Meritocracy over Democracy?

[Kiwi & Cow]

Some users here, and the Democrats too, are supporting Meritocracy over Democracy, but honestly if Democrats and Nationalists knew what Meritocracy was they wouldn't support it.

White Nationalists here want Meritocracy because they hope it'd stop the indesirables from voting, like those damn n(i/a)ggers, they also hope it'd stop anyone very politically illiterate, women and the LGBT from voting.

Unfortunately what they don't realise is that it's not exactly what they expect it to be and infact they'd probably be the first ones to whine about it once women from STEM start voting, followed by black students from some Liberal University.

Democrats likewise expect the "deplorables" not to be able to vote thanks to Meritocracy, but not every Trump supporter is dumb as a rock, so yes they'll still be able to vote.

Nationalists and Democrats would probably prefer a dictatorship over Meritocracy TBH, but they know it won't be taken seriously so instead they encourage a bollocks system of vote that will probably fuck them in the ass if it does get passed and they'd have accomplished nothing meaningful in the meantime.

 

[Ser Prize]

Voting ability should be tied to either land ownership or military service. You need to have a stake in the country.

 

[Psychotron]

Yeah, merit is kinda subjective.

 

[Blasterisk]

I think the idea of a "Great Experiment" requires you to at least occasionally admit that things didn't work like you wanted, or that you thought they might.

I also think that unchecked voting is one of those things that ought to be examined by men wise enough to tell good from bad, and powerful enough to do something about it.
The tricky part, as with most business these days, is finding good help.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I don't get what the OP talks about, does he mean voting by having a university degree? Since that's not meritocratic in any way. There is no logical connection between being "educated" and being a good voter.

The usual case for allowing a part of the populace to vote is having someone with a personal stake at the country or one that contributes more than is being given.

 

[Kiwi & Cow]

I don't get what the OP talks about, does he mean voting by having a university degree? Since that's not meritocratic in any way. There is no logical connection between being "educated" and being a good voter.

The usual case for allowing a part of the populace to vote is having someone with a personal stake at the country or one that contributes more than is being given.

It means many things actually.

1. A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.
2. A group of leaders or officeholders selected on the basis of individual ability or achievement.
3. Leadership by such a group.
4. A form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects.
5. The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
6. Rule by merit, and talent. By extension, now often used to describe a type of society where wealth, income, and social status are assigned through competition.
7. the belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth

Bolded is the definition that I had in mind when making this thread, though that could also apply to "the basis of individual ability" if someone earns the right to vote after getting a doctorate.

Note that some definitions of Meritocracy is more akin to Autocracy as opposed to Democracy, there's no voting needed and the president is elected based on merit alone. That'd kept sleepy Joe at bay.

 

[Marley Rathbone]

Voting ability should be tied to either land ownership or military service. You need to have a stake in the country.

What if someone doesn't have land?

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It means many things actually.

1. A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.
2. A group of leaders or officeholders selected on the basis of individual ability or achievement.
3. Leadership by such a group.
4. A form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects.
5. The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
6. Rule by merit, and talent. By extension, now often used to describe a type of society where wealth, income, and social status are assigned through competition.
7. the belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth

Bolded is the definition that I had in mind when making this thread, though that could also apply to "the basis of individual ability" if someone earns the right to vote after getting a doctorate.

Note that some definitions of Meritocracy is more akin to Autocracy as opposed to Democracy, there's no voting needed and the president is elected based on merit alone. That'd kept sleepy Joe at bay.

Most people will think 1 rather than 4, but even then the problem is that Superior intellect is impossible to quantify and using education as a barometer is extremely biased. You are better off letting only people that read (of their own volition) 10 (real) books to vote. Really, that will immediately increase the quality of the decisions by an absurd margin.

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

Democrats at the top most definitely don't want a meritocracy, sure they would eliminate a few meth heads from the midwest but they would also decimate their minority power base without which the party is rendered mostly powerless.

 

[gang weeder]

Voting ability should be tied to either land ownership or military service. You need to have a stake in the country.

I would prefer tying it to marriage, possibly even to married with at least one child, although those are decent qualifiers too.

It means many things actually.

1. A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.
2. A group of leaders or officeholders selected on the basis of individual ability or achievement.
3. Leadership by such a group.
4. A form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects.
5. The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
6. Rule by merit, and talent. By extension, now often used to describe a type of society where wealth, income, and social status are assigned through competition.
7. the belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth

Bolded is the definition that I had in mind when making this thread, though that could also apply to "the basis of individual ability" if someone earns the right to vote after getting a doctorate.

Note that some definitions of Meritocracy is more akin to Autocracy as opposed to Democracy, there's no voting needed and the president is elected based on merit alone. That'd kept sleepy Joe at bay.

If we define meritocracy this way, it's not attractive at all, because there is little if any correlation between IQ and moral behavior/decision making. It's common for people with high IQs to be trannies, communists, or whatever other form of moral insanity/degeneracy. Being good at math doesn't translate over to ethics.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

Chengis Khan style or just retarded aristocracy like some people think meritocracy is? Chengis Khan spared people who knew how to run regions and even assassins who were skilled enough.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

Funny, I was thinking about meritocracy and what it would mean for us just yesterday.

Ideally I would want the voter base to be the "essential" members of society. You deliver goods, build homes, work in a healthcare facility, build roads, etc. then your merit is good and you would be up in society. If you work doing inane things like most recreational facilities, your merit is low because your job has low value and could easily be fulfilled. We'd have to have exceptions for community centers that support multiple forms of recreation and exercise, but your bouncy castle business doesn't have any merit. The upper-echelon intelligence of society would be leaders, but obviously measuring intelligence isn't really something we can do, so we could base it off of personal success. Obviously a dumb person will not be wildly successful for no reason.

Yes, this runs into dozens of issues right off the bat. It makes no sense applied to modern society and you can poke holes in it all day. There would be too many gray areas for what constitutes merit and what is actually valuable. Does the grocery store worker have merit? After all, with no alternative system in place, food would not get into the hands of the people. But his job is easily replaced and requires very little skill to perform at a base level. And businesses would be a whole other can of worms. I considered quite a few different inane businesses to designate as being useless, but there are few jobs that have zero value. Many things we consider inane or simple are actually foundational to our daily lives, like haircuts and spending time with others in a social setting. Even the most bottom-level useless businesses (and therefore its workers) have some merit otherwise they wouldn't exist. If we're choosing wealth and success as a measure of intelligence, even if accurate, would cause the world to become fully seized by corporate interests and greed.

There's a lot wrong with meritocracy but it's kind of a fantasy perfect world that I imagine.

If applied to today's society and it had to be a paradigm shift, I would want to carry on with democracy. If I were a god and could shape my own world and universe, it would be perfectly meritocratic on the basis of how much you return/give/build to the community or government in contrast with how much support you require back.

 

[Sho'nuff]

Meritocracy falls down on the merit part and the definition of who should be able to vote.
I firmly believe that voting as a right needs to be done away with. But I couldn't articulate what I think would merit someone the privilege of voting.

Unfortunately the system of everyone getting to vote and hoping that the majority of people who don't deserve to vote, won't even show up to the polling station (this failed miserably the last election) is better than any kind of Merit system that could be put into place. My biggest fear is people who deserve to vote are not easy to identify, you need to find people who are willing to vote against their own self interest for the greater good. But that also means those people can't be easily swayed, or we would need to do away with opinion based news media as its entirely too effective at convincing people what their morals should be.

 

[draggs]

Meritocracy is just another way to say we want to see or are too blind to see the inevitable devolution into oligarchy

Democracy is just another way to say the same thing but with mob rule at the end

The republic keeps keeping on keeping on as the best civitas

 

[PaleTay]

I would prefer tying it to marriage, possibly even to married with at least one child, although those are decent qualifiers too.


If we define meritocracy this way, it's not attractive at all, because there is little if any correlation between IQ and moral behavior/decision making. It's common for people with high IQs to be trannies, communists, or whatever other form of moral insanity/degeneracy. Being good at math doesn't translate over to ethics.

I'd disagree, being a good person is highly correlated with high IQ/skill and being attractive. Being attractive limits the degenerates and influence of psychopaths.

 

[gang weeder]

I'd disagree, being a good person is highly correlated with high IQ/skill and being attractive. Being attractive limits the degenerates and influence of psychopaths.

Now hold on..... being a good person correlates with being attractive? Evidence?

 

[kim foxx]

worth noting that when america was the strongest (right after WWII) way more institutions were formally meritocratic. instead of jobs requiring soft skills like interviewing and bullshitting people took placement exams to enter a corporation. most importantly, employees had to pass aptitude examinations to continue on their path of promotion. this was obviously better than the current system of rewarding cronies and shooting up insane sociopaths only good at working corporate politics up the ladder.

craft unions still make you take qualifying exams, because hiring a retard can get people killed if they fuck up badly enough. since tech is so chock full of grifters many companies require whiteboarding or coding tests for applicants in technical positions. epic systems is one of the few companies left in america that still makes candidates do an aptitude test with 3 parts: verbal, math, and programming.


people are also obsessed with restricting the franchise and attempting to limit those who they consider unfit to vote without understanding its voting in general that's the problem. elections do nothing to check the power of permanent, unelected lobbies that treat officeholders like sockpuppets. they are also at heart popularity contests that incentivize the most venal and sociopathic towards running for office.

 

[gang weeder]

worth noting that when america was the strongest (right after WWII) way more institutions were formally meritocratic. instead of jobs requiring soft skills like interviewing and bullshitting people took placement exams to enter a corporation. most importantly, employees had to pass aptitude examinations to continue on their path of promotion. this was obviously better than the current system of rewarding cronies and shooting up insane sociopaths only good at working corporate politics up the ladder.

craft unions still make you take qualifying exams, because hiring a retard can get people killed if they fuck up badly enough. since tech is so chock full of grifters many companies require whiteboarding or coding tests for applicants in technical positions. epic systems is one of the few companies left in america that still makes candidates do an aptitude test with 3 parts: verbal, math, and programming.

These are great observations and I would posit that this change is due to an increase in "diversity," as it were. If you are recruiting from a non-"diverse" pool of potential workers, in which all of them think and act the same culturally and politically, obviously you will start looking at their actual skills as the dividing factor among them. However, if you are getting lots of "diverse" applications, and forced pretty much by law to consider "diversity" in your hiring practices.....

people are also obsessed with restricting the franchise and attempting to limit those who they consider unfit to vote without understanding its voting in general that's the problem. elections do nothing to check the power of permanent, unelected lobbies that treat officeholders like sockpuppets. they are also at heart popularity contests that incentivize the most venal and sociopathic towards running for office.

Based.

 

[kim foxx]

These are great observations and I would posit that this change is due to an increase in "diversity," as it were. If you are recruiting from a non-"diverse" pool of potential workers, in which all of them think and act the same culturally and politically, obviously you will start looking at their actual skills as the dividing factor among them. However, if you are getting lots of "diverse" applications, and forced pretty much by law to consider "diversity" in your hiring practices.....

after the civil rights act of 1964 went into force, duke power added the wonderlic IQ test (ironically, their biggest customer is the NFL today) as an entry criteria for their non-manual labor jobs. there was a lawsuit that worked its way to the supreme court that struck down duke power's hiring policy where the court ruled that: ""Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox."[2]"

pretty much all you see today are places like the merchant marine, unions, and public sector employers still using merit exams because they are protected by sovereign immunity or heavy political influence. epic systems squeaks by with hiring exams because programming medical record software already self selects for indians and autists.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Most people will think 1 rather than 4, but even then the problem is that Superior intellect is impossible to quantify and using education as a barometer is extremely biased. You are better off letting only people that read (of their own volition) 10 (real) books to vote. Really, that will immediately increase the quality of the decisions by an absurd margin.

Any system of power can be gamed. It would work for 4 years, and then a political party would invest in a cheap package of 10 books to send to any potential voter.

Although I guess that is more expensive than just bussing people around and using dead voters.