The problems of "meritocracy"

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm not saying competence doesn't matter, only that "merit" is always colored by who is in power.

In situations that connect with the objectively verifyable world, it'll be less likely for it to color things that much.

But when we talk about "merit" in governance, we have seen time and again it's power that gets to define "merit".

Yea the boss gets to decide who gets hired, it's always been thus.

The best you can ever hope for is that that decision gets made by those interested in hiring the best person for the job, and not because Blackrock threatened to pull the companies funding on DEI/ESG grounds unless you hire people with the right skin color. 1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men

I sincerely worry about the impact of DEI/ESG on our competency crisis.

Edit: I realized that I kind of talked past your last point. In politics merit will always be defined differently by the parties, and even differently person to person.

For instance I see our administrative state as a bloated unelected beast that has taken over de facto legislative powers where the congress has increasingly become the place where lawmaking goes to die. As congress has played less of a lawmaking role, we've turned to the admin state, SCOTUS, the President (through executive orders), and NGO's and think tanks through white papers written to "suggest" policy to gov't agencies.

I would, I think reasonably, like to see the admin state gutted.

Im sure that those who enjoy the direction our unelected policy making machine is taking would view gutting the admin state with horror. Even more horrible in their eyes would be the people I would recommend to replace those fired in our Fed Bureaucracy.

I don't see any overarching definition of merit that would apply to both parties excepting of course a tendency towards people from good uni's that have relevant degrees etc etc. And of course a level of nepotism that is never entirely eradicable, but that I think we in the west have done a relatively good job of minimizing.

 

[ygolo]

Yea the boss gets to decide who gets hired, it's always been thus.

The best you can ever hope for is that that decision gets made by those interested in hiring the best person for the job, and not because Blackrock threatened to pull the companies funding on DEI/ESG grounds unless you hire people with the right skin color. 1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men

I sincerely worry about the impact of DEI/ESG on our competency crisis.

Edit: I realized that I kind of talked past your last point. In politics merit will always be defined differently by the parties, and even differently person to person.

For instance I see our administrative state as a bloated unelected beast that has taken over de facto legislative powers where the congress has increasingly become the place where lawmaking goes to die. As congress has played less of a lawmaking role, we've turned to the admin state, SCOTUS, the President (through executive orders), and NGO's and think tanks through white papers written to "suggest" policy to gov't agencies.

I would, I think reasonably, like to see the admin state gutted.

Im sure that those who enjoy the direction our unelected policy making machine is taking would view gutting the admin state with horror. Even more horrible in their eyes would be the people I would recommend to replace those fired in our Fed Bureaucracy.

I don't see any overarching definition of merit that would apply to both parties excepting of course a tendency towards people from good uni's that have relevant degrees etc etc. And of course a level of nepotism that is never entirely eradicable, but that I think we in the west have done a relatively good job of minimizing.

It's the last problem (and generalisations that I'd like to think philosophically about to approach a potential solution).

What is "merit" in governance? If there's no getting around whomever is in power getting to define what merit is, then allowing more people to have an opportunity to influence governance in systems they participate in seems wise.

That's why sites like open secrets are so important.

But I do have my own biases towards what I believe is meritorious.

For instance, I would say good governance leads to lots of prosperity for all those that are governed.

With all the other things that could be said about Sam Altman, it seems that the overwhelming majority of people at his organization wanted him at the helm. TBH, that's probably because the vast majority of his people (if not all) would stand to become significantly more prosperous with him as CEO, than anyone else.

I imagine a future where a leaders of nations could do that for their peoples.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It's the last problem (and generalisations that I'd like to think philosophically about to approach a potential solution).

What is "merit" in governance? If there's no getting around whomever is in power getting to define what merit is, then allowing more people to have an opportunity to influence governance in systems they participate in seems wise.

That's why sites like open secrets are so important.

But I do have my own biases towards what I believe is meritorious.

For instance, I would say good governance leads to lots of prosperity for all those that are governed.

With all the other things that could be said about Sam Altman, it seems that the overwhelming majority of people at his organization wanted him at the helm. TBH, that's probably because the vast majority of his people (if not all) would stand to become significantly more prosperous with him as CEO, than anyone else.

I imagine a future where a leaders of nations could do that for their peoples.

As always it gets into the battle of definitions. How does one define prosperity? Is prosperity for some people prioritized over the prosperity for others?

There's usually some broad definition of prosperity that covers everyone, but once you get down to specifics there are always trade offs.

Does one choose to prioritize the prosperity of criminals (the homeless etc.) at the expense of the quality of life of the general public?

Recognizing these trade offs, and understanding that there is no policy silver bullet that leads to a perfect society is important.

There's also no candidate silver bullet, i.e. if we only elect the right person all our ills will be cured.

There are some general areas of agreement, we would all like GDP to go up, unemployment to go down, inflation to be low.

Frequently we get saddled with reps that speak to these issues then do everything in their power to undermine them, i.e. increase gov't spending to the effect of ruinous inflation.

 

[ygolo]

As always it gets into the battle of definitions. How does one define prosperity? Is prosperity for some people prioritized over the prosperity for others?

There's usually some broad definition of prosperity that covers everyone, but once you get down to specifics there are always trade offs.

Does one choose to prioritize the prosperity of criminals (the homeless etc.) at the expense of the quality of life of the general public?

Recognizing these trade offs, and understanding that there is no policy silver bullet that leads to a perfect society is important.

There's also no candidate silver bullet, i.e. if we only elect the right person all our ills will be cured.

There are some general areas of agreement, we would all like GDP to go up, unemployment to go down, inflation to be low.

Frequently we get saddled with reps that speak to these issues then do everything in their power to undermine them, i.e. increase gov't spending to the effect of ruinous inflation.

I think prosperity is less ambiguous, I think, than merit, but still has a lot. Certainly whose prosperity is important, and there would be different things people could chose inside that.

But my bias is that people are people, and I believe baseline prosperity is needed whomever the person. Shelter for instance, is widely agreed to be a human right. Getting homeless into shelters, I think, would increase both the prosperity for the homeless and the general public. Mental illness, however, could make them hard to get off the street, even if quality shelters were available (they aren't largely available right now).

Beyond just the ambiguities in definition of prosperity, measurement is even more fraught.

Paying people to break windows and paying people to fix them -- GDP increases without much increase in prosperity as a whole. I think that the debt sector of many economies are similar.

The arbitrary basket of goods for measuring inflation also comes to mind.

Labor participation as a complimentary measure for unemployment also comes to mind.

 

[ygolo]

 

[ceecee]

Philanthrocapitalism of course, shouldn't exist. Of course you will find plenty that argue it's benefits - books and discussions.

Uhh-huh. So why haven't they? Governments should be taxing these wealthy people, exactly the way the had until the 80's or so. Allowing the wealthy or religious entities to provide "charity" almost always ends up with exploitation.

LDS in Utah is a good example.

‘Get baptized, get help’: Utah’s welfare system is closely tied to philanthropy from the LDS Church

Utah has a memorandum of understanding with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for welfare in the state.That agreement is legal and has saved Utah $75 million in federal obligation over the last decade. Here’s what happens when the state “effectively outsources its safety net to a...

www.kuer.org

The Disaster of Philanthropy and Capitalism

Philanthrocapitalism enables the destruction of nature and the erosion of democracy.

www.yesmagazine.org

Bill Gates, through Gates Ag One, is spending billions each year to monopolize seeds and control global agriculture in ways previously impossible.

Gates Ag One: The Recolonisation Of Agriculture - Independent Science News | Food, Health and Agriculture Bioscience News

Gates Ag One is a project designed to impose false agricultural solutions in Africa and elsewhere and to capture farm data from the Global South

www.independentsciencenews.org

 

[Tomb1]

Democracy produces cronyism like other political systems. Case in point, all the superior court judges put in by my state's crappy governor are severely underqualified but were either political hacks or politically connected by family name! That's why they got appointed. Half the Judges are children of Judges for crissake