Now the superrich are in charge, there are just a few of them compared to others.
Replacing them with just a few with top education from their fields deosn’t really make a difference to the ordinary folk. Or does it? How to explain?
Narrow elite replaced by another narrow elite?
This has been written about extensively on the .org site, which is down now but the articles can be found here
http://meritopedia.org/index.php/Works_for_the_Public/Published [1]
A primary function of the meritocratic system is to ensure that narrow self-interest plays no role in governance. It is thus incoherent to see the replacement of a few super-rich rulers by a few super-intelligent/meritorious rulers as transferring power to similarly self-interested groups.
This raises a further question of the way in which governance will be distributed among various experts in comparison to what is currently in place. I can say that this distribution would be specific to different regions but not much else.
From Volmer’s post about Finland, it seems that Finland’s governance problems are more about inaction because of poorly designed political incentives than about the type of corruption and greed we are battling elsewhere. If this was the case then shouldn’t ordinary folks be concerned about figuring out a better way to identify the best leaders as well as give them better opportunity to implement the best policies?
In general, your point is certainly valid and the average person is frequently put off by meritocracy for the very reason you are pointing out. In fact, this points to a fundamental aspect of the anarchist mode of thinking, which we must work to annihilate if we are to succeed. So in short,the main thing we need to focus on in this instance is demonstrating how our system mitigates the “particular will” of those in power, in favor of the general will. There is a lot that goes into that discussion so it is pertinent that we continue to refine our rebuttal to such concerns. In the Meritocracy General Platform thread, it is suggested that all high-level government positions must pay no more than minimum wage, we develop policies to outlaw nepotism and cronyism from public affairs and a national wealth registry reveals all affiliations, investments and background information of those running for office.
I think handling this issue without using terms from political philosophy like general will and particular will could help to create a message that will be more easily received en masse.
1 Like
Klockars
10h
Now the superrich are in charge, there are just a few of them compared to others.
Replacing them with just a few with top education from their fields deosn’t really make a difference to the ordinary folk. Or does it? How to explain?
It makes every difference if authority is given over to those with the world’s future in mind.
I think we need to pave out some context here.
We live in a world that places a price on everything, including politicians and political discourse, so the big idea is to switch focus onto the key actual problems of the world- which only the smartest can solve. If a government of highly intelligent people can be created - then surely there will be no match for this nation, since it would actively transform itself into the best it could be. Doesn’t that sound amazing? If not, we need to know why.
Meritocracy is about giving the best examples of humanity their turn at running the world. Nothing less. Everyone gets a chance to show their achievements- but only those who’ve demonstrated key abilities will get to the higher positions of government. “Who you know” is not a deserved achievement. It’s irrelevant. Only the ability of human beings to serve the world should grant them any authority at all. That’s the intent behind meritocracy: rule by only those who have already proven themselves insofar as merit or ability. It’s the only thing that’s globally fair. Meritocracy is pro-State, pro-Government, pro positive liberty, pro competition - the aim is simply to produce the smartest, most efficient = most intelligent and rational government. In that ideal, there is no space for intellectually lazy, arrogant politicians who want to mooch off of the efforts of society.
(These are my ideas and suggestions. Admittedly, I haven’t seen a strong, clear definition of what Meritocracy is, anywhere on this site yet.)
Keep in mind that all of these points have major impacts for any nation adopting them (if and when). It’s all relevant.
I see this splitting up into several immediate considerations. I’ll go over my image of a meritocracy. We have-
- What would the average person notice the most?
- The problem of selecting candidates for government;
- The problem of safeguarding against corruption;
- Concerns about a new form of government.
- What tangible differences would the average person notice, after 5 years of rule by meritocrats?
(1.) No difficult forms to fill in, no loan sharks, workers’ rights such as fathers’ maternity leave (see last link at the bottom)
(2.) Clear, direct discussion on why the government does what it does, over TV and the Internet.
(3.) Environmental and technological conclusions based on reason, facts & evidence of the highest quality.
(4.) The government taking tips from other nations about what works and the science behind it.
(5.) Efficient and thorough and smart behaviour in general, by the state and its services.
(6.) Vastly improved education, designed to bring out the maximum potential in every child. Equal opportunity for every child.
(7.) Debt Cancellation. We’re swimming in debt. How much of it is even legitimate? We pay billions a year in interest payments because we have to keep borrowing and borrowing from banks to pay our existing debt. They get bailed out while millions of us descend into poverty and despair. The people deserve their own bailout.
- How do you go about selecting candidates well, by design? It might seem very complex at first but it’s quite clear to me-
(1.) (Clear intent.) There is a clear difference between high achievers and those who take credit for work someone else did. People who work hardest work with difficult problems, not their self-presentation. They have everything to give because this is what expertise demands: attention and focus given to the problem. Smart party leaders would write their own speeches, which would be a good start! Those who have a great experience and knowledge can always demonstrate it- and they also shine with a strong intent, which is invested in the benefit of the world at large as opposed to stopping short of their own nose. It’s not like a government couldn’t make these tests on individuals rather than the old paperwork check.
(2.) (Open platform.) Geniuses have nothing to hide. Open and public debates, on a strictly intellectual basis, would filter out any fatcats because the experts would deal with real-world problems. You can’t cheat your way to extreme intellect in the top national range, with a destructive ulterior motive the entire time. Live TV debates (the kinds of which simply do not exist today), moderated again by experts of that field, would in theory allow any member of the public to get their point across if the idea itself holds merit- and only then, through reasoned argumentation. I see no problem with picking new MPs through this process.
(3.) (Attract the best.) MPs and anyone involved in decision-making would have minimal wages, which deters the selfish, since we know only the more selfless of society are willing to sink huge amounts of personal time into what benefits the world before themselves- and that’s today. In a meritocracy, even the governmental position of a low-paying job doing what you love, would attract far more productive candidates, contributing to a superior, rational government and state. That leaves just the criteria itself, which is refined as time goes on.
So, there I’ve contributed something to the first problem. An intelligent government, if elected by the people in the first case via its own merit, would more than likely be able to set itself up with appropriate measures to ensure meritorious behaviour and nothing less. Those dedicated to their work would by that very nature be dedicated to strengthening the meritocracy, as it is the ultimate goal for them. Unless of course something better comes along.
- Corruption is a fundamental world problem when money is the centerpiece to the political system, as it is today. But with a strong focus on intellect rather than the influence of flavor-of-the-month ideological clashes, it is expected that money will have minimal effects on influencing the direct activities of the meritocratic government itself:
(1.) (Privilege.) Elite schools and any alternative political parties simply won’t be necessary. Under the rule of the smartest, the door is always open- and rightly so, when we’re all part of the political community. But not to the smug or the moneyed classes. Governing a nation is a very serious matter indeed. It’s important that every part of the nation has a legitimate claim to contributing ideas and knowledge. No class of individuals is innately superior without their ideas and knowledge, and this needs to be made crystal clear. In a meritocracy, good deeds are the only criteria for your success!
(2.) (Facade.) Voting is based on domain knowledge of large groups of experts, and not empty promises made by individual politicians backed with no university-level education in science or perhaps not even an IQ test. The difference is hard knowledge—as opposed to flashy branding campaigns—to decide the future of the nation. Political money would be “lucky” to enter the race at all, since the smartest ideas will have no attachment to X corporation’s wish list- unless of course those items are also the most rational choices for the nation.
- How do you know a new system of government would achieve far more than the current one? It’s a valid question and needs to be addressed in detail. Here are my thoughts on it-
(1.) (Solid underpinning.) The understanding of the different roles needed and which will complement one another, is built on the MBTI system which analyzes the fundamental different personality types of human beings.
(2.) (Potential.) What is being generally accepted here with the idea of a meritocracy, is that those who genuinely are able and willing to contribute to the tough issues of solving the general problems a state does, would indeed simply do that, if they’re even given an opportunity. And that they don’t care about the money- what percentage of Mensa members are billionaires? It implies people already do exist out there who are smart enough and up to the task, perhaps eager and frustrated already. It implies that there are extremely intelligent people out there who can adapt and cooperate—all in all, I don’t think that’s so lofty an expectation, or a particularly imaginative one in itself. I think it’s very straightforward.
(3.) (Substance.) Whatever is being done at the moment- it can’t be that complex or mystical if most politicians can’t win a debate purely on intellect, without their rhetoric and their media cheerleaders. It can’t be that sophisticated if politics has absolutely zero to do with integrating science, or any advanced thought, into the daily workings of the nation. So, that means more intelligent human beings must simply be able to do better! There’s plenty of people with existing knowledge of how the various parts of government works, or policing works, or waste management works. There is no great challenge when it comes to information. What is needed—intelligence and expertise and well-developed minds, is what. This is in desperate shortage all across the board.
(4.) (Intelligence hotspot.) If all a political party needs, to win favor, is a more impressive media display or a more financially tight fiscal budget, then this leads to short-sighted behaviour if we assume nothing else major affects the popularity of political parties. They go for the path of least resistance - least work to win votes. No major challengers to excellence, would surely breed lesser qualities of excellence in general areas of governance. However, a meritocracy sidesteps this problem with all types of smart thinkers it can bring in into government roles, for whom the temptation to lie and cheat a way to success is extremely low. Well-developed and engaged geniuses who see plenty of opportunities paved out for them, would be far superior in any task and definitely to the current method of letting polarized narratives battle it out. Smart people fight with the power of thought, not deceitful, emotionally-loaded stories. There is a world of difference, and it shows.
Then you have the broader, more indirect levels that this idea of Meritocracy works on, like whether it’ll be run into the ground financially via multinational corporations jumping ship, as expressed in another thread. These are more complex considerations, all affecting each-other, and they merit some further discussion on their own discussion threads. But by and large, I myself am convinced that these aspects, like a smarter military and a well-functioning economy, are, in the main, settled by this government-of-the-brightest aspect. It does need much more discussion before anyone much is convinced, yes.
There are other issues also which are key to this discussion. How is it possible to define merit? What counts, and what counts the most? Who measures, and where? It might be as straightforward as trusting the judgement of peers of a similar achievement level. If there are many peers at each level, then the risk for corruption is minimized—which is itself a mathematical problem! If a networking system and online discussion forum is written by smart programmers on government money, every online forum poster might for example get gravitated towards discussion threads of a very similar taste to their own, that others are contributing to. Complex and long-range thinkers can organize information in categories to expose the workings of government for public suggestions and criticism. Inconsistencies and loopholes - these are the things certain MBTI personality types excel at. Modern politics has no conception of this. It has no solution; no method for putting the geniuses in the world to good use.
None of the smarter solutions are possible under the current form of government, because there will always be enough money and thus enough undeserved expenses for the politicians to lap up. They have it set up perfect like it is- they’re in no hurry to change it. Modern politics is funded by large amounts of money, just like TV and other media. There needs to be some other measure for what influences the world than just the ability to collect money. There needs to be some sense to it all, built in, so that it can’t be cheated or exploited, and so that the end product is a smarter, healthier, more productive government and society! You’ll always have corruption somewhere, but the smart thinking can go a long way to preventing it.
(Any constructive criticism on this is accepted, thanks.)
Links:
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/
2 Likes
Please note that the Works for the Public page that shows works Published needs updating. There are more articles that were published in 2014. 
Also, we’re working very hard on getting the website back online. There are database issues at the server.
1 Like
One of the problems, even of meritocracy, is that people server their own interest. And their interest is money, usually, even if they start as a meritocrat.
Look how democracy works now. People vote for a party, not for a person. (this is dealed with in meritocracy, but not the following point) After they get elected they will serve the interests of the super rich, the banks and the big corporations. This is because, after they get out of politics, they want to have a good paying job, which must be offered to them by the rich club, who can offer those millions to them for serving their interests.
This problem is not dealt with by meritocracy. People, who are elected, will still have an after-politics-life. So, if they want to get a well payed job afterwards, they will still serve the super rich, the banks and the big corporations, because then they will reap the reward of ratting out the public.
How can meritocracy ensure that politicians serve the common interest of all and not the interest of a few superrich? I think this is a very weak point of meritocracy and I would like to get a strong answer to this if I am going to promote this political system.
3 Likes
I suppose the most basic concept of meritocracy that would deal with this issue would be the maximum wage that anyone could earn, one million a year for example. Which would help avoid massive differences between the richest and poorest people. So there would not be any of the “super-rich” people that you speak of.
Also the banks and corporations would be accountable to the people. So it would be possible to ‘vote out’ any politicians, banks CEO’s etc that weren’t seen to be working in interest of the General Will.
That’s how democracy started too. Power to the people and all of that. Then the rich saw a way in and took advantage of it. Democracy has a weak point and that is, that you have an after-politics-life. Meritocracy has it too. Maybe this can be solved by professional politicians for life?
All new political systems start off as a way to rule the world more fair. The stronger a system is in theory, the less it is likely to become corrupt in practice. I agree with the above points Joel, but I see the same going on over time. The wages at the top will rise, the bottom will fall and the whole thing starts over again, brought to us by the weakness meritocracy has.
Professionals appointed for life may not be the best solution, but it sounds a lot better to me than politicians who rule the country and then enter businesses which they gave an unfair advantage, making the old nepotism nightmare come true again.
It could work like this: the smart and good hearted people go to a special school for politicians where they study until they are at least 30. As not everyone is suited for this job many will go to normal life again, after they failed to become strong and good hearted “wise men”. The ones who make it will form a team of politicians who work together with the chosen ones by the people. Over time they will have enough experience to be able to rule, after which they will be eligible to be voted for. All people who finish political school are appointed for life. This will deal with the after-politics-life, as there is none.
I am not saying this plan is perfect, but it does deal with the problem I set. What do you guys think?
You can link the maximum wage to the minimum wage. For example, if the minimum wage is £6.50/hour then you could arbitrarily say that the maximum wage can be no more than 10 or 20 times that. In this case, that would be £65/hour and £130/hour respectively.
Therefore, if you’re at the top of the pay scale, you’ll need to campaign to increase the minimum wage if you want to earn more.
That’s excluding the myriad of ways in which you can earn money, e.g. capital gains. Another solution would be to impose a maximum earnings cap. For example, you can’t earn more than £1,000,000 a year (or receive that amount in the form of stocks, bonds, properties, items…) - This has its own possible loopholes but I just wanted to point out that there are viable solutions that are simple in principle.
I don’t think a special politicians school would work, mainly because the people who graduate from there will have no real life experience. They won’t understand what 9-5 is and the ones who fail will have a hard time finding a job.
One of the proposals on the UKMP site is
A public lobby composed of experts in their fields of expertise, who pressure Parliament to act in the interests of the People and not those of a shadowy global cartel who are only interested in sucking wealth from your pocket into theirs.
This public lobby offers their proposals on legislation and over time should be the sole proponent, representing everyone in a sector but always focused on achieving the maximum social good from changes in the law. Parliament approves or disapproves laws. Therefore the question becomes who should be eligible to become a member of Parliament? What are the requirements? What are the limitations?
This is by no means a definitive solution. It’s something that needs to be worked on. Every country has their own government structures that need to be carefully studied. While most democracies appear the same on the surface (the rich rule), a single rule of order in parliamentary procedure can have vast consequences if you’re unaware of it, to give an example. The devil is in the details as they say.
The long and short of it is that we need to study the current systems and find ways to turn them into “meritocratic systems” that require the least amount of time and energy. I.e., we need to be effective and efficient and it’s going to be different in every country.
1 Like