Defining governmental aims

#1

The first major flaw that I’ve grown to see in modern governments is that they are ‘aim-less’ by definition, and merely react to issues as they appear.

Thus, if you have no aim, you too have no true sense of what progression for the state really is. - You may think this is trivial but it is not.

I propose that the party adopts the following definition of progress
’anything that pursues a greater collective well being’

Once you have this definition, your meritocrats become a tool for the state to adapt itself towards progression, and they now have an objective aim to work towards.

On a side note, I believe that you are limiting yourself, by not promoting more systemic oriented discussions. Do you have the details, of how the government itself will be structured available to read anywhere? I’d love to read it.

#2

“anything that pursues a greater collective well being”

Not trying to be a dick here, but doesn’t the word “anything” imply a sense of aimlessness? —think about it. Thoughts anchored in the words anything, always, nothing, never, more often than not, result in cognitive distortions. One who paints with a fine brush, stating a specific goal(s), instead of painting with a huge broad brush, will usually have more success in reaching the goal.

I really like the end goal of the people of this site/movement, but I have issues with the sought after means in which to achieve these ends. The huge flaw that “I see” here with the meritocracy mindset is that it is rooted in collectivism. What humanity will benefit from Unity consciousness, which is, in a sense, the bridge between the root differences between the left vs right political paradigm. Both the left and the right are simultaneously correct and wrong in their thinking. The left (collectivists) and the right (individualists) are both operating with 1/2 truth. instead of the whole truth.

The Natural/Universal/Spiritual Law of Correspondence clearly illustrates the collective will only be as healthy as the individuals who make up the collective. Simultaneously, the individual will be limited to the extent of the collective’s health. Micro reflects the macro, and the macro reflects the micro. - - So to sacrifice the individuals rights will only prove to hurt the collective, and if the individual gets lost in what is “right” he will hurt the collective. Seems to me, the biggest problem society faces is as simple as knowing and understanding right and wrong, while most everyone thinks they know right and wrong…Do you think you have it down? Income tax? Inheritance Tax?

#3

I put this one here as Steven has also expressed some doubts about the policy of the MP. So we had this editorial about 100% inheritance tax in the main newspaper of Finland. I had a discussion about it in a blog with someone and we ended up thinking that in this kind of system the government will own everything in the end. That’s the end of anyone really wanting 100% inheritance tax.

I mean where do you get enough money to buy anything from the government which has inherited all the companies?

Personally I don’t need to own any corporation or even the apartment or house I live in. But how do you propose giving everything to the state as the not-so-glorious examples include The Soviet Union (crashed), Venezuela (almost crashed under one-party politics), North-Korea (starving under psychotic dictatorship) and probably some other good reminders why we don’t want to go that way.

I live in a country that has had a bloody civil war, “whites” vs. “reds.” Whites won so Finland didn’t become communist/socialist state like The Soviet Union, our former neighbour But anything that hints towards a bit more total socialism than the so-called welfare state is generally not accepted, except by a small group of devoted commuists.

1 Like
#4

The Last Post:

“Meritocracy” is actually hardore socialism (the state owns everything in the end). It’s not some kind of “synthesis” from capitalism and communism (we actually live in that kind of synthesis here in FInland now, would be better if it wouldn’t be so heavily lenaing towards socialism).

“Positive libery” is actually “prviledge.” Silly that the idea is supposed to be to get rid of priviledge yet at the same time people promote positive liberty which means the right to something by other’s expence. Which means priviledge.

#5

I didn’t get anything to this rant :frowning: But Sean came up with a brilliant idea of progressive inheritance tax. That might actually work. Seriously, positive an negative liberties are quite reversed in the post above; priviledge in negative liberty societies is a benefit of the rich and the rich only. Positive liberty societies (like Finland) at least theoretically allow everyone the chance to live and become as highly educated as they want. So case cleared; I have no more trouble with some of the most common objections to meritocracy :slight_smile:

1 Like
#6

Hi guys.

In my view, we should emphasise that although we do, as meritocrats, concentrate on what is good for the common good, we achieve it by allowing individuals to actualise themselves to the full. Is this not a possible synthesis of collectivism and individualism?

#7
1 Like