I personally was thinking of the idea that those that earn their right to vote should have be allowed to veto a president or prime ministers decision such as for example if a nation should go to war or which economic policies get implemented or what not. basically a citizen and State Cooperation on issues that affect the nation what do you all think?
Meritocratic government Authoritarian or Limited?
This seems to be in line with the way a Meritocratic democracy would work. The idea really is that only people who are educated in certain sectors would be allowed to vote for policies etc that affect that sector. You would need to be educated to degree level in economics (for example) if you wanted to vote on a new policy or leader in that field.
There would be parties representing different sectors, all members of which would be voted in by their relevant peers, which ideally means the best and most intelligent people get into the higher positions. Any major decisions would go through a vote by people who are educated in that field.
I would be for proffessional politicians and referenda for each big decision. That way the meritocratic politicians must make so good laws and decisions 2/3 or so of the population have to agree with it. Meritocracy should not be another way to bypass the public.
Sorry that doesn’t work for me. It sounds like financial elitists being replaced by intellectual elitists. The people of the lower classes fought & died for the right to vote and should retain it. Only landed gentry & experts in different fields had the right to vote at one time. This is turning the clock backwards, not forwards.
If Meritocracy is a strong enough idea that it eventually catches on, it should have nothing to fear from people voting for it or not. The above idea also gives the idea that once you got into power, you’d retain it by closing the door to anything else for good.
Along with 100% inheritance tax, this is another dead duck in the water idea that nobody will ever vote for. You seriously think people would vote for a party that will cancel their vote once elected?
Meritocracy needs to re-evaluate some of it’s core ideas, or at least find ways to innovate them to make them sellable to the worldwide population. eg: Would it not be better to have a committee of experts in each field who recommend political candidates, which the electorate then vote on? Other candidates who don’t have the experts backing should also be allowed to stand for election.
As things stand, there’s not enough support on the ground for Meritocracy and a world-wide revolution is not happening. Then the movement has to ask itself: Why not?
1 Like
Yes, they fight and died for the right to vote but only because that has historically been the next step towards a better life.
If the people were capable of voting in the appropriate elites, they would have done so by now. In most cases, the people have voted for effectively the exact opposite of who would rule appropriately. Is it not clear that any expertise identified by the current electoral process has little to do with serving the people?
In modern society, the complexities of socioeconomic life demand expert governance, by the true intellectual elite, for the people. We must force them to be free. Yes, this is not an easy sell but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.
You make a valuable observation however as it may be in our best interest to facilitate innovative structures that incorporate democratic elements, perhaps most effectively in regions which have a strong democratic historical precedent.
On the macro scale, we are best suited by experts appointed by the qualified, but on the micro scale, in the local economy, purely democratic structures will play a big role.
2 Likes
You both make valid points. I do feel that perhaps some of the end goals of Meritocracy might be hard for some people to swallow. So it may be the case of trying to work our way up to them, easing people in gently as it were. One example would be the millionaires death tax, people can inherit up to one million and anything over that is taxed 100%. Rather than going in with 100% inheritance tax. I’m sure there are ways we can implement other meritocratic ideas to a ‘lesser degree’ to get it off the ground.
1 Like
I think there’s an all round consensus on the millionaire’s death tax now Joel, it’s much more acceptable to voters & an easier pill to swallow for those who’ve built a nest egg for their children.
I think part of the point is to had over power to the intellectually elite. Allowing everyone to vote makes it no different from a typical democracy which I think had its time but has become obsolete. I agree with EMX. The complexities of social-economic issues in the 21st century have become far to great for anyone other than experts to have a seat at the table. I think one must prove their merit before being given a vote.
The difference between “Negative Liberty” and “Positive Liberty” clears this up. Please research those two terms if you’ve never heard them before.
1 Like