to do it.
With that said, I believe enough people would be fine with farming 8 hours a day.

Who decides who gets how much land? Now you're saying that your system is not equal. Giving some more than others gets you right back to the "people aren't equal" argument that the rest of us maintain that prevents your proposal from being feasible.The person using the land decides how much land that they get. We all have (just about) an equal ability to use things. If someone wants to use their time to farm land, there's nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to use their time to sit on their couch and play video games, that's fine, too, but the video game player would not use the same amount of land as the farmer does.
In the current system, however, this is not the case.

Why should anybody need to work 14 hours a day? No wonder people don't like to do it.
With that said, I believe enough people would be fine with farming 8 hours a day.

I don't believe you'd get enough people to do enough of that work to feed everyone. I'm not saying either of you guys are wrong. I'm only saying I personally don't think it can work. In practice, you'd have a breakdown of the agrarian society and people would end up as hunter-gatherers again. There are far too many people for this planet to support in such a system. You won't get enough dirty labor done to feed everyone, and food distribution would inevitably break down.

The other thing is there will always be industrious minded (or militant opportunist) people who will try to exploit a system like that by attempting to control key resources.

I don't believe you'd get enough people to do enough of that work to feed everyone. I'm not saying either of you guys are wrong. I'm only saying I personally don't think it can work. In practice, you'd have a breakdown of the agrarian society and people would end up as hunter-gatherers again. There are far too many people for this planet to support in such a system. You won't get enough dirty labor done to feed everyone, and food distribution would inevitably break down.If there's dirty labor that people want to have done, they'll find a way to do it, even if it means everybody needs to farm for a hour or two a day. I don't see this happening, but if worse comes to worst, it could. This would still be better than everyone subsistence farming 14 hours a day.

The other thing is there will always be industrious minded (or militant opportunist) people who will try to exploit a system like that by attempting to control key resources.It's exponentially easier for them to do this in the current system, where people can own things that they don't use.

If there's dirty labor that people want to have done, they'll find a way to do it, even if it means everybody needs to farm for a hour or two a day.

We call that working.

I read the article by Bob Black - he says that any form of involuntary work amounts to murder. Therefore by forcing everyone to contribute to make up the shortfall in labor - even if it's only for 2-4 hours a day - it's still work. Your statement refutes the basis for his moratorium on all forced labor.

We call that working.And in which case, they are doing so because of a lack of food available, as opposed to somebody denying them access to food.

And in which case, they are doing so because of a lack of food available, as opposed to somebody denying them access to food.

In your example, it's only not forced if everyone feeds himself. You won't get a deluge of people willing to produce more than they need without some kind of incentive.

Communal farming means forced work - everyone has to do it because you won't get volunteers to do it all. That's the dirty work you want to abolish.

I read the article by Bob Black - he says that any form of involuntary work amounts to murder. Therefore by forcing everyone to contribute to make up the shortfall in labor - even if it's only for 2-4 hours a day - it's still work. Your statement refutes the basis for his moratorium on all forced labor.Everybody isn't forced to contribute, they choose to do so because there's no food.

In your example, it's only not forced if everyone feeds himself. You won't get a deluge of people willing to produce more than they need without some kind of incentive. If everybody feels themselves, it would take much longer to farm all the food than the couple of hours each person would do as part of the community. The incentive is therefore the saved time that they don't have to spend farming.

Communal farming means forced work - everyone has to do it because you won't get volunteers to do it all. That's the dirty work you want to abolish.But that's what I'm saying - there will be volunteers, even if people only volunteer for one or two hours a day.

Everybody isn't forced to contribute, they choose to do so because there's no food.



But that's what I'm saying - there will be volunteers, even if people only volunteer for one or two hours a day.

People volunteer to work now. I work to feed my family - I don't farm because I don't like to. But don't mind doing what I do now at all. Therefore my work isn't involuntary. Bob Black says that working for someone else should be abolished. Same thing Soheran says. You aren't making the same argument he is. I don't disagree that you'd have to make everyone pitch in to help. It doesn't sound like you and Soheran are on the same page. He's talking about the abolishment of all compulsory labor - you aren't.

If everybody feels themselves, it would take much longer to farm all the food than the couple of hours each person would do as part of the community. The incentive is therefore the saved time that they don't have to spend farming.

I agree with you here too.

People volunteer to work now. I work to feed my family - I don't farm because I don't like to. But don't mind doing what I do now at all. Therefore my work isn't involuntary.The same isn't true for everyone - many people hate doing what they do.

Bob Black says that working for someone else should be abolished. Same thing Soheran says. It should be, therefore I agree with both of them.

You aren't making the same argument he is. No, because Soheran said that he believed that there will be enough volunteers to do the farming for the whole community. While I agree with this, we are discussing the worst-case scenario where there wouldn't be, which requires a different course of action.

I don't disagree that you'd have to make everyone pitch in to help.I'm not saying that they are being made to pitch in.
Look at it this way: if the people are working together on a plot of land, the amount of work each individual will have to do is going to be less than somebody who is living in the woods and needs to scavenge for food. Which would you rather do?

It doesn't sound like you and Soheran are on the same page. He's talking about the abolishment of all compulsory labor - you aren't.No, I am also. If a person does not wish to farm for an hour or two a day, they are welcome to leave the community. (Or perhaps the community would be willing to feed such a person). Perhaps Soheran's backup plan for there not being enough farmers is different than mine, but I'm assuming that it would be similar.

If a person does not wish to farm for an hour or two a day, they are welcome to leave the community. (Or perhaps the community would be willing to feed such a person). Perhaps Soheran's backup plan for there not being enough farmers is different than mine, but I'm assuming that it would be similar.

So you kick them out of the community if they don't work, or you feed them for free if they don't help and you don't want to kick them out.

If you are willing to feed them for free, there won't be enough food because my argument is you won't have enough volunteer labor to produce enough food to feed all the free loaders. And threatening people with getting kicked out is forcing them to work.

So you kick them out of the community if they don't work, or you feed them for free if they don't help and you don't want to kick them out. Yes, depending on how the community is run. I should think it unlikely that in a food shortage the latter would happen...I suppose it depends on what the ideals of the people in the community are and how committed they are to them.
Even still (assuming a situation where there is enough food) I'm not aware of anybody who says that the people who don't work but should have necessities should also have luxuries.

If you are willing to feed them for free, there won't be enough food because my argument is you won't have enough volunteer labor to produce enough food to feed all the free loaders. And threatening people with getting kicked out is forcing them to work.I disagree; I don't see it as being fundamentally any different than threatening to not be somebody's friend if they do/don't do something. To force people to accept such a situation would be compulsory socialization.

I disagree; I don't see it as being fundamentally any different than threatening to not be somebody's friend if they do/don't do something. To force people to accept such a situation would be compulsory socialization.

I agree. But it's still forced labor by Bob Black's definition. He himself says he doesn't want to do that kind of work, so if Bob were in your community, you'd have to kick him out. I doubt he'd survive long without a community to take him in because it doesn't sound like he'd farm for himself. He clearly hopes someone will do it for him. Soheran doesn't want to do any of that work either so you'd have to kick him out too.

My point is, everything you're saying here I agree with. You would have to tell them if they don't help out they have to go. The argument by Soheran (and Bob Black) is that they want to abolish making people do the work they don't want to do.

The basis of a just and meritocratic society is that each citizen in a nation has an equal access to opportunity. In practise what this means is that quality education is available to all, to a high level, regardless of the means to pay. Thus private education, and thus by implication a two-tier education system, are an anaethema to any nation that claims to be a meritocracy (that is - a society in which people succeed or fail based on their abilities rather than as a result of their birth.)

Socialism has generally been shown to be an inadequate system for distributing wealth - not least as a result of the opportunities for corruption and waste in a centralised system. Farmers who own their own land work harder than those who serve on collective farms. They also tend to grow the right crops. The market system is therefore an excellent way to distribute food amongst a population.

However, it is an awful way to organise healthcare or education as, over time, it will tend to increasingly localise power (be it expressed in terms of access to healthcare or education) in the hands of a few. This is not in the interests of a meritocratic society.

So the best system for running a modern meritocratic nation is a limited market system, in which the fundamental aspects of life (such as access to education, healthcare, housing, water, etc.) are guaranteed by the state in order to provide a fair starting point for all citizens.

Wouldn't you say?

You will never have a perfect society until you have perfect people to make it up. As long as selfishness is a part of human nature you will find selfishness and abuse in the systems created by human beings. You can't force virtue on people from the top down, that has failed in every society that has tried it. The best a government can do is to offer incentives to people to live virtiuous lives, by rewarding good and unselfish conduct and punishing negative and abusive conduct, but in the end you can't force people to do what is right, they will live as they choose.

I think the U.S. Constitution promotes such a system about as well as any standard of government can, and that the faults visible in the system are the result of the compound weaknesses of the people that run the system (the politicians), and the weaknesses of the people that place them in office (the voters).

Sawadee dong chow

My thanks to all for the continued good tone of this thread. I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with Nerion in the all points that he has made. Some notes in response to others:

People wouldn't join a community and grow food for the community to get some of the things that a community provides?

People join a community and exchange their labour in the form of growing food in return for the labour of other members of the community? Perhaps you need some kind of abstract system for representing the relative value of that labour... let's call it "money." Oh... we're back into capitalism again.

If there's dirty labor that people want to have done, they'll find a way to do it, even if it means everybody needs to farm for a hour or two a day.

No amound of sophistry will evade Nerion's point that you are reintroducing compulsory labour into your system. Saying that it is not compulsory as it is compelled by hunger rather than inequality, respectfully, does not stand.

If a person does not wish to farm for an hour or two a day, they are welcome to leave the community.

...and if that isn't compulsion then I really don't know what is.

Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the points being made by Jello Biafra and Soheran. It's true that the majority of people do dislike their work and spend a considerable portion of their lives involved in activities that bore or depress them. But living in small communities in which all work is voluntary is not a pragmatic solution. Increased education and automation may be - after all the number of hours in the average working week is much lower in the developed world than that of the developing world. Abolishing involuntary labour would cause massive shortages in everything from food to medicine to housing. It's just not going to happen.

You will never have a perfect society until you have perfect people to make it up. As long as selfishness is a part of human nature you will find selfishness and abuse in the systems created by human beings.

I quite agree. Personally I'm not trying to create a perfect society. Yes - people will abuse systems to their own personal advantage. This is just another issue with the system proposed by Messrs Biafra and Soheran. It is not a robust system. Unfortunately capitalism is the most robust system we have - it expects the worst of people in that it expects individuals to act in a self-interested manner and thus is harder to abuse. However rampant capitalism without the restraining hand of the state leads to a deeply unequal society. This brings me back to my initial question - how do we achieve a meritocratic society given that market capitalism is basically the only robust system we have? Personally I am of the opinion that ensuring that all members of a given society get an equal throw of the dice (and thus equality of opportunity) is the best way to attain a more just system. In order to do so I would abolish private education. This is not an attempt to create a perfect society but rather a concrete and realisable proposal to improve the way things are.


I think the U.S. Constitution promotes such a system about as well as any standard of government can...

With all due respect I don't believe this to be the case, or indeed anywhere near the case. The US is one of the most socially regressive nations in the developed world. Power and wealth is in the hands of a very small number of people and redistributive economic policies are almost non-existent. The welfare net is extremely limited and the education and healthcare systems entirely based upon the ability of the individual to pay. And the US selects its leaders from this tiny band of ultra-wealthy people, thus ensuring the status quo.

I would offer Canada and Europe as examples of more meritocratic societies, particularly with reference to the Scandinavian model where taxes are high but the state ensures a very high quality education, healthcare and welfare system.

I agree. But it's still forced labor by Bob Black's definition. He himself says he doesn't want to do that kind of work, so if Bob were in your community, you'd have to kick him out. I doubt he'd survive long without a community to take him in because it doesn't sound like he'd farm for himself. He clearly hopes someone will do it for him. Soheran doesn't want to do any of that work either so you'd have to kick him out too. The goal of the system is to abolish compulsory labor, and also for everyone to live comfortably. If there isn't enough food to feed everyone, the system hasn't accomplished its goal. It would be necessary to evaluate whether the goal was not accomplished because of a failure of the system, or some other failure.
Either way, I don't see any particular reason to believe that there wouldn't be enough food to feed everyone.

My point is, everything you're saying here I agree with. You would have to tell them if they don't help out they have to go. The argument by Soheran (and Bob Black) is that they want to abolish making people do the work they don't want to do.Which is a perfectly acceptable goal.

People join a community and exchange their labour in the form of growing food in return for the labour of other members of the community? Perhaps you need some kind of abstract system for representing the relative value of that labour... let's call it "money." Oh... we're back into capitalism again.No. All labor is valued equally. (Note: this is different than the Labor Theory of Value.)

No amound of sophistry will evade Nerion's point that you are reintroducing compulsory labour into your system. Saying that it is not compulsory as it is compelled by hunger rather than inequality, respectfully, does not stand.Of course it does. There is a huge difference between saying that somebody has to work to create something, and saything that they have to work in order to get something.
Let's take an alternate viewpoint:

Let's say that someone wants a cure for cancer. One doesn't exist already. They are fairly skilled in medical science, and could contribute to developing the cure. Is it compulsory to tell them that there won't be a cure for cancer unless everyone who knows something about it works on it?

Unfortunately capitalism is the most robust system we have - it expects the worst of people in that it expects individuals to act in a self-interested manner and thus is harder to abuse. You haven't demonstrated that picking communism means that an individual isn't acting in a self-interested manner.

Perhaps Soheran's backup plan for there not being enough farmers is different than mine, but I'm assuming that it would be similar.

If there is no food, yes, you have to compel labor. Indeed, I expect forms of economic compulsion to persist for a long time after the overthrow of the present system - the kinds of change that I propose cannot be done in weeks, or even years.

Ultimately, however, the objective is a society where human needs are met without compulsion.

Tharkent and Soheran, you are both making exquisite, intelligent arguments. I wish I had time to contribute more than just the second post until now.

Let me put this question before both of you:

Does meritocracy benefit the freethinkers, or does it simply benefit those who benefit society materially? Another way to ask this question is what kind of rewards a meritocracy should bring?

Material? Intellectual? Emotional?

All three are valid rewards. But one can subvert the other, if you think about it. So is meritocracy possible if one type of reward, and one type of work is forsaken for others? How many, and what kind of needs can meritocracy possibly meet?