As from above, so from below. How Meritocrats can win over Libertarians

If there is anything I despise more than the limited thought-structure of religious and political zealots, it is the complete lack relativism in dealing with self-identifying intellectuals and revolutionaries. Those of you familiar with the idea of paradigm shift must understand the complete stranglehold words have on people, and their ability to grasp certain concepts. In order for the public to grasp and support extraordinary or new concepts, it is often best to repackage that information coded in the language and culture of the audience. Think about all the enlightenment-era writers describing themselves as “Deists/Theists” rather than Christians, because in this identification they could be either Christians, Agnostics, or Gnostic, depending on whom asked them. I have failed to understand why the writers of the Meritocracy website wish to alienate hordes of potential supporters by a willingness to condense 200 years of highly varied political theory and distil it into a simple amalgamation of Randian, pro-christian psycho-babble. Maybe it is because this whole movement (and other associated sources of writing) is so incredibly British in outlook that it neglects the complex realities of Libertarian thought in America, but one would expect such highly intelligent and capable people to do their homework.

I’m a unemployed psychologist living as legal pot-farmer in Colorado, I’ve spent years on the road, have engaged in civil disobedience and protest, and have wandered all over the pacific northwest and Northern California. Along my travels I met many extremely dedicated activists who would put many of us to shame in their willingness to fight for change, almost always in movements that Meritocrats would approve of. Almost all of these people identified as both Anarchists and Socialists. In my decade of experiences with such people Anarchism=Socialism, and Capitalists as such were always seen as another form of authority. Thus, by default, Anarcho-Capitalism was seen as an oxymoron. It is offensive to my sensibilities as an activist that all identifiers with the Anarchist title be written-off as pro-god republican shit-heads. For the most part because these people are the ones who much of you watch on tv while they are actually protesting or making a difference. There is an Anarchist organization called food not bombs who collects unused foods from local businesses and distributed them to the poor. Anarchists and Socialists were the ones who fought in the Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization and their capitalist exploitation of 3rd world countries. So I ask again, why am I a psycopath, a christian, and an anarcho-capitalist, because I’ve identified myself as Libertarian. You’ve all mangled the meanings of these words along with the media to a point that they barely have meaning anymore.

I acknowledge that the “Libertarian Party” exists and has a pro-republican, negative-liberty stance. But The word Libertarian by itself means simply “anti-authoritarian”. Aren’t all of you? When I read all this information on Meritocracy and its platform, I agreed with virtually all of it. There is nothing wrong with a market-based system if a ruling elite is not allowed to form and take control, exploiting others systematically. Obviously that is what I see having gone wrong with our current system. Social order and harmony does not have to equate with coercive force, or be synonymous with dependence on the state. The only reason why I’ve continued to label myself an Anarchist or Socialist-Libertarian rather than Meritocrat is because the former suggests a voluntary choice, rather than yet another ideology being forced on someone from without. Thats how most people will see it anyway, another crazy left-wing phenomenon which won’t gain much traction. The point is, if I agree with your platform, and would be willing to vote for your candidate, but in a philosophical sense consider myself an anarchist at heart, does that make me your enemy.

For those of you confounded by the supposed contradiction, let me explain. Its about what works. I am not apposed to the idea of government, but I’ve never felt like my vote actually counted. I’m not apposed to the idea of voting, but I’ve never seen a candidate worth voting for. I don’t play this bullshit lesser of two evils game. I WOULD vote for a Meritocrat, but as of now you are a marginal movement whose long-term existence has yet to be established with no candidates. What i do know works though are small self-sustainable agricultural based communities, collectively-owned businesses and housing co-ops.The green energy and organic food movements help bring an end to pollution, capitalist exploitation, economic inequality, etc. These are real changes which slowly gear society towards a healthy, conscious, resource-based economy. Not a bunch of self-congratulatory ideologues who dismiss such efforts as trivial or inauthentic. Don’t get me wrong, my writing all of this is not to be a troll or piss you off. I see myself as one of you, just one who is able to understand the Existentialist philosophers. Those of you who have read Buck-minster Fuller or have familiarized yourself with Jacque Fresco should understand my point of view. Rather than expecting to enlighten the entire society and bring change through liberal democratic reform, we could focus our energy on making such antiquated and detrimental forces like religion and government obsolete.

I have obsessed over how I can affiliate myself with a movement that so drastically ignores the sort of organic grass-roots approach I am talking about. Fuck the politics, we need a Meritocratic city-state. The best leadership is that done through example. How much easier would it be for those of you above (dealing with the politics) to convince the public if you could point towards an active non-political wing below (those of us focusing on an intentional community). We can have our cake and eat it too, by proposing a completely voluntary process of change appealing to anti-authoritarians/anarchists, and the politics appealing to liberal reformers. Its not as crazy as it sounds, living in Eugene and northern California I have personally met many such individuals already involved in such communities. I’ve met people with solar-powered eco-farms, people living in hollowed out trees, anything you can imagine. Anyway, may the philosophy be damned, this post is to let you know I’m in the process of writing a full book which I intend will outline all the “hows” of a Meritocratic society. In particular I am attempting to create the proposed structure of Meritocratic banking, the structure of Meritocratic companies, organizations, and how they might all relate to one another in a functioning meritocratic economy and community.

My goal is to design a society based only on principles of science and psychology, specifically designed to not allow any one ideology to form and take control. Rather than elected leaders, decisions would be made by a panel of individuals recognized by their peers as the best in their fields. There would be an individual to weigh in the potential costs and profits of an action to the community in economic terms, an individual weighing out possible environmental damage and preservation issues, as for one analyzing psychological impact, transportation, and so on. You would end up with a fully self-sustaining, fully voluntary community, yet with leadership derived only of the most qualified. Anyway, that is the direction I would like to take the dialectic in. It unites two very fractured philosophies while achieving the same goal. I wont have to see myself as an anarchist any longer, when a truly just society actually exists. As you work from above, so will I from below.

1 Like

If I fail to grasp the full meaning of what you’re saying, please try to bear with me. I’m definitely not trying to speak for all Meritocrats, but it appears to be that you actually see yourself more as a Meritocrat(in both thought and action), yet perhaps by way of previously(and strongly) held definitions(ie Libertarianism is an American ideology and you’re American), you see yourself more as a Libertarian or Anarchist. I know that you said that in your heart you are an Anarchist(right?), but it appears to me that it is mostly through the process of definition that you would see yourself that way, and not so much in practice or thought(if I understand you correctly).

When you said that you wished to design a society designed not to allow any ideology to take over, in your over-arching statement you listed many ideological aspects. All ideas are ultimately ideological if they are assembled into a package, aren’t they? When you design, you give shape, you idealize, thus creating or supporting an ideology.

I don’t think that anybody will say that the type of community or grass root efforts you support, or want to instigate are bad. Personally, I think that it is a great idea to establish at least one Meritocratic community or functioning model that can show in practice how it functions as proof of it’s merit. That’s a perfectly ‘just’ way to have the movement grow.

My intention was to point out how many ideas can be held in common across different ideologies if viewed with a bit of relativity. The only definition I really try to own is Existentialist, which in some ways can be seen as a philosophical “other” category. Its more or less the realization that the only truth we can draw from the world is what we experience for ourselves. It is instantly a negation of any “belief” other than what you demonstrably know to be true through personal experience. Thus I see the idea of one economic theory being “correct” as nonsense. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism are various models, but not “right” or “wrong”, they are only choices. Just like religious beliefs. Just choices. As an existentialist I usually refer to Anarchism or Libertarian thought as a good metaphor for the existentialist position. There has to be a label for opting out of labels, and to refuse to accept any one “system of thought”, is to be Existentialist in nature. This leaves only scientific inquiry as a means for determining what “works”.

Secondly, my point was to highlight the ignorance you just displayed. “Libertarianism” is most certainly not an American ideal, rather the current bastardization of its label on the part of Tea-Partiers, Koch brothers founded KATO institute, etc. It angers me so much how people assume that the information they get from mass media is correct. I’ve spent my whole adult life studying hundreds of years of political theory, economic theory, and philosophy. If you were to simply invest 5 minutes or so to searching the terms Libertarianism and Anarchism on wikipedia, you would see a diverse tapestry of thinking spanning several hundred years, which more or less all originates from enlightenment-era Europe. If you are to use the words correctly, then modern day pro-gun, tea party, anarcho-capitalist is most closely embodied by “Classical Liberalism”. Classical Liberalism is the view of foundign capitalists like Adam Smith, and is more or less the doctrine of lasse-faire capitalism.

Throughout history the terms Libertarian and Anarchist were almost exclusively used by Communists & Socialists fighting both authoritarian regimes and exploitative labor practices. You can google the Spanish Civil War for example and find out how roughly 1/3 of the country was once controlled by an anti-facist anarchist commune who redistributed free clothing, food, and housing to all residents equally. Only in the past literally 20-30 years has the term Libertarian been suddenly used by free-market conservatives in America, is a sick perversion of the terminology. Likewise, it was only in the past 5-10 years that the term anarchist has somehow been connected to this free-market conservative doctrine. Entire books have been written on the subject of these new “anarcho-capitalists” and how they represent those viewpoints in no way. Check out: “Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm” by Murray Bookchin.

So to wrap it all up, some stupid republicans, tea-partiers, and fox news have highjacked terms which for hundreds of years in Lliterature, politics and history meant the opposite of how they are being used now. People like yourself, most of the American political left, mass media, and the meritocracy website have all done what the conservative echo-chamber does and repeat incorrect information. Now a website of supposedly educated, enlightened people are merely accepting that the term Libertarian and Anarchist means something it does not because thats how they see it represented by American media. Now, because I am educated in both literature in history, I have people like yourself incorrectly telling me that Libertarian is an American ideology. I assert, that well-meaning individuals like yourself and the organizers of this website, have callously ignored the existence of millions who might be sympathetic to your ideals if you acknowledged that they exist (i.e. the 99% of Anarchists who identify as Socialist, despite what you heard on tv from Britain.)

Third, I am demonstrating to you how semantics and labels can keep millions of people divided when in reality their viewpoints are strikingly similar. Take these current definitions of “god”:

God - Omnipotent subjective consciousness whom created the universe through non-verifiable super powers.

or

God - The locus of consciousness to which all living beings are connected.

or

God - A word used to describe the unfathomable first principle which triggered the big bang.

If you were to choose definition 2 or 3, then you might be able to turn a christian or an atheist into an agnostic. An atheist usually adopts the position he does in defiance of the believers. While, agnostics can live in the murky language of someone willing to admit they are “still just trying to figure it out”. Now consider my definitions of Anarchist and Meritocrat:

Anarchist - Someone who opposes rule by tyrannical governments, kings, or gods. Someone who chooses voluntary cooperation and contractual agreements to coercive legislation and political force.

Meritocrat - Someone who opposes rule by tyrannical governments, kings, and gods. Someone who chooses to use coercive legislation and political force to ensure equality.

As the writers of the meritocracy international website know, voting in this current paradigm is a joke. There are no such things as free elections in America, they are predetermined. Thus, the only thing holding me back from dropping the Anarchist philosophy altogether is because the Democrats more or less say the same shit. “Vote for us and everything will change”. Well it didn’t, and it doesn’t change. And if you want to be a believable force for change you will all need to reach beyond mere politics and demonstrate real-world applications of meritocratic principles.

Lastly, I define an anarchist community as being one who operates voluntarily. If three communities existed next to each other: one communist, one capitalist, and one socialist. Then despite the particular ideological makeup of each, they would all by definition be anarchist communities so long as they didn’t try to force anyone to join their system. Whether or not they choose to operate in accordance with some authoritarian measures is still their choice, and thus not true rule or governance. They can opt out anytime they’d like. They may be into sado-masichistic tendencies, but hey… if thats their choice.

Also wanted to mention that I struggle with my understanding of the word “ideology” itself as you rightly describe it. I understand that anytime a political or economic position is chosen, then in some way an ideological stance has been taken. The one thing these stances always have in common are their subjectivity. In other words: a legislator passes a bill hoping to fix some particular problem. It may or may not be successful, and even if it does address the problem, may cause another. Any time we make a decision based on our own “guess” of what we think will work out best, we are acting as a totally subjective authority. Likewise if you make a decision because it says what your holy book wants, then the rest of us in society our affected by your subjective, unaccountable reasoning as a politician. However, if we were to complete remove “elected leaders” as we know them, and thus subjective ruling, are we still representing a particular ideology? If we approach each issue only on the grounds of a scientific dilemma, rather than a political one, are we even a government? I see it more as a think tank providing solutions for a leaderless collective devoid of specific ideological tenets. An organic civilization if you will.

That’s a lot of different subjects to get into, and I’m not going to travel down all of those different routes with you here. I can appreciate much of what you have to say, but a lot of these things are probably questions or issues that you have to answer yourself. I think there is a bit of misdirected anger here, too.

For sure I was using the term “Libertarian” in the modern sense and usage of the word, and I definitely thought that you were too. I was wrong? You meant the term in a prior historical context? No big deal. You’ve further clarified what it means to you, and I can take that into consideration. It’s good to have a common language without getting trapped in semantics. I’m just a guy responding to your comment. I’m not “the party”. Probably other people would have different things to say.

As to your next comment, I can see historical European examples where people in a community voted on issues just as people. There was no party, no Left or Right. I think that Meritocracy is a highly organic system. If there are some rules in place, they are the minimum possible, and they are always based on highest form of reasoning towards the commonwealth(in theory).

I apologize if I seemed angry, you provided some very thoughtful answers. My defensiveness is based on the nature of written material which led me here (the AC website if you are familiar), which incorrectly frames anyone with my viewpoint as a “conservative anarcho-capitalist psychopath”. I have a big problem with Meritocracy website also positioning itself this way, and thus eliminating a pool of possible supporters. I am trying to create the dialogue which would convince many Libertarians I know to check out the website. And encouraging all of you to consider using new rhetoric.

Eli, just as we don’t feel obliged to take either left or right, Meritocracy takes the good from everything. You have put down many words and I would love the time to discuss this in depth and maybe I will soon.

Anarchy has its positives and negatives. Just as Libertarianism. But as Meritocrats - so speaking - we don’t need any attached labels thus bringing in all the good to one place without the drama of each persons personal journey towards the truth.

Relativism however, stands against what many would suggest Merit means. We all use the simple 1+1=2 example to show that 3 is not acceptable. But what that really means is that some things are simply provable as wrong and have no place interfering with the advancement of mankind and our happiness.

If it has Merit then it will be utilized by this community, but it will not be called by or have the exact stance of any mentioned labels. Take the good, leave the bad, and I know the AC guys would agree.

You make a great argument, please help by merging these Movements. Speak about both where prompted, make a video showing the Merits of both, leave a letter on a public toilette…?

A hand shake… :libra:

Not to worry : ) This forum isn’t AC though, even if many people here have read it’s contents. I think the AC website is also referring to the modern usage and practice of the terms “Libertarianism” and “Anarchism”. If you have a more nuanced and historical perspective, and these definitions relate more to what is currently being described on AC or here, as “Meritocracy”, then I don’t see what the big deal is. Just words. If you want to bridge a gap, or communicate that there is indeed a common language, I don’t see the problem in that as long as it all pans out and is actually compatible. What matters is what we think and what we do. It’s important to be flexible, and I think that Meritocracy is a system of evolution. It’s just that it does have a basic structure. I see it as both complex and simple, in part because some of the justifications for simplicity are complex, and simplicity can in turn enable greater complexity. How’s that for some lofty Taoist posturing? :wink:

Anyways, I think that Meritocracy is also a term that the elites could use to describe why they are in their position even though this would be anathema to the usage of the term here. I think that first we seek out, define/understand ourselves, and then we align ourselves with what matches most closely.

Perfection isn’t here yet.