Developing the arguments for meritocracy


What we’re trying to achieve if we want to convince people is a set of concise, solid arguments. Ideas are transformative, so it’s helpful to get a comprehensive presentation together so the idea can be as successful as possible. It’s good to be able to quickly pin down the aims and intentions that distinguish meritocracy from EU bureaucracy, parliamentary systems, presidential systems and other failed types of government that actively cause problems all around the world.

Dialectical feedback is an important part of developing any idea or invention.

A good modern starting point is Brexit and the Catalonia independence issue, because of the intrinsic motivation you’ll have to now understand how these systems of government work (if you feel you’re being affected, as these are world-changing events).

At its core meritocracy implies merit: if you try hard and earn 3 PhDs on different subjects, you should be able to climb up the government and have more influence over the way society works. And for that to happen, people can’t have equal power in this type of governing system. Manual labour doesn’t entitle you to make world-changing impact for everyone else, and the lack of proven knowledge shouldn’t let you do that, by all rights, in any totally sane government system. You have to earn your say.

We also know that we should convince people via what they’re going to get, NOT what they’ll lose.

Meritocracy has the unique advantage over the dying liberal democracies in that WE will actually work to refine and improve everything about its public image; we are the ones that will learn and adapt it as it goes along, as an immortal piece of work which can transform and change unlike the failed current systems. (Which no amount of interesting events, political rallies or news clips will change!)

Meritocracy is all the difference and all the enlivening force. It’s implicit in the very idea of meritocracy. The world is just waiting for someone to do the work.

Meritocracy at the end of the day is UNDOUBTEDLY the only definitive, last choice for humanity - so unlike certain jobs, this won’t become obsolete and so it will always be worth investing energy into it.

Remember: this is the only way we get our highest potential out of each other here - the contentment and elation of creativity for a cause. No amount of being friendly or fraternizing too personally will produce anything interesting for us all to reap the benefits from. No amount of personal comfort will alleviate your anxiety over where the world’s going. Meritocracy is a spiritual cause because we say the future belongs to the ones who try the hardest to lead and to inspire and to contribute. If you’re stuck in a cycle it’s because you’re not achieving something that saves you from that cycle.

We the people,

Democrats here are suggesting you can’t have a past if it makes people sensitive or offended. Isn’t that wrong? Shouldn’t it be different - shouldn’t it be that no matter what you did in the past, the state doesn’t bend at all for the public’s distaste, but instead values the ongoing merit and contributions of its statesmen and -women?

Isn’t it crazy that in 2017 only one person in Brexit’s negotiation team has previous experience making international trade deals, 2500 years AFTER the creation of democracy in 510 BC?

You’d have thought they’d have evolved the process by now. But ideas rule the world and the quality of the idea limits its evolution. It boxes-in what’s possible. Democracy is limited by its core principles.

Another key thing is how the meritocratic state judges you. If you’re white, you aren’t guilty for your ancestors’ crimes of conquest. If however you follow an ideology (whether or not that ideology hides behind the label ‘religion’) you are to be judged on the merit of it. Everyone has to be judged according to merit, and so this includes the quality of the ideas, ideology and ideations a person believes in, espouses or supports in any way.

Jihadists and supporters of Islamic Jihadism in a meritocracy are enemies of the state whether or not they’ve returned from war. They will need to be deported even if they’re from a politically sensitive religious group, and even if they have family to return to. A meritocracy is about the quality of your ideas and contributions therefore you do not deserve to be treated well by the state if you seek to harm the meritocracy by pushing irrational violent rhetoric or any ideas and suggestions and acts of praise or incitement towards irrational violence. The same with anyone supporting racism against any group, and anyone harassing others: you don’t deserve to be tolerated and the state will do what it can to minimize your influence over society - because that’s the only way society can actually progress.

Free speech isn’t a free space, it needs government regulation against chaos. If you’re simply a provocative aggressor then you have no business being interviewed on TV - you’re a clown not a model citizen.

Prison in a meritocracy will need to be intelligent. It will have to examine the scientific, sociological and psychological insights. If prisoners don’t improve when they’ve simply been caged & thrown out with no support network, it might be better to give them support which doesn’t unfairly privilege them over people who try hard. Crime shouldn’t pay and prisons should offer a way forward but not just towards producing money for the rich, but towards merit. For psychopaths there might be a unilaterally different treatment than for those who’ve simply offended out of economic necessity or personal hardship.

Meritocracy is all about actively working together to seek the best and highest solutions for all the current significant social problems. This means rethinking and suggesting among experts (reconvening) all the time. We start from the most fundamental (quality of life, economic stability and health, fundamental social principles and priorities) and work inwards from there. The most fundamental aspects of how society is run are those which must come first. It’s no use talking about recycling when industrial and legal obstacles first stand in the way all around the country. Meritocracy proceeds from the core of the nation’s issues when considering moves forward. Because that’s what it’s about. (Not the opinions of the uninformed).


What exactly is the EU?

The EU organizations seem to claim or suggest they’re about preventing war and encouraging “more integration”, whatever that means.

You don’t have a choice who governs you from these non-national-governmental organizations - the European Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. You don’t get to choose the governing values. You don’t even get a vote for who is the commissioner or who in these other countries gets to set the precedent and the expectations of the whole system - the aims are simply influenced depending on contributing voices from other countries, and the mean average of opinions, or the most popular or some case-by-case compromise consensus is what’s used to decide the actual laws - in other words, the worst countries bring down every other country with their baggage, their problems and their degeneration in economic wants/inefficiency.

You don’t get to be free from the EU monster-state, just like Greece trying to elect a new government to start on a clean slate and start producing economic value i.e. quality of life for its citizens. Greece’s Syriza party wanted to avoid paying the debts - which were not a current world problem at the time for the other economies within the EU which were in financial/assets growth (GDP). So instead of Greece being free to try a new government system, the EU organizations and their ideations decided to punish the people of Greece and take away their option to start again, forcing them to go under increased hardship. In other words democracy is now parasitically keeping other new forms of government down and chaining them by the “sins” of previous governments;- it’s tying down all countries it can into this old model which doesn’t work and which relies on large multinational corporations siphoning off wealth from the poor up into the top 1% and the top 0.1% of moneyed individuals.

The “EU” itself then is unmeritocratic. It doesn’t proceed by scientific studies first of all; or by expert economists’ opinions first of all - it simply provides a proxy by which the big economic bullies within the EU can assert their power and influence. It’s an enabler; it’s the non-confrontational mediator function handing the best deal to the biggest dog in the fight (it must do, since it doesn’t challenge countries in any meaningful way). So the EU should at least come clean and stop pretending to be some saviour of the potential for the future - it’s not. All modern nations have to be dominant and scrape the barrel clean for their slice of the world pie, if that’s what’s necessary to protect the nation. But the European governments aren’t founded on futuristic, realistic ideas at all. The way in which these nations then end up vying for power is more like crazed vultures than it is like rational, measured, calm and collective Superhero figures - the vision of nations with empathy and compassion is somewhat dead in today’s world.

Neither The EU Parliament nor the European Commission are a strong voice on increasingly corporate values; exploding income & wealth inequality; the link between money and think tanks or companies partly owned by government officials; the revolving door between the state and the corporations; the economics fundamentals such as how rich individuals tend to hoard money while the poor spend what they have and thus increase economic activity through recirculating the money. These organizations, therefore, are not interested in improving the world’s quality of life but are simply interested in discussing current superficial aspects of influence of key EU nations. It’s laughable that any small nation within EU Parliament would consider itself treated with immediacy on par with Germany or France.


A big push for the meritocracy pitch is conveying just how lost our world would be without the place of experts in public life: inventors, scientists and researchers, engineers, mathematicians, political experts and thinkers. A government’s job is most centrally the correct allocation and use of resources: so if it can’t put the best most talented people in place to sort out the most fundamental national problems - then what is that government actually doing? And why wouldn’t problems like air quality begin to rear their ugly heads over time via mismanagement of national resources and human resources i.e. poor decisionmaking which breeds poor planning?

If someone knows more than you do about a particular topic, then an effective shortcut to having sound beliefs on that topic is to adopt the beliefs they recommend, or at least to assign extra weight to them in your deliberations. Imagine how much more difficult life would be if you didn’t privilege your doctor’s opinion about what medicine to take when you are sick, or your mechanic’s opinion about the parts that need replacing on your car.

Puerto Rico must be given the time it needs to grow its economy, create jobs, reduce the poverty rate, and expand its tax base so that it can pay back its debt in a way that is fair and that is just.

The economic situation in Puerto Rico will not improve by eliminating more public schools, slashing pensions, laying off workers, and allowing corporations to pay workers starvation wages by abolishing the minimum wage and relaxing labor laws.

Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and UBS racked up hundreds of millions in fees to manage Puerto Rico’s bond sales. These Wall Street banks have profited off of the suffering in Puerto Rico. That is unacceptable.

But even worse than these “logistical blunders” are the decades of poor economic policy put in place by Washington politicians. Historian Juan Cole traces the island’s failed economy, ultimately concluding that the “decisions that plunged Puerto Ricans into misery were taken over their heads, and they were powerless even to enter the debate, inasmuch as they lack statehood and so lack representation in Congress.”

Political comedian Lee Camp notes in a recent video that U.S. control of Puerto Rico is “colonialism 101.” Numerous activists have echoed this claim, some appearing before the United Nations to call on the U.S. to “decolonize Puerto Rico” and “prohibit the crime of colonialism.”

Colonialism is unmeritocratic. Give the islands back! Let people run their own meritocracy!


Consider the lamentable state of opportunity in the United States today. Our economic mobility is among the worst in the developed world. Children who are born rich stay rich. Others, no matter their merits, cannot escape the trap of poverty. Note that this is not because genetics determine economic outcomes; they do not. Instead, birth into wealth provides social advantages, like access to elite education, as well as brute inheritance. The wealthiest 1% of American households inherited, on average, $3 million. This is no coincidence.

Unequal opportunity is incompatible with meritocracy. Whether you are rich or poor ought to turn on your merits—not your parents’ merits, or their parents’ merits.

What are the remedies for unequal opportunity? We can provide high-quality education and health care to poor and middle-class children, and break up the intergenerational passage of wealth and influence. These policies are desirable not only on grounds of justice but of economic efficiency as well: Educated citizens are more productive, and less likely to engage in damaging activity, like crime.

Yet these policies are anathema to libertarians who demand “the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution”. They would eliminate Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, as well as all public support for education. At a time when we should be leveling the playing field, libertarian economic policies would make family circumstance an even more decisive determinant of prosperity.

At the same time that we have neglected equal opportunity, our economy has become less responsive to merit. We still reward innovators like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs—and rightly so—but we increasingly enrich executives who make no economic contribution at all. Dick Fuld, the former CEO of Lehman Brothers, made half a billion dollars for driving his storied firm into the ground and helping to crash the American economy. No merit, but an enormous reward.

We discriminate against best-qualified applicants because of their race or gender. We pay people more if they are pretty. We allow executives, like Fuld, to gain control over their own salaries, and so they make more than they deserve given their merits. And our labor markets are overrun with nepotism (anyone on the job market today will testify to the overwhelming importance of “networking”).


Corporate lobbying by private interests is unmeritocratic - it’s the unfair advantage of the invisible hand of the free market. It isn’t necessary in meritocracy, which seeks to hire the most achieved of society, the experts and the most merited - and not private interests. There is a whole world of difference and to deny this is to minimize the problem we have all around the world with private interests lobbying governments.

I actually do try talking with the government. I sometimes have gotten responses that make me think someone has looked at what I wrote. . . .maybe 1 time, over several years, someone of importance has read my message, but there certainly wasn’t a coversation with them.

I appreciate that the government does make some effort to hear the voice of citizens, but it’s clear that large corporations from other nations have a gilded door they can walk through to have real converstations with people in the government, while the only portal my messages go through leads into a garbage can.


Professional advocates make big bucks to lobby members of Congress and government officials on the issues their clients care about. But the money that industries, companies, unions and issue groups spend on lobbying is often just a drop in the bucket compared to what they can reap in return if their lobbyists are successful. Here you can see who spends what on federal lobbying and where they focus their resources.

Revolving Door

You’ve heard it before - it’s not what you know, it’s who you know. In our nation’s capital, success comes with a combination of knowledge and personal connections. This database tracks thousands of individuals who’ve spun through Washington’s “revolving door”, employing professional relationships and know-how accumulated through public service to advance the goals of their private employers.


In a campaign finance system where all the money originates from individuals, political action committees, or PACs, control the most “corporate” of money. Controlled by companies, trade associations, unions, issue groups and even politicians (a subset called “leadership PACs”), these committees pool contributions from individuals and distribute them to candidates, political parties and other PACs. PACs can also spend money independently on political activities, including advertising and other efforts to support or oppose candidates in an election.

Abuse and reform

The practice of lobbying is a natural outgrowth of representative government but is vulnerable to abuse, most commonly to bribery. Lobbyists attempt to buy influence in a number of ways, including making campaign contributions and collecting funds from other donors for re-election campaigns; offering services and privileges such as luxury accommodations or the complimentary use of a corporate jet for travel; paying for lavish events to “honor” lawmakers; paying for meals or vacations; and promising future employment. Lobbyists sometimes form Political Action Committees to support the election of a particular candidate. During 2007–2008, the Federal Election Commission of the United States limited the amount that individual lobbyists could donate to a political candidate to $2,300, and the amount that a PAC could donate to a candidate to $5,000.[8] During the 2008 presidential elections, over 140 lobbyists acted as “bundlers” for presidential candidates, gathering donations from other supporters.[9]

In response to lobbying abuses, Congress passed the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007,” containing a number of provisions that govern aspects of lobbying. It prevents former Senators from lobbying Congress for two years after they have left and maintains the current rule preventing former Representatives from lobbying the House for one year. It also prevents former members who become lobbyists from using Congress’ parking and gym privileges. Congressional travel paid for by outside groups must be reported on the Internet. Lawmakers are forced to report all lobbyist-bundled contributions that total more than $15,000 every six months. Lobbyists cannot pay for parties or events at national Party conventions. The Act increases disclosure of lobbyists’ contributions to lawmakers and entities controlled by lawmakers, including contributions to their charities, to events or entities honoring Members of Congress, contributions intended to pay the cost of a meeting or a retreat, and contributions to Presidential library funds. A searchable online database now discloses the previous employment of lobbyists in the executive branch and Congress, and Member travel and personal financial information.[10]

As the EU developed from a Member States organization into a substantial political entity, and dealt with policy in more areas, it became more important as a target for lobbying. The enlargement of the European Union in 2004 incorporated an even wider range of different political cultures and traditions. In the wake of lobbying scandals in the United States and the United Kingdom, rules for lobbying in the EU, which until now only consist of a non-binding code of conduct, may also be tightened.[17]

Current practice

The fragmented nature of EU institutional structure provides multiple channels through which organized interests may seek to influence policy-making. Lobbying takes place at the European level itself and within the existing national states. The most important institutional targets are the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament.[18] The Commission has a monopoly on the initiative in Community decision-making. Since it has the power to draft initiatives, it is an ideal arena for interest representation. There are three main channels for indirect lobbying of the Council. First, interest groups routinely lobby the national delegations in Brussels. Secondly, interest groups lobby members of the many Council working groups. The third means of influencing the Council is directly via national governments. As a consequence of its co-decision procedures, the European Parliament attracts attention from lobbyists who target the rapporteur and the Chairman of the Committee. The rapporteurs are MEPs appointed by Committees to prepare the parliament’s response to the Commission’s proposal and to those measures taken by the Parliament itself.

There are currently around 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs, and so on) seeking to influence the EU’s legislative process. Some 2,600 special interest groups have a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution is roughly as follows: European trade federations (32 percent), consultants (20 percent), companies (13 percent), NGOs (11 percent), national associations (10 percent), regional representations (6 percent), international organizations (5 percent), and think tanks (1 percent).


Meritocracy must mean the reversal of wealth privilege in the education, healthcare and social wellbeing aspects. We cannot tolerate better treatment of human beings based on the amount of wealth in their bank account - that is a direct assault on meritocracy and it’s the foundation for the anti-meritocracy we have all around the planet today.

There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans.

The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country.

We must send a message to the billionaire class: “you can’t have it all.” You can’t get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. You can’t continue sending our jobs to China while millions are looking for work. You can’t hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. Your greed has got to end. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibilities as Americans.


@Dionysus you might be interested in developing some of your posts on this thread as FAQs for or as articles.

Maybe even start your own project and list it on


Thanks @Roberto, I will look into that!

Can you make it a bit clearer how I would get an account on these sites? You can PM me.


Sure thing, just sent you a PM.