Implementing Party policy and building political Structure. (Indedependent Meritocracy National Governments Collaborative International Meritocratic Coalition)

#1

I think that it is very necessary that we design a method and procedure on how we are going to discuss and implement Official Meritocracy Party Policy. I strongly advocate that we build a coalition of official Meritocracy Parties from around the globe that adhere to official principles like Equal Opportunity, No Discrimination, Social Capitalism, Millionaires Inheritance Tax etc. while allowing Meritocracy Parties in their respective nations the freedom to implement policies within these official principles that best suites them in their respective countries. Within both the National and International there should be a mechanism or procedure on how to discuss topics that concern politics, economics, legislature,trade, Terrorism,Arms deals and treaties, Foreign relations and immigration and any other important issues I have left out. We must also discuss and develop our political Structure. For example how many branches of government will we have? What will be the amount of time served and salary paid to a Meritocratic politician? Will we have a system of checks and balances and if so how will it be set up ? All this must be thoroughly developed if we truly wish to actualize Meritocracy as a Republic for the nations. I believe that the fact that these things are continued to be delayed is significantly halting our progress within the Movement. We as a body of Meritocrats should not be divided on important matters concerning current events and should be unanimously united in our Party’s views, policies, and goals. Developing the theoretical political framework of this movement will further us in clarifying our message to the public and our members and will advance us greatly.

2 Likes
#2

There is no universally recognised leadership and until they all agree who has authority and who doesn’t we will continue to have various separate and perhaps even competing factions.

There are two general issues:

  1. No constant leadership. There is nobody here all the time who is universally trusted by all factions. There is nobody there at all times to answer questions. I mean how many people in this forum alone don’t even know each other? This thing needs a strong leader who is undisputed and can act as a unifying force.

There are too many ego maniacs and not enough leaders.

  1. Lack of organised political philosophy. There are people working on this but for the moment there is too much of ‘What meritocracy means to me?’ so it becomes totally interpretative. Our policies philosophy the lot must be written in an airtight fashion that would stand up in a court of law.

I mean there are continuing disputes about what our core values are. That is absurd.

A full and detailed constitution outlining absolutely everything must be done to professional and legal standards.

That in my view has been a priority for a long time but nobody else sees it that way.

3 Likes
#3

I think Helen is about to post something soon about an international ‘standard’ guideline for forming political parties, along the lines of what Manuel just suggested. We might differ on some issues etc… but that would go a long way to forming some international guidelines that we all agree on, in relation to forming the new parties, country by country & state by state. That would be a good start.

1 Like
#4

I see it that way

#5

Branding/recognition through symbols is important to get as consistent as possible. The compass star has worked very, very well. It’s proven to attract people who want to know more and participate, is easily replicable in different kinds of media, and is being attractively adapted to different countries’ symbolic colors and combined with their own symbols. The TMI Star is elegant—beautiful, says a lot symbolically—but mainly the issue now is that it’s proven to work and promising to work on a larger scale. For unification of recognition, for cohesion, all parties should use it. Congrats and tons of thanks to Diarmuid, who designed it!

The phrase Equal Opportunity for Every Child has been decided for a couple of years now to be synonymous with the Meritocracy International and the Meritocracy Party (it’s all over MeritocracyParty dot org). It’s a verbal emblem, where the Star is visual. It pulls together everything from our vision and mission down to the tasks. It’s like the guiding voice light that the Star shines graphically. Again, global recognition is served by its continued attachment to all the parties. The credit for this piece of genius goes to Casper Saul. Equal Opportunity for Every Child has snowballed from an inspired utterance to an internally agreed-upon trademark to a banner that thousands of people interested in Meritocracy now recognize, thanks to its continued attachment to MeritocracyParty dot org articles. It’s taking off from there into the parties, and that should definitely continue, and deliberately so: like the Star, it works and will keep working.

There have been concerns over consistent leadership and agreed-on policies and framework. Meritocracy does need to be worked out by the people living it, and that’s us right now, but the Meritocracy International has in fact produced work that answers many questions brought up in recent months. I will get docs that were already made after much rational discussion. Then people can discuss it here and take it to their parties, adjusting as needed for their localities.

It’s already been proven that a Meritocratic Constitution with infinitesimal detail as to restrictions and prescriptions won’t work. Rather, strong pillars provide framework, and then within those boundaries, meritocrats will develop with each other the local guidelines based on their collective talents and other resources. I know it sounds vague. Instead of maybe forgetting a pillar or two (I see some as major and some as minor but still vital with regard to going out to all the parties), I’d rather locate all this stuff from different pages on the wiki and our previous forums. If anyone wants to help gather this work, I can give you links for where to look.

It’s energizing to see the willingness, fervor, with which many here are approaching their involvement. Please understand that some who are away for a while are doing their best to get back here, having non-negotiable responsibilities to people in their professional and personal lives.

4 Likes
#6

Please do provide those links. There are political specialists literally itching to subject them to analysis.

I strongly suggest that these documents should be sent to all members of this forum and all new members without exception. It should be the default recruitment procedure. I’ve been involved here for such a long long time and I’ve seen none of this.

Who is responsible for managing this info? Nobody.

Somebody who has the time should be commissioned with fully briefing new recruits to a level that they could defend our position when it is criticised.

I hope you are all well,!

2 Likes
#7

Completely agreed and Helen please do share these links :smile:

#8

"A Constitution does not need to specify endless details, clause and subclauses. It simply has to state all of the central concepts upon which the State will be founded. In the Meritocratic Constitution, the ten concepts listed below should all be in an ascending trajectory within the Meritocratic State:

  1. Merit
  2. Freedom
  3. Equality of Opportunity
  4. Dignity
  5. Psychological well-being
  6. Reason
  7. Quality
  8. Creativity
  9. Aspiration
  10. Community"

It further goes to state the highest body is a Philosophical court which addresses all citizens concerns based off age ranges, and largely replaces the lawyers and politicians. The constitution is above any presidency and cannot be defied by the presidency.

What do people think of this?

#9

I think while we are looking for more laws to fix a broken system, technology will probably be the only way.

Imagine a mobile community that doesn’t pay rent.
A bunch of people who live in Vans with solar panels on their roof.
Gaining access to mobile Internet that will some day be free of charge.
With the technology to grow certain superfoods like Spirulina in small water tanks within the Van.
Storage for a few hundred liters of water, while having a water condensation machine for backup, it’s a machine that extracts water vapor from the air - google it.
Each Van containing a 3D-Printer to print any mechanical parts to fix most technologies in the van.

All these technologies already exist, we need to get our technological “shit” together, not create BS rules and laws and legal systems. Laws don’t solve problems, Science does. You create a technology to solve a problem.

#10

I am curious to know if there will be a system of checks and balances implemented into this. What is to prevent the “Philosophical Court” of possessing too much or if not absolute power and becoming despotic?

#11

The rise of technology will surely play a significant role in Meritocracy as Meritocracy encourages rationalism and science. Increase in rationalism and scientific enquiry surely equate to the rise of technology and innovation. As a transhumanist I think there needs to be ethical and moral ramifications to high technological advances and the scientific community needs to incorporate the People>Profit principle.

#12

People>Profit is also a tenant of Communism, so I think its a bit more complicated than that.

Meritocracy is a Synthesis of Capitalism and Communism, taking the best from both minus the weaknesses of both. Thesis being Capitalism, Antithesis being Communism, Meritocracy is the Synthesis.

Both capitalism and communism are lowest-common-denominator systems where people engage in a race to the bottom. In Capitalism the quality of the products get worse and worse and people get off on Fart Apps and Refrigerators that breakdown after 6-months lol

Likewise Communism is also a race to the bottom with no incentive for doing anything.

1 Like
#13

I understand that is the analogy we use for propaganda but I don’t think capitalism and communism should be generalized like that. Countries that are generally considered to be communist/ capitalist are really mixed economies not to mention there are different variants to communism and Capitalism. The framework for Social Capitalism needs to be thoroughly developed and this requires the assistance of economists, political scientists, and experts on finance.

1 Like