Meritocracy, anyone?

[mrjesushat]

A meritocracy is basically rule by those who have demonstrated ability. One can look at ability from a number of angles, but we'd here be talking about rule by those of demonstrably superior intellect, talents, skills, and achievements.

Of course, were someone to actually institute a meritocracy, we'd have to determine what social values would be important, and what the society as a whole would regard as meritorious. Or meritacious, if you prefer.

I'll advance that we ought to prevent people from voting if they are found to have an IQ below, oh say, 110. And no one should be permitted to vote if they do not have a job.

Persons should be disallowed from seeking office if they have ever committed any crime, been terminated from any employment as a result of misconduct, or been the focus of an investigation regarding financial irregularities. Also, corporate heads and persons earning more than $100,000 a year in the previous 10 years, need not apply.

Also, religious "achievements" (ie, being a pastor or minister) would not count toward qualifications for office.

All we need now is a list of acceptable achievements to permit persons to seek office, and we'll have an ideal state.

Please feel free to discuss, debate, counter-argue or even throw in your two cents, or quid, or rupees.

Oh, and I'll post this fine link to Answers.com, for your perusal:

http://www.answers.com/topic/meritocracy

Peace, Love, and Rule by the Cool,
mrjesushat

[Tom Paine]

I can see the theoretical reasoning behind a meritocracy but I can't accept the idea of applying it practically. You can't agree on who is best suited to rule, you can't rule out corruption, and you don't get any accountability of those in power. These are all pretty central problems in any governmental system which does not acknowledge them, and meritocracy inherently cannot do so.

[Denny Crane!]

I can see the theoretical reasoning behind a meritocracy but I can't accept the idea of applying it practically. You can't agree on who is best suited to rule, you can't rule out corruption, and you don't get any accountability of those in power. These are all pretty central problems in any governmental system which does not acknowledge them, and meritocracy inherently cannot do so.

Well actually there is no reason we couldn't incorporate meritocracy into the house of lords. Rather than selected peers who have the most spondooleys we could have time served judges, doctors, scientists, specialists who can actually offer informed experienced opinions on things.

On a recent debate on spam legislation and a batch of new IT laws it emerged that only 3 MP's read the relevant information and only one or two really had the understanding to realise its implications and properly debate it.

If only I had a source for that example, it was quite disturbing. You get the idea anyway.

peter

[Last Roman]

a meritocracy is like communism. works on paper, not in practice.

[Princeps]

a meritocracy is like communism. works on paper, not in practice.

Meritocracy is the basis for a functioning society.

[Last Roman]

Meritocracy is the basis for a functioning society.

what russkisoldat said.

[Tom Paine]

Meritocracy is the basis for a functioning society.

So Blair is the person best suited to run Britain? No. Society has the taint of hereditary money to take into account before one can say meritocracy is what we run society on.

[hsimoorb]

Of course, were someone to actually institute a meritocracy, we'd have to determine what social values would be important, and what the society as a whole would regard as meritorious. Or meritacious, if you prefer.

I made up a list of these. Feel free to add some more.

1) Representing the interests of the people who give the government power.
2).....
3) Profit

I'll advance that we ought to prevent people from voting if they are found to have an IQ below, oh say, 110. And no one should be permitted to vote if they do not have a job.

So you can't vote if some test dosen't think you're smarter than everyone else, and you can't vote if your employer dosen't like the way you might vote.

Persons should be disallowed from seeking office if they have ever committed any crime, been terminated from any employment as a result of misconduct, or been the focus of an investigation regarding financial irregularities. Also, corporate heads and persons earning more than $100,000 a year in the previous 10 years, need not apply.

So out with rehabilitating criminals, they' not even citizens anymore! You can't vote if you're employer dosen't like you(what's with all this power going to corporations? hmmm) And you can't vote if the athorities thought you might be guilty, but screw the trial, you're booted out of the rebublic anyways! And if you succeed in our economy, you're not a citizen either.

[Erik]

All we need now is a list of acceptable achievements to permit persons to seek office, and we'll have an ideal state.

And here lies your biggest problem.
Because whomever gets to compile this lists will in practice hold the real power.

Your criteria on who should be allowed to vote is also flawed.
If the unemployed can't vote what incentive will the government have to create new jobs?
In such a system raising minimum wages at the expense of job loss will always be preferred because this keeps the voters (=emplyed people) happy and you need not worry about the rest.

As an alternative you could have a requirement for voters to motivate their choice.
Then they could vote for whomever they want, but their vote will only count if it's well motivated.
But again the people judging the motivations will in practice hold too much power.

[aorz]

Well, it worked in Utopia, which is a fictional place, but whateva. In America people would have a fit because no one would want to lose there voting rights, even though we have a ridiculously low voter turnout. Maybe even introducing that idea to Americans would motivate them to exercise there voting rights, who knows?

As was said, great on paper, but human nature will eventually ruin it.

[PacSubCom]

One could argue that western society is already organised along those lines. It is, in the end of the day, ruled by "elites". Democracy is but a pretence, real decisions are never made by the people on the street. The pigs may change. The trough remains the same.

These elites generally have pursued a good education, and in such the IQ requirement already holds true, in a way. Also, if you don't have a job you normally are worth nothing, and the more money you make, the more seriously people will take you. Jobless have no chance of deciding anything in the here and now, so why change it.

In our world, persons who have commited serious crimes are not excluded from seeking office. The less the rabble on the street can relate to the crime, the more likely it is that not too many people will notice, and their peers don't particulary care, as they have bodies to bury too. Financial irregularities are the norm, investigations into these aren't. Consequences and convictions are almost unheard of.

Religious achievements are in our world no qualification for office already. Maybe if your god is Mammon.

Accountability? What does it even mean.

[MaximiIian]

The pigs may change. The trough remains the same.

I like that. Mind if I sig it?

[RusskiSoldat]

All societies are ruled by elites.
And everybody dislikes them enough without the equivalent of having them wear a sign to remind you how unworthy you are.
This would only create rebellion as nobody likes to admit that they are inferior in quality x to person y, let alone in every way.

[Gaul]

And everybody dislikes them enough without the equivalent of having them wear a sign to remind you how unworthy you are.

It happened. Time is just the expanse of a measurement. If I dumped a gallon of water down the sink's drain, would you be more pissed about the water or the amount? Doesn't matter, that is the measurement. You still loose out on something, water or gallon.

[RusskiSoldat]

Not institutional meritocracy, though.
Ultimately, all societies are based on meritocracy.
None have it as the official ideology.

[Aristophanes]

Not institutional meritocracy, though.
Ultimately, all societies are based on meritocracy.
None have it as the official ideology.

Well said.

Although different societies do reward different 'merits'.

What a society believes has merit has a lot to do with the cultural norms or long-term goals of that society's inhabitants.

Also, corporate heads and persons earning more than $100,000 a year in the previous 10 years, need not apply.

Explainify, if you would.

[Tom Paine]

But then how do we choose who to put there, how do we choose who the best are? That's training; doctors may not even be the most suited to the job, they just have the training, remember?

[Aristophanes]

But then how do we choose who to put there, how do we choose who the best are? That's training; doctors may not even be the most suited to the job, they just have the training, remember?

Privilege, good old-fashioned privilege!!! That way, you can prevent any 'revolutionary', 'anarchistic' reforms being brought in. Reforms are bad!

[Tom Paine]

Privilege, good old-fashioned privilege!!! That way, you can prevent any 'revolutionary', 'anarchistic' reforms being brought in. Reforms are bad!

Hey, I don't even like the Lords as they are, I prefer the American two-elected-Houses system... I'd prefer an elected Lords on PR. But that's another topic. Fact is that the Lords is in theory made up now of the most qualified businessmen and so on, plus the top ten judges. That's what Seneca's meritocracy is, in the end... so how should we be selecting peers?

[Aristophanes]

Hey, I don't even like the Lords as they are, I prefer the American two-elected-Houses system... I'd prefer an elected Lords on PR. But that's another topic. Fact is that the Lords is in theory made up now of the most qualified businessmen and so on, plus the top ten judges. That's what Seneca's meritocracy is, in the end... so how should we be selecting peers?

Sorry, I was just being facetious. Get all the people who want to be peers together, separate them into property and income groups, and then select a certain number from each group.