I don't doubt for a moment that you fail to comprehend such elementary statements
Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?
- Thread starter ll StarTrekFan ll
- Start date
I don't doubt for a moment that you fail to comprehend such elementary statements
I don't have a problem with the concept that someone with education or experience in finance being part of a board that governs a country's budget. That seems sensible to me.
@Refuge
Yes--exactly. The idea is, people with demonstrated competence in an area have some pull in that area while those who are overtly unqualified will not be allowed to participate. Note, this is already how many areas of our society already function. My proposal simply expands this principle across all sectors using the most successful such model we current--namely Academia (or, more particularly, the Scientific Community) and then dispenses with the middle-man (i.e. the Administration, translated to the Centralized Government)
Yes--exactly. The idea is, people with demonstrated competence in an area have some pull in that area while those who are overtly unqualified will not be allowed to participate. Note, this is already how many areas of our society already function. My proposal simply expands this principle across all sectors using the most successful such model we current--namely Academia (or, more particularly, the Scientific Community) and then dispenses with the middle-man (i.e. the Administration, translated to the Centralized Government)
Not saying it couldn't. Even corporations and religious groups are meritocratic in nature.
A
Amaris
Guest
I see that you're working to make a point, but I'm not certain at all what your point has to do with what I've said. You asked whether or not a meritocratic oligarchy is superior to a democratic republic, and I said no. Your follow up on how it would work in Academia has no merit, as it were, because science doesn't work through the same principles as a democratic republic. You're making several arguments, and I'm not sure you're keeping them entirely separate, because together they do not work at all.
Honestly, the concept of excluding any group from being able to vote or hold public office due to "competence" issues...is chilling, to say the least. And it has no place in modern society.
A
Amaris
Guest
Indeed. Things like that usually start with the best of intentions, but it's so easy to add "undesirables" to the list, and before you know it, you have a select few making the decisions for the many, and those few are in a privileged position and represent no one but themselves. That's the crap we have right now. We don't need more of it.
This is not TNZ, and you cannot attack other users here. I haven't seen you doing this before, so consider this a "friendly" warning. No more personal attacks/insults, please. Any more will result in an infraction.
Post, not poster.
Thank you.
Education is expensive. I trust, in this model, education would be free. I only have a Bachelor's Degree but would have a Master's if education passed high school, in general, were more affordable.
Otherwise, the unfortunate reality is that percentage of votes would be based not on the highest education level possible for someone to attain, but the highest education level they could afford to. A system ruled by those of merit is undermined when money is also involved. Not just because of education but also because money can sway even intellectuals.
Otherwise, the unfortunate reality is that percentage of votes would be based not on the highest education level possible for someone to attain, but the highest education level they could afford to. A system ruled by those of merit is undermined when money is also involved. Not just because of education but also because money can sway even intellectuals.
Last edited:
Oligarchies are societies controlled by a wealthy class. There are no social classes inside the Federation. The UFP has no underprivileged people or privileged people, only citizens who are equal to each other. Humans are shown to have left artificial scarcity a very long time ago.
There's no point of having a meritocracy in a post-scarcity Society. The justification for a meritocratic system lies in the belief that scarcity exists, so you have to prioritize those who "deserve more" to get things first. In the Star Trek Universe everyone has their basic human needs fulfilled "for free", no citizen is prioritized over the other.
Starfleet won't assign you to a starship because you earned imaginary points, you get assigned to a starship because your abilities are needed to complete some specific task there. It's a more pragmatic approach than one based on something so subjective as merit. The Federation and its institutions resemble more a Democratic Republic than a Meritocratic Oligarchy. Democracies aren't only about votes or electoral politics, you can call democratic everything that puts the will of the People above everything. The Federation definitely always prioritized its People. So, the answer to your question would be no.
@Amaris
"I see that you're working to make a point"
Yes
"You asked whether or not a meritocratic oligarchy is superior to a democratic republic, and I said no. Your follow up on how it would work in Academia has no merit, as it were, because science doesn't work through the same principles as a democratic republic."
I know it doesn't, as it is completely obvious how destructive Democracy would be--even though it is perfectly conceivable & legitimate format for Academia; it just simply wouldn't be rational
"You're making several arguments, and I'm not sure you're keeping them entirely separate, because together they do not work at all."
They work perfectly well, it simply hasn't "clicked" with you (and some others here) yet. Interestingly, I have discussed this topic on several other forums now, and only one other member has truly understood the model being submitted & it's relation/comparison to our current system--he (this other member) is also part of Academia as a student of Mathematics & Physics as I am, which may suggest that the Academic/Scientific model is much better understood by those inside of it (and why transitioning off of it toward an open vote system would truly be catastrophic). There have been other members with some understanding of this model, of which we have had/are having fruitful conversation on this topic (as they tend to raise relevant/interesting questions)--there appears to be at least one member here (Trekbbs) who has some understanding of what is being proposed, and quite a few/majority members are "lost at sea"
"I see that you're working to make a point"
Yes
"You asked whether or not a meritocratic oligarchy is superior to a democratic republic, and I said no. Your follow up on how it would work in Academia has no merit, as it were, because science doesn't work through the same principles as a democratic republic."
I know it doesn't, as it is completely obvious how destructive Democracy would be--even though it is perfectly conceivable & legitimate format for Academia; it just simply wouldn't be rational
"You're making several arguments, and I'm not sure you're keeping them entirely separate, because together they do not work at all."
They work perfectly well, it simply hasn't "clicked" with you (and some others here) yet. Interestingly, I have discussed this topic on several other forums now, and only one other member has truly understood the model being submitted & it's relation/comparison to our current system--he (this other member) is also part of Academia as a student of Mathematics & Physics as I am, which may suggest that the Academic/Scientific model is much better understood by those inside of it (and why transitioning off of it toward an open vote system would truly be catastrophic). There have been other members with some understanding of this model, of which we have had/are having fruitful conversation on this topic (as they tend to raise relevant/interesting questions)--there appears to be at least one member here (Trekbbs) who has some understanding of what is being proposed, and quite a few/majority members are "lost at sea"
There would be multiple routes past the "Gate Keepers" and into the desired arena--formal Degree path education would be one such path amongst others. For instance, "free" tests would be made available for all equivalent levels (i.e. AS/AA, BA/BS, MA/MS, PhD), if one were to study and pass such a test, they would earn their weighted vote in that area (equivalent to the degree level--actually, this would also credential them for the job market as well). Also, one could not even test, but simply produce relevant publications that are peer-reviewed and accepted by the (particular) community in order to earn their vote (e.g. such as how Scientific Journals work).
Is it "chilling" in all of the sectors of our current society where this is already the case (contrary to your (unfounded) assertion that it has "no place in modern society"--Meritocracy and/or Oligarchy is already deeply rooted in many/most areas of our modern society)? Is Star Fleet "chilling"? Is Academia "chilling"? Medical practice "chilling"? Engineering in the private sector--"chilling"? Note, our current system already does this with age restrictions.
I fully accept this and understand your reasoning--provided that the principle be applied universally rather than selectively, as the other member I was in dialogue with was overtly guilty of the same transgression as I, with slightly different wording/framing.
A
Amaris
Guest
That is a possibility. Then again, it is also entirely possible that what you're posting is nonsensical unless a lot of caveats are made. Either that, or your post is so blatantly obvious that some of us are wondering if there's another question underneath that you're trying to ask, or an ulterior motive you're trying to explore without explicitly stating it.
I agree what I am proposing is not at all complex, though most members who have commented/raised questions concerning this topic on this Forum and elsewhere (with few exceptions) are committing deep, fundamental misunderstandings. Now, on this forum, I have seen now at least two people who have some/enough grasp in order to have a fruitful discussion of the topic, while most members are nearly clueless as to what is being submitted and how it relates to our current societies socio-political organization in various areas. My contention is that individuals become so confined to the conditions they were raised into that it is very difficult to make conceptual leaps which break the Snow Globe World entrapment (much like the book/movie "The Giver").
A
Amaris
Guest
They're not clueless, they're just not taking your post seriously. What you're discussing is very basic, easy to understand, and not at all difficult to parse for most people. Your post really is simple enough to answer with a "yes" or a "no" response. If I had to put it another way, I'd say "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." You are severely overthinking the plumbing on this one. Thus, stopping up the drain is as simple as answering "yes" or "no."
My motive is the construction of a "superior" society--much like the principle behind Star Trek, actually.
A
Amaris
Guest
Superior to what? More importantly, by whose standard of superiority?
This is wrong. I explained in my OP that "Meritocratic Oligarchy" is consistent with a very wide range of possibilities indeed. Thus, there is an express need to focus in on the exact "staples" involved in a particular Meritocratic Oligarchic structure, or else one is virtually clueless as to what they are expected to be voting on. I gave multiple examples of this to demonstrate my point (in my OP).
Also, not seeing the relevance of Academia, nor Vocational Schools/Trades, Private Sector, ect. is being hopelessly lost--so much so as to "hit a brick wall" and shut-down conversation entirely