Meritocracy vs. Democracy (1 Viewer)

[Iron]

youll come round

 

[moll.]

Well aside from the difficulty of the process, i.e. the voting system, the impossibility of accurately measuring 'merit' etc. it's a good idea.

A really good idea. It's like the intelligentsia revolting against the proles!!! I mean as the OP said we're a society run by superficiality and popularity, skill and education are being left in the dust of evening wear and cash bonuses.

EDIT: i just thought of something by talking about intelligentsia/proles. Eventually the 'meritorious', will emerge as a class of their own right? Then we have on our hands a good old oligarchy. Don't you think it seems inevitable that the system that favours the scholarly elite would be reshaped in this way?

No, this could be avoided by not giving the vote as an inalienable birth rite, but instead forcing everyone to earn it. This would mean that children of the meritous would themselves still have to work in order to maintain the status of their family. It also means that hard work from the 'proles' as you call them, would be rewarded by a position in the meritous.
It should also be noted that I don't think this should just be limited to the intelligentsia. Enfranchisement can be given to someone who represent Australia on the world stage in sport, to the police, firemen and military personnel (after a set period of duty) for their sacrifices, or even for those who complete a set number of hours of community service.
As can probably be seen from my argument, I'm a big supporter of national service as long as it includes volunteer work.

 

[Graney]

Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy. Service guarantees citizenship.

 

[moll.]

Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy. Service guarantees citizenship.

Love that book.

 

[Enteebee]

We're not a democracy anyway tbqh, we have a much better system of government. We are for the most part a meritocracy in that only those who work very hard, are very shrewd, are keenly intelligent etc will rise to power in business, government or even academia. On the outside however we appear to be a democracy and this keeps the rabble (us) from rebelling.

The elephant in the room is probably those whom inherit wealth and thus power.

 

[Iron]

My views align with those of NTB!

 

[Lentern]

Ahh, we seem to agree on everything bar religion.

More than financial implications, it is not exactly an impost on voters to have to vote one Saturday for 5 mins every couple of years.

And someone who can't be bothered to spend that 5 minutes is really the kind of person who will contribute something valuable with their vote, they'll be the kind of goobers that vote labor because their parents vote labor or vote liberal because they think Turnbull has a nicer smile. I don't see how it's going to be of any great detriment to anyone except for those who forego their vote to make it compulsary, it would likely give more power to those who do vote and do care.

 

[withoutaface]

We're not a democracy anyway tbqh, we have a much better system of government. We are for the most part a meritocracy in that only those who work very hard, are very shrewd, are keenly intelligent etc will rise to power in business, government or even academia. On the outside however we appear to be a democracy and this keeps the rabble (us) from rebelling.

The elephant in the room is probably those whom inherit wealth and thus power.

There's still a large degree of tall poppy syndrome though.

 

[moll.]

We're not a democracy anyway tbqh, we have a much better system of government. We are for the most part a meritocracy in that only those who work very hard, are very shrewd, are keenly intelligent etc will rise to power in business, government or even academia. On the outside however we appear to be a democracy and this keeps the rabble (us) from rebelling.

The elephant in the room is probably those whom inherit wealth and thus power.

You make a good point, but I want more of a meritocracy. We should be doing everything humanly possible to encourage human excellence in both the intellectual, communal and athletic fields.
Also, that elephant in the room also works two ways, in that many are born into poverty despite genetic advantage and thus never get ahead.

 

[moll.]

We're not a democracy anyway tbqh, we have a much better system of government. We are for the most part a meritocracy in that only those who work very hard, are very shrewd, are keenly intelligent etc will rise to power in business, government or even academia. On the outside however we appear to be a democracy and this keeps the rabble (us) from rebelling.

The elephant in the room is probably those whom inherit wealth and thus power.

You make a good point, but I want more of a meritocracy. We should be doing everything humanly possible to encourage human excellence in both the intellectual, communal and athletic fields.
Also, that elephant in the room also works two ways, in that many are born into poverty despite genetic advantage and thus never get ahead.

 

[withoutaface]

You really need to put forward some sort of viable model as to how this would work.

At the moment its just a truistic fantasy. Of course we want to promote good people and not bad people. Tell us how, or stfu.

Free market. Good people make money, bad people die in a gutter.

The system works.

 

[Lentern]

Free market. Good people make money, bad people die in a gutter.

The system works.

Socialism, we all work hard for the good of the community, pooling our resources we become more efficient and more productive, the synergy allowing us to leave the classic liberalists in the stone age, we live in a compassionate society, when you stumble I'm there to help you from falling, as a society we will move forward and nobody will get left behind. United we stand divided we fall.


I can paint a pie in the sky as well.

 

[moll.]

You really need to put forward some sort of viable model as to how this would work.

At the moment its just a truistic fantasy. Of course we want to promote good people and not bad people. Tell us how, or stfu.

Ok, so here's the basic model:

Everyone is born without the inherit ability to vote. Once they turn 18, this does not change just because their age does. Each and every individual human being must earn their right to vote. This can be done through an incentive system.

For example, if you possess a master's degree, then you will be given the right to vote. If you represent Australia on the world stage (in sports for example) then you will be given the right to vote. If you complete 1000 hours of community service, you will be given the right to vote. If you serve in the military, police or as a firefighter for four years full-time or 8 years part-time you will be given the right. Of course the details of these clauses are able to be changed, for instance we may make it available to persons possessing a bachelors degree or tafe diploma, depending upon political and economic realities at the time.

The government can take away someone's right to vote if they commit and are found guilty of an indictable offence for the period of their gaol term. Once their term is over, they will be given back their right.

All MPs must be enfranchised.

The basis of the system is that you have to either show a willingness for self-sacrifice or to work exceptionally hard for the right to vote, as it is something to be earned, not given out freely.

 

[withoutaface]

Ok, so here's the basic model:

Everyone is born without the inherit ability to vote. Once they turn 18, this does not change just because their age does. Each and every individual human being must earn their right to vote. This can be done through an incentive system.

For example, if you possess a master's degree, then you will be given the right to vote. If you represent Australia on the world stage (in sports for example) then you will be given the right to vote. If you complete 1000 hours of community service, you will be given the right to vote. If you serve in the military, police or as a firefighter for four years full-time or 8 years part-time you will be given the right. Of course the details of these clauses are able to be changed, for instance we may make it available to persons possessing a bachelors degree or tafe diploma, depending upon political and economic realities at the time.

The government can take away someone's right to vote if they commit and are found guilty of an indictable offence for the period of their gaol term. Once their term is over, they will be given back their right.

All MPs must be enfranchised.

The basis of the system is that you have to either show a willingness for self-sacrifice or to work exceptionally hard for the right to vote, as it is something to be earned, not given out freely.

Sounds like a recipe to redirect all government funding to postgraduate institutions and stadiums.

 

[moll.]

Sounds like a recipe to redirect all government funding to postgraduate institutions and stadiums.

Let the private sector do that. Increased demand would mean it's more profitable.

 

[Iron]

The problem I have is social inclusion, Moll. Universal franchise gives people some ownership of a society, for good or for bad. People just wouldnt wear taxes without representation
Up the British!
But the reality is that the mechanics of the system are sophisticated, hidden and ensure that only the finest, most determined, most committed to the system, reach the top

 

[moll.]

And yet Bush had eight years of presidency.

 

[withoutaface]

Let the private sector do that. Increased demand would mean it's more profitable.

But a government voted in by the people you describe would essentially just enfranchise a bunch of ivory tower academics and boofhead footballers, both of whom are going to rentseek hard.

 

[Iron]

What youre talking about is major social dislocation, for no real point and to no real benifit (moll)
The fact is that it's an accepted norm that we have a fundamental human right to have a say in how we are governed. This is fine and there are many ways that vested interests can get around it

 

[moll.]

What youre talking about is major social dislocation, for no real point and to no real benifit (moll)
The fact is that it's an accepted norm that we have a fundamental human right to have a say in how we are governed. This is fine and there are many ways that vested interests can get around it

Who says we have this fundemental right? It's certainly not biological.
It is simply the creation of a society in which it already exists. Circular reasoning, much?