this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
81 points (92.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43806 readers
1255 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thank you for your insight. Please forgive me for the tongue in cheek responses on a few select thoughts.
Every system since time immemorial. And which will continue until "most capable" is better defined, objectively determinable, and implemented by the greatest power.
The foundation of every democratic, republic, and individual choice based system today.
Very true. Considering all people under any one governing system would never agree on what is virtuous, worthy, valuable, honorable, or respectable. Just try to convince people who believe, "If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying," to believe otherwise. Many Chinese believe if you didn't cheat to succeed, it's your fault for failing. Consider it a pitfall of cultural reconciliation.
How are resources distributed between groups? Equally? Every time a new group arrives a new slice of equal pie is collected piecemeal from the other groups and handed over? Do we compare apples and oranges to determine who gets more resources. Who sits in the "administration" group to judge merit between two disagreeing groups?
What's a retirement plan look like? Or is this still an ownership system where you can hold on to any property indefinitely and determine it's ownership upon death?
A good workhorse is rewarded with more work. A never truer statement. Merit sounds exhausting today.
I'm 60% with you. Regardless of how detrimental a government is, culture controls most of how we think and feel, just look at government trust ratings by country. However, there's still more to be accounted for. Implementation and population still count for something. Keeping culture unchanged is futile, everyone comes up with their own ideals and injects them into the next generation, thinking it'll make things better. Not to mention corporate ideals, such as the diamond's are forever from jewelers, personal responsibility from tobacco, apple is a status symbol from Apple, and on and so forth.
Back to topic: Most people don't and won't care about the government, they just want the government to solve their problems or get out of their way. Getting a population to "believe in [government], understand it, and enforce it socially" is a much taller order than it sounds. For verification: the Americans, with the two most rubbish candidates you could possibly find, all seem to think voting for anyone other than rubbish R or rubbish D is throwing their vote away. Let alone the significant remaining percentage who think their vote doesn't count for anything at all.
Checks and balances entail compromises and disagreements, which individually prestigious people should be subject to. As you said, "no one should be above the law." If the meritocracy is not the law, who is the law?
Thank you for taking the time to read and think.
Sorry for the delay, I don't visit here very often. But thanks for engaging, and excuse my know-it-all tone.
I think there's a basic misunderstanding regarding meritocracy. It is not something that only occurs in the top branches of the government. It's something that should occur in every level of every organization, in every office and in every pay-grade. It's not meant to solve the question of "who is the supreme leader", because such a question is impossible. It's meant to describe how should society function.
That is sophism imho. We don't have to have the perfect definition, we just need to be closer to it than the alternatives.
Popularity contests are a bad way of making choices, and it's a big reason for why modern democracies have so many problems. Also, they are very often rigged, which is how you end up with "shit sandwich" situations (or Putin).
There will never be a 100% agreement on what is true, or what is beautiful, or what is virtuous. But if we aim there, we can get closer than if we don't.
Free market. Bid on problems. There are many possible algorithms. Right we do the worst option, in which the governing body distribute funds based on political power.
I definitely believe in private property, if that's what you're asking. I think anyone who doesn't is either dumb or delusional. Indefinitely is a bit much, but it should last long enough to be worth the effort.
The idea is that you get enough rewards (money, social capital, etc.) that you will find the work worthwhile. Also, a lot of people enjoy doing things that they are good at. Either way, there is a point when you contributed enough that you can just peace out for the rest of your life, aka retirement. This is already semi-possible even in today's broken system.
That's a problem by itself. Governments are very bad at solving complex problems.
That's kind of true, because Americans refuse to implement a secondary choice. Just one little change would solve so much. (not that there aren't 1000s of other problems).
I don't really understand the question. The law is a bunch of rules, chosen by people in power. Ideally, those people would be competent, and create good laws. In my view, any system of law that doesn't periodically remove or refactors outdated laws is incompetent. Yes, that's basically everywhere.
You could try to enforce meritocracy in law. It would definitely help, but I don't think it would be sufficient without cultural adoption.
It's like you keep trying to find "who's on top", but in a perfect world no one is. Power should always be checked, and balanced. Monopolies should always be curtailed, both in the private and public sector. Meritocracy is just one algorithm out of many, like the free market, in order to have a better and more efficient society.
Hope that clears things up.
Please look into Feudalism. Then please look into why it has faded into obscurity. The Japanese had a particularly poignant understanding of it.
This is capitalism or social credit.
This is anarchism. Which leads to mob rule, the definition of power in the majority, and then to fragmented autocracies. ie Individuals grouping up to gain advantages then forming gangs, tribes, and engaging power struggles.
Which country is "we"?
Not laws, 'the law'. As in the determiner of how the rules apply to the people. This is typically the police, legal interpreters, courts, on up until you hit judges and legislators, who hold the power to modify laws.
Because perfection is an illusion. The reason behind outdated-laws, governments struggling with complexity, and loopholes is precisely because any time there is ambiguity, there exists abuse. Meritocracy being founded on an ideal implementation where everyone in society supports the idea and nobody tries to abuse the system is folly, bound to fail at first brush with ambiguity.
Forgive my bluntness, but your ideals are half baked, complexities waved away as if the pieces will fall into place after taking the leap, and tried but not studied. You would need a much better understanding of history and the governments that have already existed before you could convince me meritocracy can survive beyond dreams and ideals.
Apologies. I wish you luck on your journey through life.
That's a very condescending comment. Maybe I came across as condescending too. Either way, if your criticism was supposed to be helpful, I'm sorry to say that it isn't. You didn't provide any evidence that I'm wrong. From my perspective, it sounds like you just don't understand me, so you decided to give up.
Anyway, I'm not that enthusiastic about debating strangers over the internet, I only replied because you sounded curious. So I'm equally happy to bid you farewell.
I'm sorry I caused you to feel that way.
From my perspective I had expectations I was speaking with someone who had intensely considered a governing system they were fond of and were intimate with its faults. Instead, I'm rather put out to be speaking with flashes of inspiration, as rapidly as they can form, to justify or mitigate any shortcomings.
While I might enjoy acting as a sounding board when expected, I'm feeling rather disappointed this wasn't a debate.
Debating may be the purest form of sharing and refining ideas. My comment was not out of malice, but I apologise for the rude response and letting my emotions get the better of me.