Page 2 of 8 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#12780 - 10/17/08 08:34 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't think the USA qualifies as a meritocratic society.

In a meritocratic society there is no room for democracy and although it would be fundamentally egalitarian, there is no room for equality in the sense of sameness. It's a society subject to social darwinism and probably isn't fun for those not being able to accept their limitations and according position in society. There would be something like an 'American dream' in it although the 'Meritocratic dream' wouldn't be as much for dreamers as for doers and even at some levels, wanting something and striving for it would not even qualify them.

Theoretical I know.

D.

Top
#12790 - 10/17/08 11:47 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
A true meritocracy could not exist within a State.

Only when people are free to thrive or whither on their own terms can there ever be 'meritocracy', and so long as one small group has all the guns and all the power(regardless of any real 'merit') that can never come to pass.

It is amazing how some people that would denounce the need for a higher power , spiritually, would be the biggest advocates for a more earthly higher power, when in fact the arguments against them are exactly the same.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12793 - 10/17/08 12:03 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
I think society in the US in a way is an anti-meritocracy. If you're good at what you do, you get promoted. You keep getting promoted untill you start to suck. Then they keep you there. Your're promoted to your own level of incompetence.
Top
#12794 - 10/17/08 12:10 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'd like to disagree here.

Anyone believing we can coexist peacefully without structure or hierarchy is dreaming. Even monkeys need hierarchy.
I don't think we need to debate the fact that humans are not exactly known as a tolerant, loving and respectful species.

So whatever system you'd devise would need some level of structure and damage control, no matter if it's a democracy, fascist or communist state. The more complex a society, the more complex its structures. Meritocratic, democratic or whatever just define how the structures are filled.

I can't see what arguments there are against a earthly higher power. At least none from a point of view that has a realistic perspective on the human race. But if there are some that escape me, feel free to enlighten me.

D.

Top
#12795 - 10/17/08 12:23 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I didn't say anything about removing hierarchy. A state is a coercive entity that only really deals with its own self preservation, and with those it benefits. I would even go so far as to say it prevents useful natural hierarchies from forming by keeping a non meritocratic artificially formed hierarchy in it's place.
I do not deal in ideals, but realities, but in my 'ideal society' all functions of the state would simply be absorbed into the free market. Services would sink or swim based on their own merit rather than have sluggish and ineffectual monopolies propped up by the very few that they actually serve, as is the case now.
Merit is based on competition, which doesn't exist in a monopoly.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12796 - 10/17/08 12:26 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I can't see what arguments there are against a earthly higher power.

Try this one. If people are too stupid/incompetent/whatever to rules themselves, how does it follow that a person is qualified to rule them all? All of the arguments against self rule also apply to state rule, in spades.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12798 - 10/17/08 01:42 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
So if on some isle people form a natural meritocratic hierarchy, how does this differ from a state? The same for anywhere. Disband all structures they have now and let them form natural hierarchies and structures and you'll end up with a state.
I don't really see the point here.
What we have now is a result of societal evolution. If you start it all over, it will again lead to similar constructs. There might be some differences here and there, you can give it another name but there will always be a lot of similarities.

Merit is indeed based upon competition but can exist in a monopoly. The problem with a monopoly is that if you stop improving, at one point you'll lose the monopoly. Monopolies can't become slackers. Not for long that is.

For your argument:

 Quote:
If people are too stupid/incompetent/whatever to rules themselves, how does it follow that a person is qualified to rule them all? All of the arguments against self rule also apply to state rule, in spades.


You start with the argument that if people are... then...

The problem isn't that all people are but that some are. So we will always have a % that are perfectly capable of ruling themselves. Their problem is that they are stuck with the rest. That's a pretty decent argument for state rule.

Like I said, I don't consider a meritocracy to ever be an option but in my opinion it's the system best fitting Satanism.

For myself it doesn't matter much, I'll survive in about any system.

D.

Top
#12803 - 10/17/08 05:17 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

So if on some isle people form a natural meritocratic hierarchy, how does this differ from a state?

The difference is that people would have the ability to opt out, and it would not be funded by thievery.
 Quote:

Disband all structures they have now and let them form natural hierarchies and structures and you'll end up with a state.

States do not naturally form from hierarchies. States are externally enforced.
 Quote:

If you start it all over, it will again lead to similar constructs. There might be some differences here and there, you can give it another name but there will always be a lot of similarities.

I agree. I think a society without a state would be very much as it is now, with a few major exceptions.
 Quote:

Merit is indeed based upon competition but can exist in a monopoly.

Oh? How is that?
 Quote:

The problem with a monopoly is that if you stop improving, at one point you'll lose the monopoly.

Obviously you've never had to go to a canadian hospital.

 Quote:

The problem isn't that all people are but that some are. So we will always have a % that are perfectly capable of ruling themselves. Their problem is that they are stuck with the rest. That's a pretty decent argument for state rule.

First, how do you draw the criteria between who is capable of self rule and who isn't?
Second, do you really think politicians are better human beings than the rest of us? More capable? Who's interests do you think they have at heart?
I'll tell you one thing, it isn't my interests.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12805 - 10/17/08 05:51 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You can't have a natural hierarchy without it at the same time becoming territorial. Unless you have only ten humans living on a potato field you can't avoid the formation of states.
The amount of people we are with, combined with the level of demands we have to function in this era will inevitably lead to states. They are not externally enforced but internally. Even if you look at whatever tribe, they function as a state, maybe not as far developed as ours, politically differently and certainly not as defined but they are a state nonetheless.

A true free market is only possible in laissez-faire capitalism and will result in monopolies. If you allow competition without regulation you cannot avoid it. If you don't like monopolies, you need a strongly regulated market or a more socialist structure for the economy.

I've never been into a Canadian hospital no but I assume they aren't the result of the meritocratic policy there so until you enlighten me, I do not see the connection between them and monopolies in such a system.

It doesn't matter if I think politicians are better human beings than the rest of us, that isn't what I talk about. What I say is that we need a government and we need law and enforcement. We need a system and rules to make life tolerable for most of us, even if some are capable of doing without. To know who isn't capable of self rule I don't need to do more than look around, open a newspaper or watch the news.

Self rule is a pretty nice thing but not in this reality.

D.

Top
#12808 - 10/17/08 07:27 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

1:You can't have a natural hierarchy without it at the same time becoming territorial.

2:Unless you have only ten humans living on a potato field you can't avoid the formation of states.

3:The amount of people we are with, combined with the level of demands we have to function in this era will inevitably lead to states.

4:They(states) are not externally enforced but internally.

5:Even if you look at whatever tribe, they function as a state, maybe not as far developed as ours, politically differently and certainly not as defined but they are a state nonetheless.


So here you make 5 completely unsupported assertions. Am I supposed to just take your word on these things? Each of them seem intuitively false, aside from number four. I suppose I chose my words poorly and left room for ambiguity when I said states are externally enforced. Of course, once they are formed, they 'enforce' their will on everyone. What I should have said was 'externally inserted'
 Quote:

A true free market is only possible in laissez-faire capitalism and will result in monopolies. If you allow competition without regulation you cannot avoid it. If you don't like monopolies, you need a strongly regulated market or a more socialist structure for the economy.

Another assertion..you are quite the propaganda machine aren't you? Why don't you give me an example of this happening without state intervention. Bet you can't!
 Quote:

I've never been into a Canadian hospital no but I assume they aren't the result of the meritocratic policy there so until you enlighten me, I do not see the connection between them and monopolies in such a system.

Well, canadian hospitals are part of socialist canadian medicare, ie a medical monopoly.canadian hospitals are also terrible, with some of the longest wait times in the civilized world. The point being that without healthy competition there is no longer a motivator to provide good service. It isn't like we can just 'go somewhere else'.
 Quote:

What I say is that we need a government and we need law and enforcement.

I think you are where I once was, believing that it was in fact 'the government' that keeps society from degenerating into chaos. It is true that if the services the government provides were to be suddenly gone, chaos would ensue. There are plenty of examples to support this.
But is the government really good at providing these services? Historically private industry does everything better than the government does, and the reasons why are pretty obvious.
Do you think things like decentralized courts and capital are possible? What about decentralized protection?(essentially law enforcement)
I don't see why this isn't possible without the shadow of the worlds largest street gang hanging over our heads.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12812 - 10/18/08 02:05 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You don't need to take my word for anything, you don't even have to look it up but it makes me feel a bit as if I am debating that reality is real and the other party says it's intuitively wrong. So let's take a different approach.

You explain to me how in reality you can do without states. I'm very interested.

At the same time, tell me how monopolies will not arise in a free market? Free market, not perfect market.

On this:

 Quote:
Historically private industry does everything better than the government does, and the reasons why are pretty obvious.


Been watching the news during the last weeks? A hell of an argument for governmental control if you ask me. If they didn't jump in, we'd be calling it the new great depression.

I'm gone a couple of days, so you got time to convince me.

D.

Top
#12824 - 10/18/08 12:17 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

You explain to me how in reality you can do without states. I'm very interested.

There are lots of examples of stateless societies throughout history.

But just to save some time I'll direct you to a resource(a discussion I was involved with) that will answer most of your questions. In fact, this is what moved me from minarchist to Market Anarchist

CLICK TO CHANGE YOUR VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT FOREVER!


Edited by Dan_Dread (10/18/08 12:18 PM)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12884 - 10/19/08 04:42 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Sorry mate but I don't see stateless societies. I see societies with a different governmental or political (if you like) structure but nowhere I see something that doesn't classify as a state. Mind you, it's not because the USA is a state that everything that doesn't resemble the USA isn't a state.

So might I assume that I'm not that loco for thinking that earthly higher powers are a necessity for our species to coexist?

And for anarchy; I'm going to refrain from sharing my views on it.

D.

Top
#12886 - 10/19/08 05:23 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I am willing to guess you didn't even click on my link.

So since you keep insisting we people need a state to function, try THIS on for size. Be warned, it's a fairly exhaustive list and a lot of reading to back each example up.

I suspect you won't look at this one either and continue bleating the same tune.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12888 - 10/19/08 06:20 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You are right, I didn't read all of the posts, many are just plain irrelevant. But I didn't miss this link, which they give as an example:

FAQ: Historical instances of Market Anarchic territories

And like I said, I don't see stateless societies. Either you have no clue what a state is, or you do deal in ideals, while I restrict myself to reality. Anarchy my friend, is for dreamers.

D.

Top
Page 2 of 8 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.028 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.