The problems of "meritocracy"

[ygolo]

I want to ask people to weigh in on their views on "meritocracy".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

The first issue is that often those with wealth and social class define what is "merit" in the first place so that it self-selects people like themselves. There are people who can sneak through regardless. Even in that case, the narrative becomes, "see we have people who crossed socioeconomics" even if statistically this is still quite the rarity.

Keep in mind, the other ideal we are often contrasting meritocracy with is democracy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dem...Greek: δημοκρατία,("representative democracy").

The notion is that everybody gets a voice in society.

We're no longer trying to choose between aristocracy and "meritocracy", we trying to choose between "meritocracy" and democracy.

Thoughts?

 

[Vendrah]

Well, the first thing is that is necessary to do a distinction.

1) There are those which 'meritocracy' in practice means saying that whatever happens is fair. In our case, western and these days, implies saying that the riches on the capitalism of our countries are rich in a fair way - because they work hard, they please the market better, etc... These are those who believes we live in a meritocracy and meritocracy is best.
- I do doom this line, but this line is way more common than 2. Law of attraction is on line 1 as well.

2) There are those who don't believe we live in a meritocracy and sought or believe on the ideal of meritocracy. That is the case of Meritocracy parties and alike. Although what is meritocracy changes slightly to somewhat from source to source, most of them does preach equal opportunity for every children, limits on heritage/inheritance (from 'no one should inherit anything' till 1 million dolars limit), healthcare for all, etc..
- I like this line as my political belief is that the systems (capitalism, socialism, etc...) should serve us and not the other way around, and any promising alternative should be properly tested and tried out (I am sort of against the monopoly of capitalism).

I totally say that 2 is the right and the actual meritocracy line and that is very rare, while '1' is totally the archetypal fair life fallacy because it should exist by a long time.

 

[Coriolis]

I want to ask people to weigh in on their views on "meritocracy".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

The first issue is that often those with wealth and social class define what is "merit" in the first place so that it self-selects people like themselves. There are people who can sneak through regardless. Even in that case, the narrative becomes, "see we have people who crossed socioeconomics" even if statistically this is still quite the rarity.

Keep in mind, the other ideal we are often contrasting meritocracy with is democracy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#:~:text=Democracy (from Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία,("representative democracy").

The notion is that everybody gets a voice in society.

We're no longer trying to choose between aristocracy and "meritocracy", we trying to choose between "meritocracy" and democracy.

Thoughts?

The first issue confronting any meritocracy is deciding what qualities are considered meritorious. Aristocracy can be considered a form of meritocracy in which birthright or social standing is the figure of merit. It is just one step away from that to base merit on wealth or income. Sure, there are the landless gentry and people who built a fortune from nothing through innovation and entrepreneurship, but to large degree wealth tracks social status and family background.

In the context of government, meritocracy suggests that political power should reside with those who have most merit. If we are going to discount birthright, social status, and even wealth/income as bases for merit, who then is to be considered most meritorious? The most educated? Education is still tied to status and income. The most intelligent? By what measure?

There are many contexts in which it is essential to rely on merit, and relatively straightforward to determine it. Many are in the professional world. I certainly hope my hospital chooses doctors, nurses, and therapists based on their merit, meaning here their skill, experience, and ability to do the job. In general, hiring and promotion should be based on merit, and free of any bias based on factors not relevant to job performance. Even in such an ideal world, many demographic groups would be underrepresented in many cases. This is usually because they have not been afforded comparable opportunities to develop the kind of merit sought after in those positions and situations.

Finally, the whole notion of meritocracy in government is sometimes derided as suggesting that some people are simply better than others, a position many people consider immoral. I would tend to agree with this, just as a personal value. Still, it is certainly fair to say that some people are better AT one thing or another than their neighbors. If that thing is governance, then they should be running for public office, and we should be putting them to the test and electing them if we feel they would represent us well.

 

[SensEye]

I think a meritocracy based on intelligence would be the ideal. But that is simply not realistic. It's similar to socialism, which in theory should not be the disaster it turns out to be. But human greed and selfishness ruins both these theoretical approaches.

I mean, democracy would work just fine if people would vote intelligently, but they don't. So you end up with the likes of Trump/Biden who nobody with an IQ higher than their shoe size should consider a worth while prospect for a leader. Yet they can win popularity contests (a.k.a modern elections) using the old 'bread and circuses' approach. The real problem here is lack of sense of the voting populace, but there ain't no cure for stupid.

 

[ceecee]

I think a meritocracy based on intelligence would be the ideal. But that is simply not realistic. It's similar to socialism, which in theory should not be the disaster it turns out to be. But human greed and selfishness ruins both these theoretical approaches.

I mean, democracy would work just fine if people would vote intelligently, but they don't. So you end up with the likes of Trump/Biden who nobody with an IQ higher than their shoe size should consider a worth while prospect for a leader. Yet they can win popularity contests (a.k.a modern elections) using the old 'bread and circuses' approach. The real problem here is lack of sense of the voting populace, but there ain't no cure for stupid.

It's all name recognition. How many people voted for Trump because he was on TV? Plenty. They don't care about qualifications. This also how a basicity illiterate football coach can be elected and proceed to hold up high ranking military appointments, while being advised by a former food critic.

Tuberville aide is a former food writer who once dated Miss Alabama

From Birmingham-Southern College to the Pentagon, Morgan Murphy has lived a Forrest Gumpesque life.

www.al.com

This is as much, if not more of an issue. Dr. Oz, Kanye West, Al Franken...

I still feel changing the party from within, not resorting to third party candidates that 100% will loose is the way to go. For Republicans too. But if you think there are any GOP candidates worth voting for. .lol All of them are some variation of Trump. I said it in 2022 and I'll say it for 2024 - do not underestimate how sick of the right and all their bullshit people are. Dems are a lot of things but they aren't fashy wannabe autocrats.

 

[Vendrah]

In the context of government, meritocracy suggests that political power should reside with those who have most merit. If we are going to discount birthright, social status, and even wealth/income as bases for merit, who then is to be considered most meritorious? The most educated? Education is still tied to status and income. The most intelligent? By what measure?

There should be out there more detailed discussions than we have here, and for what I've read years ago, the most basic principle is still 'equal opportunity to every children', on which has the principle that the access of the education should either be free for everybody or the best schools later at teen years or at universities should be filled with the best students at an earlier age and not based on who can pay the most. The second consequence on the equal opportunity to every children principle is free healthcare for children at minimum. Additionally, a heritage limit so nobody is going to start with so much money that they don't even have a rational reason to work - which varies from 0 receiving up to 1 million dollars limit.

Besides that, I do think that job performance would be a good measure, the problem is that most people just measure job performance by boss ratings only and job selecting would have to be much more serious than it is today (for example, since the 90's it is known that more than 3 years of experience does have almost zero influence on job performance, yet job hirings keep asking 5, 10, 15, 20, etc... years of experience). But better measures of job performance along with education and equal opportunity for every children would be the basic meritocracy which is not complex at principle and it is feasible to implement.

But, at least in my perception, almost no one wants a real meritocracy. Most people either want equality, chaos or pretends fakely that we live in one (manipulating the definitions you can put fair life fallacy as you mentioned on aristocracy on which kings and noble have, in a sense/specific definition, merit).

 

[Coriolis]

There should be out there more detailed discussions than we have here, and for what I've read years ago, the most basic principle is still 'equal opportunity to every children', on which has the principle that the access of the education should either be free for everybody or the best schools later at teen years or at universities should be filled with the best students at an earlier age and not based on who can pay the most. The second consequence on the equal opportunity to every children principle is free healthcare for children at minimum. Additionally, a heritage limit so nobody is going to start with so much money that they don't even have a rational reason to work - which varies from 0 receiving up to 1 million dollars limit.

Besides that, I do think that job performance would be a good measure, the problem is that most people just measure job performance by boss ratings only and job selecting would have to be much more serious than it is today (for example, since the 90's it is known that more than 3 years of experience does have almost zero influence on job performance, yet job hirings keep asking 5, 10, 15, 20, etc... years of experience). But better measures of job performance along with education and equal opportunity for every children would be the basic meritocracy which is not complex at principle and it is feasible to implement.

But, at least in my perception, almost no one wants a real meritocracy. Most people either want equality, chaos or pretends fakely that we live in one (manipulating the definitions you can put fair life fallacy as you mentioned on aristocracy on which kings and noble have, in a sense/specific definition, merit).

That level playing field for children has never existed, and is unlikely to exist any time soon, at least in the U.S. That would involve giving people something for nothing - heaven forbid! As for job performance, more and more fields are emphasizing paper credentials over the actual ability to do the job. This essentially outsources the hiring supervisor's judgment to whatever training program or certification granter an applicant's documentation comes from, and excludes people who learned less formally, but are outstanding on the job. Of course all those schools and training programs encourage this state of affairs because they make money from applicants required to pay for the paper credentials they grant.

 

[Vendrah]

That level playing field for children has never existed, and is unlikely to exist any time soon, at least in the U.S. That would involve giving people something for nothing - heaven forbid! As for job performance, more and more fields are emphasizing paper credentials over the actual ability to do the job. This essentially outsources the hiring supervisor's judgment to whatever training program or certification granter an applicant's documentation comes from, and excludes people who learned less formally, but are outstanding on the job. Of course all those schools and training programs encourage this state of affairs because they make money from applicants required to pay for the paper credentials they grant.

I am actually talking about an hypothetical scenario, I don't think there is a single country that fills the most basic of actual meritocracy.

 

[ygolo]

I am actually talking about an hypothetical scenario, I don't think there is a single country that fills the most basic of actual meritocracy.

How do you even define the ideal meritocratic hypothetical scenario (the details mentioned seem arbitrary and without motivating principle-though some sound pleasant), and what are your actual arguments that this particular method of governance is better than Democracy?

 

[Tomb1]

JFK's "best and brightest"....aka...the whiz kids.... singlehandedly proved how overrated merit is through their trainwreck Vietnam policies

 

[Vendrah]

How do you even define the ideal meritocratic hypothetical scenario (the details mentioned seem arbitrary and without motivating principle-though some sound pleasant), and what are your actual arguments that this particular method of governance is better than Democracy?

I think you seem settled on your mind that anything different is a threat to Democracy, almost as if the capitalism as we know is the only way that can support Democracy.

The "details" (they are not actually deep) I've mentioned seemed arbritary but they are general agreement towards many people of what is a minimum of meritocracy at least for those who honestly wants it. Equal opportunity for every children is already a basic principle. Providing equal education and health at least for the children is quite basic. Limiting wealth passing (the heritages) is also basic as well. And so on for the rest of what I said.

Meritocracy does not necessarily kills Democracy. The principle that i've said didn't even hit politics. It is not as if we elect our bosses and who gets promoted anyway... Selecting by job performance does not affect politics, none of what I said takes democracy out.

The implementations of meritocracy on politics are varied and debatable. Can go to basically keep the democracy system, I've seen (that's many years, so no links) some people talking about making more basic requisites and preparations and a minimal qualification for the politics (which is sort of desirable to have more proper and prepared polticians), and then the possibility of politicians being elected based on merit and results rather than being elected by people.

As I've said, actually my opinion is more against the monopoly of capitalism rather than defending meritocracy by itself. My opinion would be to actually test and evalute some meritocracy variants to see what is best. I would put my bet that having a higher qualification for politicians than it is today - and a quite high bar for politicans like president - while still allowing people to vote for the candidates would be better than rather the indications of the parties.

My own ideal scenario would be to fit at least the basics, but a little bit beyond. I would say children and teens at least rather than children only should have equal access to education and health for free in the same leveled of quality without any privilige. Then, on the university or perhaps a little bit earlier, yound adults would start to being selected to better universities according to their own results and merit on exams. After that, on their first job, they would be evaluated in a job performance that is the most objectively as feasible, which would weight on their promotions (and not simply as the boss likes and wishes as it is these days). And all with actual fullfilment of some minimal level of ethics. And for the wealth passing/heritage I would be compeletely in favor of a million or 100k dollars limit (since a million is already quite much). That value is still arbritary, it wouldn't be bad if it were weighted based on votes.
Of course there would be much details but I am not sure if I am willing to write a lot of them taking into account that my hopes for this to happen is quite low, even though I am aware the forum and thread are more of a discussion on the hypothetics scenario. On personality, one of the old sources (I remember the site to be down) suggested split classes by MBTI, which is not adequate since the MBTI doesn't have a good test-retest rates and we can't just have 16 classes in every school, but a more proper system that sorts students as either temperament (specially on a more stable version) but another good idea would be to split in a few learning styles with teacher with each class being focused on a learning style.

As for the arguments with it against capitalism, well, I'd say that meritocracy seems more promising in terms of efficiency and fairness. Efficiency in terms that, instead of a lot of arbritary networking, where capitalism basically works to maximize the freedom of the bosses in practice (boss hires almost whoever they want, except in some very specific professions where a license is required), allowing them to put family members, doing incredibly subjective hiring selection, to instead make a selection that is based more on actual competency. I'd also in favor of a better support for selection for professions and to a free search and consultation of vocations and professions. Putting the people closer to what they are at best would be more efficient and thus it would likely to work better and worth of a good shot. The fairness aspects weight as well.. capitalism throw people at poverty quite arbritarily.

I do have one less hypothetical thing to say, though. What I've noticed after going to Uni, school, work, etc.. is that the most meritocratic and fair system I've ever saw are actually in some games I've played. Specially on the last decade and on the 00's, a lot of games were fairly meritocratic even in a deep sense. One of the players on the high ranks are in fact good at game and in fact not only they are reliably expected to beat you with the same tools rather than with arbritary advantages but it is quite reliable that they are good and competent at the game. The same cannot be said to management, president, bosses, etc.. on where we live, even though we cannot irl just throw them this fact. In one of the older games, I've could even tell that a great player was in fact a great player by evaluating their statistics without ever seeing them ever playing, did it a few dozen times without making err in a single one - if I said the person was great, some of my friends who met the person on the game did confirm, even though some of them disliked my methods. We just don't have it on the professional lines. Doctors around the world influenced by Trump, even with their licenses, are going to prescribe you chloroquine. Some bosses are not really much good but, well, somehow they make it in there. Some others are full of wasted potential and that goes on. On games with proper fairness, nice players doesn't need to clean the boots of any developer or any bosses at all and neither to rely on luck.

 

[Tomb1]

I think you seem settled on your mind that anything different is a threat to Democracy, almost as if the capitalism as we know is the only way that can support Democracy.

The "details" (they are not actually deep) I've mentioned seemed arbritary but they are general agreement towards many people of what is a minimum of meritocracy at least for those who honestly wants it. Equal opportunity for every children is already a basic principle. Providing equal education and health at least for the children is quite basic. Limiting wealth passing (the heritages) is also basic as well. And so on for the rest of what I said.

Meritocracy does not necessarily kills Democracy. The principle that i've said didn't even hit politics. It is not as if we elect our bosses and who gets promoted anyway... Selecting by job performance does not affect politics, none of what I said takes democracy out.

The implementations of meritocracy on politics are varied and debatable. Can go to basically keep the democracy system, I've seen (that's many years, so no links) some people talking about making more basic requisites and preparations and a minimal qualification for the politics (which is sort of desirable to have more proper and prepared polticians), and then the possibility of politicians being elected based on merit and results rather than being elected by people.

As I've said, actually my opinion is more against the monopoly of capitalism rather than defending meritocracy by itself. My opinion would be to actually test and evalute some meritocracy variants to see what is best. I would put my bet that having a higher qualification for politicians than it is today - and a quite high bar for politicans like president - while still allowing people to vote for the candidates would be better than rather the indications of the parties.

My own ideal scenario would be to fit at least the basics, but a little bit beyond. I would say children and teens at least rather than children only should have equal access to education and health for free in the same leveled of quality without any privilige. Then, on the university or perhaps a little bit earlier, yound adults would start to being selected to better universities according to their own results and merit on exams. After that, on their first job, they would be evaluated in a job performance that is the most objectively as feasible, which would weight on their promotions (and not simply as the boss likes and wishes as it is these days). And all with actual fullfilment of some minimal level of ethics. And for the wealth passing/heritage I would be compeletely in favor of a million or 100k dollars limit (since a million is already quite much). That value is still arbritary, it wouldn't be bad if it were weighted based on votes.
Of course there would be much details but I am not sure if I am willing to write a lot of them taking into account that my hopes for this to happen is quite low, even though I am aware the forum and thread are more of a discussion on the hypothetics scenario. On personality, one of the old sources (I remember the site to be down) suggested split classes by MBTI, which is not adequate since the MBTI doesn't have a good test-retest rates and we can't just have 16 classes in every school, but a more proper system that sorts students as either temperament (specially on a more stable version) but another good idea would be to split in a few learning styles with teacher with each class being focused on a learning style.

As for the arguments with it against capitalism, well, I'd say that meritocracy seems more promising in terms of efficiency and fairness. Efficiency in terms that, instead of a lot of arbritary networking, where capitalism basically works to maximize the freedom of the bosses in practice (boss hires almost whoever they want, except in some very specific professions where a license is required), allowing them to put family members, doing incredibly subjective hiring selection, to instead make a selection that is based more on actual competency. I'd also in favor of a better support for selection for professions and to a free search and consultation of vocations and professions. Putting the people closer to what they are at best would be more efficient and thus it would likely to work better and worth of a good shot. The fairness aspects weight as well.. capitalism throw people at poverty quite arbritarily.

I do have one less hypothetical thing to say, though. What I've noticed after going to Uni, school, work, etc.. is that the most meritocratic and fair system I've ever saw are actually in some games I've played. Specially on the last decade and on the 00's, a lot of games were fairly meritocratic even in a deep sense. One of the players on the high ranks are in fact good at game and in fact not only they are reliably expected to beat you with the same tools rather than with arbritary advantages but it is quite reliable that they are good and competent at the game. The same cannot be said to management, president, bosses, etc.. on where we live, even though we cannot irl just throw them this fact. In one of the older games, I've could even tell that a great player was in fact a great player by evaluating their statistics without ever seeing them ever playing, did it a few dozen times without making err in a single one - if I said the person was great, some of my friends who met the person on the game did confirm, even though some of them disliked my methods. We just don't have it on the professional lines. Doctors around the world influenced by Trump, even with their licenses, are going to prescribe you chloroquine. Some bosses are not really much good but, well, somehow they make it in there. Some others are full of wasted potential and that goes on. On games with proper fairness, nice players doesn't need to clean the boots of any developer or any bosses at all and neither to rely on luck.

appetites drive political / economic "systems"

 

[ygolo]

I think you seem settled on your mind that anything different is a threat to Democracy, almost as if the capitalism as we know is the only way that can support Democracy.

The "details" (they are not actually deep) I've mentioned seemed arbritary but they are general agreement towards many people of what is a minimum of meritocracy at least for those who honestly wants it. Equal opportunity for every children is already a basic principle. Providing equal education and health at least for the children is quite basic. Limiting wealth passing (the heritages) is also basic as well. And so on for the rest of what I said.

Meritocracy does not necessarily kills Democracy. The principle that i've said didn't even hit politics. It is not as if we elect our bosses and who gets promoted anyway... Selecting by job performance does not affect politics, none of what I said takes democracy out.

The implementations of meritocracy on politics are varied and debatable. Can go to basically keep the democracy system, I've seen (that's many years, so no links) some people talking about making more basic requisites and preparations and a minimal qualification for the politics (which is sort of desirable to have more proper and prepared polticians), and then the possibility of politicians being elected based on merit and results rather than being elected by people.

As I've said, actually my opinion is more against the monopoly of capitalism rather than defending meritocracy by itself. My opinion would be to actually test and evalute some meritocracy variants to see what is best. I would put my bet that having a higher qualification for politicians than it is today - and a quite high bar for politicans like president - while still allowing people to vote for the candidates would be better than rather the indications of the parties.

My own ideal scenario would be to fit at least the basics, but a little bit beyond. I would say children and teens at least rather than children only should have equal access to education and health for free in the same leveled of quality without any privilige. Then, on the university or perhaps a little bit earlier, yound adults would start to being selected to better universities according to their own results and merit on exams. After that, on their first job, they would be evaluated in a job performance that is the most objectively as feasible, which would weight on their promotions (and not simply as the boss likes and wishes as it is these days). And all with actual fullfilment of some minimal level of ethics. And for the wealth passing/heritage I would be compeletely in favor of a million or 100k dollars limit (since a million is already quite much). That value is still arbritary, it wouldn't be bad if it were weighted based on votes.
Of course there would be much details but I am not sure if I am willing to write a lot of them taking into account that my hopes for this to happen is quite low, even though I am aware the forum and thread are more of a discussion on the hypothetics scenario. On personality, one of the old sources (I remember the site to be down) suggested split classes by MBTI, which is not adequate since the MBTI doesn't have a good test-retest rates and we can't just have 16 classes in every school, but a more proper system that sorts students as either temperament (specially on a more stable version) but another good idea would be to split in a few learning styles with teacher with each class being focused on a learning style.

As for the arguments with it against capitalism, well, I'd say that meritocracy seems more promising in terms of efficiency and fairness. Efficiency in terms that, instead of a lot of arbritary networking, where capitalism basically works to maximize the freedom of the bosses in practice (boss hires almost whoever they want, except in some very specific professions where a license is required), allowing them to put family members, doing incredibly subjective hiring selection, to instead make a selection that is based more on actual competency. I'd also in favor of a better support for selection for professions and to a free search and consultation of vocations and professions. Putting the people closer to what they are at best would be more efficient and thus it would likely to work better and worth of a good shot. The fairness aspects weight as well.. capitalism throw people at poverty quite arbritarily.

I do have one less hypothetical thing to say, though. What I've noticed after going to Uni, school, work, etc.. is that the most meritocratic and fair system I've ever saw are actually in some games I've played. Specially on the last decade and on the 00's, a lot of games were fairly meritocratic even in a deep sense. One of the players on the high ranks are in fact good at game and in fact not only they are reliably expected to beat you with the same tools rather than with arbritary advantages but it is quite reliable that they are good and competent at the game. The same cannot be said to management, president, bosses, etc.. on where we live, even though we cannot irl just throw them this fact. In one of the older games, I've could even tell that a great player was in fact a great player by evaluating their statistics without ever seeing them ever playing, did it a few dozen times without making err in a single one - if I said the person was great, some of my friends who met the person on the game did confirm, even though some of them disliked my methods. We just don't have it on the professional lines. Doctors around the world influenced by Trump, even with their licenses, are going to prescribe you chloroquine. Some bosses are not really much good but, well, somehow they make it in there. Some others are full of wasted potential and that goes on. On games with proper fairness, nice players doesn't need to clean the boots of any developer or any bosses at all and neither to rely on luck.

There is a lot to unpack there. But the key to all of this is the notion of governance. By this, I mean

the process of making and enforcing decisions within an organization or society.

That process can be any combination of things (and usually is). It is great that you are giving a lot of ideas about how that can be done. We can bring in capitalism, and current events and so on for sure. But there is a reason that I started this as a philosophy thread instead of a politics/economics/etc. thread. I'd like the discussion to be more abstract and principled and for people to come up with reasoned arguments. This ought to be a lot slower, less contentious, and less free-flowing than a politics thread, IMO.

I responded to you in particular because you had a lot to say and also seemed to disagree with my own position. Please don't take it to mean I am picking on you or anything.

Trying first to establish common ground (unless you believe that the establishment of these notions subsumes any conclusions):

In the first post, I did try to open with the wikipedia article so that the basic notion of meritocracy is agreed upon.

the notion of a political system in which economic goods or political power are vested in individual people based on ability and talent, rather than wealth or social class.[1]

In terms of real world examples, where that ideal of meritocratic governance was officially the ideal of how the nation-state is supposed to function. I think Confucian meritocratic government is the best example.

Confucius strongly believed that to undertake the moral and practical obligation of steering a society, and individual would have to understand the ethical and moral obligations of his ideology.

I emphasized "his". Ultimately, that is the main point I am making. On what grounds can we come up with an agreed up notion of merit? We can brainstorm a lot of things, but on what grounds do we judge the things we produce? My claim is that the grounds of what "ought to be of merit" will always be tied to those in power to control. All of us can have an opinions, but what would make @Vendrah 's notion of merit the thing that everyone follows?

Also, in the first post, I tried to establish wikipedia's notion of democracy as the one agreed upon.

Democracy (from Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratía, dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy") or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

Here there is also an ambiguity in who "the people" are, but history has converged to human beings who have "come of age" which is also ambiguous here. But in this case Democracy answers the question ong "who decides" in resolving the ambiguities. There is still room for subversion and manimulation (as we see first hand), but as an ideal, I claim, it is easier to see specifically when it is being violated to place a proxy for wealth and social class in its place (Hence people clamoring for campaign finance reform and "draining the swamp").

The core question is "who decides on things and what is the process of that decision making". I claim as an ideal, one can more freely see when the ideal is democracy rather than meritocracy because you can wealth and social class can be built into the notion of "merit."
Some ways are in which power skews to selects for itself are in what is considered "work", what is considered "lazy", what is considered "intelligent", what is considered "moral", what is considered "fair", what is considered "equal opportunity"....

The point is in meritocracy, the power games can happen in the concepts and subconsciously.

In democracy, the power games have to happen in the mechanisms of democracy and consciously.

 

[Vendrah]

That process can be any combination of things (and usually is). It is great that you are giving a lot of ideas about how that can be done. We can bring in capitalism, and current events and so on for sure. But there is a reason that I started this as a philosophy thread instead of a politics/economics/etc. thread. I'd like the discussion to be more abstract and principled and for people to come up with reasoned arguments. This ought to be a lot slower, less contentious, and less free-flowing than a politics thread, IMO.

You asked directly to me about it, remember? And I did gave my shot. That was, basically, it.

For me, it's still appears fairly forced this 'meritocracy' vs 'democracy'. I already said in theoretical grounds - politicians can be elected with minimal requisites, actually, normally they are, so requisites of education (which is different from social class or wealth), could be included and there still could be an election of popular choice. This undermines the idea the two can't be mixed with each other. But, well, maybe if you push the idea to the last radical part where absolutely everyone can be accepted as a candidate - even if they don't know how to write, are disabled, or maybe a foreing that is coming on the country just to be a candidate - or otherwise it isn't a democracy, then on that terms, yes. But I'd say in that case for you to extent to a larger, we should then elected which of the people should be the billionaire and the rich, on which we don't as well. Maybe on that ideal democracy of yours?

Anyway, that's it, you asked, I've answered.

...

 

[ygolo]

You asked directly to me about it, remember? And I did gave my shot. That was, basically, it.

For me, it's still appears fairly forced this 'meritocracy' vs 'democracy'. I already said in theoretical grounds - politicians can be elected with minimal requisites, actually, normally they are, so requisites of education (which is different from social class or wealth), could be included and there still could be an election of popular choice. This undermines the idea the two can't be mixed with each other. But, well, maybe if you push the idea to the last radical part where absolutely everyone can be accepted as a candidate - even if they don't know how to write, are disabled, or maybe a foreing that is coming on the country just to be a candidate - or otherwise it isn't a democracy, then on that terms, yes. But I'd say in that case for you to extent to a larger, we should then elected which of the people should be the billionaire and the rich, on which we don't as well. Maybe on that ideal democracy of yours?

Anyway, that's it, you asked, I've answered.

I asked the question partly rhetorically, and it seems clumsily.

The point is one cannot define "merit" without bringing in a whole host of biases into the concept itself (and you still have the ambiguities about the mechanisms to give power to the "meritorious").

I was contrasting this democracy where the concept of "people" is very clear, but ambiguity lies in the mechanisms of how power is given to the people.

Yes, of course we can mix the notions. I was only pointing out the flaws in the meticoracy notion itself. My claim is meritocracy as a concept is problematic in the same ways democracy as a concept are and, in addition, has more problems too (due to the issue that "merit" is inherently more subjective a concept than "person" ).

We can agree to disagree.

Edit: I hope neutral. I mean no animosity, honestly. My point is as simple as I stated. But I believe it subtly affects a lot. Certainly, when we want a task done, we want someone capable of that task doing it. The question is about power to be in charge more than anything else.

 

[The Cat]

Merit is like fashion. It comes in and out of style and some people wear it better than others. Most are willing to strip it off if sex is involved.

 

[ygolo]

Grace Blakey breaks down the ideas I had in mind in a much more articulate way than I did...and I believe her explanation is couched in language that would resonate with people on this site better.

I've come to believe that our economic system has always functioned on cronyism and nepotism.

I'm not going to call it crony capitalism or cronyism socialism because capitalism, socialism, and so on are myths.

There has never been a "free" market and there never can be. In order to have a market of any sort, you have to have rules about how the market operates, which means a "free market" is an oxymoron.

The truth is much more simple.

There are those who control the rules and incentives of a market, and there are those who don't.

If every participant of a market doesn't have equal input into the governance of it, the market system is a crony system.

It may borrow elements from theories of capitalism and socialism on the whims of the cronies, but cronyism is the only honest description.

We're faced with two choices to deal with cronyism.
1) Try to become a crony yourself to see if you can effect change when you get there. There are so many grotesque abuses along that path.
2) If you aren't part of the crony system, organize to have more people, in principle, be allowed to control the rules. This too has had a history of abuses, but it's a path that had been abandoned for a long time.

 

[SensEye]

We're faced with two choices to deal with cronyism.
1) Try to become a crony yourself to see if you can effect change when you get there. There are so many grotesque abuses along that path.
2) If you aren't part of the crony system, organize to have more people, in principle, be allowed to control the rules. This too has had a history of abuses, but it's a path that had been abandoned for a long time.

Unfortunately, I don't see option #1 being viable. It's like the scorpion and the frog parable. If you become a successful crony to penetrate the inner sanctum of cronies to effect change, I doubt you'll turn back into an altruist once you get there. And if you hang on to your altruism on the journey, I figure the hard core cronies would eat you alive, such that you will never succeed.

As for #2, in theory, democracy is supposed to be the "more people controlling the rules" at least politically. So if you think a politician is too much of a crony or opposing changes to regulations that would restrict cronyism, vote them out and vote in anti-crony types. Alas, too many people are asleep at the wheel, and/or get distracted by bread and circuses.

It's a dilemma for sure.

 

[ygolo]

Unfortunately, I don't see option #1 being viable. It's like the scorpion and the frog parable. If you become a successful crony to penetrate the inner sanctum of cronies to effect change, I doubt you'll turn back into an altruist once you get there. And if you hang on to your altruism on the journey, I figure the hard core cronies would eat you alive, such that you will never succeed.

As for #2, in theory, democracy is supposed to be the "more people controlling the rules" at least politically. So if you think a politician is too much of a crony or opposing changes to regulations that would restrict cronyism, vote them out and vote in anti-crony types. Alas, too many people are asleep at the wheel, and/or get distracted by bread and circuses.

It's a dilemma for sure.

I think it has been a very long time since professional politicians have attempted to increase the number of people who have access to the governance (rules, incentives, etc.) of markets.

There are unions that purport to do this job specifically. If they actually do this instead of becoming a crony themselves, they may be able to keep doing that. One thing they need to keep in mind while doing this is to make sure they don't make themselves part of the bigger problem.

In my mind, progress means nothing other than every individual being able to spend less time and energy just to be alive (e.g. working enough hours for food, shelter, healthcare, etc.)

Progress is that trend; that trend is progress. It has clearly been going backwards for some time in some localities (in both very urban and rural areas in the USA, for example).

 

[ceecee]

1) Try to become a crony yourself to see if you can effect change when you get there. There are so many grotesque abuses along that path.
2) If you aren't part of the crony system, organize to have more people, in principle, be allowed to control the rules. This too has had a history of abuses, but it's a path that had been abandoned for a long time.

1. I think this is the most pragmatic and sensible approach. Change from the inside is really the only option left.
2. Americans couldn't function in an actual participatory democracy for any length of time, which is why the representative flavor has held up fairly well. But that is becoming less representative and more of a ruling/absent situation. That isn't democracy at all. More people participating in a representative democracy is the best hope but the barriers are becoming more numerous and the clown show in DC is certainly pushing people to just stop paying attention to any of it.