Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?

[Lord Garth]

After spending the past year living under three branches of government that have no idea what they're doing -- even though they're all the same party -- and having a President choose a Cabinet filled with members who are completely unqualified for their positions, I like the idea of Meritocracy more and more.

 

[ll StarTrekFan ll]

Superior to what? More importantly, by whose standard of superiority?

I provided criteria for "superior" in my OP in anticipation of this objection (as well to define my terms)

 

[Amaris]

This is wrong.

Your opinion is noted.

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

Your context and scope are far too narrow. That is your problem, and one of the reasons why so few are really taking the original post seriously. When I answered, I was being serious. There is no other answer required for your original post, because you framed it, intentionally or not, as a yes or no question.

I provided criteria for "superior" in my OP in anticipation of this objection (as well to define my terms)

Your criteria are lacking. "More efficient" than what? Rational? In what way? How would you express that rationality? Productive? What are you producing? "Healthy" is generic enough to apply to anything. "Self-sustaining" is also more general, and has no direct connection to meritocracy, or democracy. "Just" compared to what? Unjust? That is often a subjective position.

You're asking for specifics, but offering only generalities. You will not get anywhere more than skin deep on this issue, not unless people are willing to build their own context, which will skew your results.

 

[ll StarTrekFan ll]

After spending the past year living under three branches of government that have no idea what they're doing -- even though they're all the same party -- and having a President choose a Cabinet filled with members who are completely unqualified for their positions, I like the idea of Meritocracy more and more.

You are one of the two members here (on TrekBBS) that actually has a grasp on what is being submitted (of those who have posted, that is). That puts you in the extreme minority, indeed (here & elsewhere). Most people never make it past the buzz word(s) "Oligarchy" vs. "Democracy"

Here is a link to this topic conversation on a separate Forum with the only other member I referenced before who has a very solid grasp of the system promoted here in relation to our current one--the members name is "analysis17456"

http://www.historum.com/philosophy-...c-oligarchy-superior-democratic-republic.html

 

[Amaris]

You are one of the two members here (on TrekBBS) that actually has a grasp on what is being submitted (of those who have posted, that is). That puts you in the extreme minority, indeed (here & elsewhere).

Here is a link to this topic conversation on a separate Forum with the only other member I referenced before who has a very solid grasp of the system promoted here in relation to our current one--the members name is "analysis17456"

http://www.historum.com/philosophy-...c-oligarchy-superior-democratic-republic.html

People are grasping what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is navel gazing at best, and pointless discussion fodder at worst. It wouldn't be annoying, except that you seem to think this is an academic forum where people need to adhere to rigorous standards of high academia to answer questions you hear when you're in middle school. The topic simply isn't that well thought-out in terms of where you wish to go with it. I do note that you seem to be really behind the pro-meritocracy posts, while explaining how those of us who don't agree are somehow "lost at sea."

Perhaps you should rethink your initial post.

 

[ll StarTrekFan ll]

Your criteria are lacking. "More efficient" than what? Rational? In what way? How would you express that rationality? Productive? What are you producing? "Healthy" is generic enough to apply to anything. "Self-sustaining" is also more general, and has no direct connection to meritocracy, or democracy. "Just" compared to what? Unjust? That is often a subjective position.

You (and others) are raising the exact same pseudo-issues that members of other forums have.

Do you think there is a wrong answer(s)? Or, is any form of Human social organization & function just as "right" or "wrong" (i.e. "good" or "bad") as any other?

Can you imagine a society that would be highly "inefficient, irrational, unproductive, unhealthy, and not self-sustaining"?

Now, can you imagine a society that is "more efficient, rational, productive, healthy, self-sustaining" than the former construction?

If so, there are variables at work producing this difference. If one were able to isolate some such variables, would this not yield useful information based in physical reality?

 

[ll StarTrekFan ll]

I do note that you seem to be really behind the pro-meritocracy posts, while explaining how those of us who don't agree are somehow "lost at sea."

Perhaps you should rethink your initial post.

There are many sensible objections to the Meritocratic Democracy, some of which have been explored on other forums that have progressed further than the present discussion here. Before reaching such a point in the conversation, basics have to covered & understood before moving forward. That is, one doesn't go on to Calculus before having a reasonably sound grip on Algebra. Now, for the member you are referring to, I could have a more in depth conversation with them. However, you and most others are nowhere near ready for such an undertaking.

It is interesting that you contend this to be conceptually on par with "Middle-School", as you are a standard example of those who have failed to comprehend the submission. If you would like to challenge that, then provide a paragraph or few that outlines the model, in your own words, as well as how it differs from our current system. This will provide a base to proceed from

 

[Amaris]

You (and others) are raising the exact same pseudo-issues that members of other forums have.

Do you think there is a wrong answer(s)? Or, is any form of Human social organization & function just as "right" or "wrong" (i.e. "good" or "bad") as any other?

Can you imagine a society that would be highly "inefficient, irrational, unproductive, unhealthy, and not self-sustaining"?

Now, can you imagine a society that is "more efficient, rational, productive, healthy, self-sustaining" than the former construction?

If so, there are variables at work producing this difference. If one were able to isolate some such variables, would this not yield useful information based in physical reality?

There are many sensible objections to the Meritocratic Democracy, some of which have been explored on other forums that have progressed further than the present discussion here. Before reaching such a point in the conversation, basics have to covered & understood before moving forward. That is, one doesn't go on to Calculus before having a reasonably sound grip on Algebra. Now, for the member you are referring to, I could have a more in depth conversation with them. However, you and most others are nowhere near ready for such an undertaking.

It is interesting that you contend this to be conceptually on par with "Middle-School", as you are a standard example of those who have failed to comprehend the submission. If you would like to challenge that, then provide a paragraph or few that outlines the model, in your own words, as well as how it differs from our current system. This will provide a base to proceed from

I apologize in advance, this is not meant as an insult, but you don't seem to be grasping what I posted.

 

[MacLeod]

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."


But aren't we as the voters responsible for the government we get?

The problem with applying any criteria is who gets to set the criteria?

Doesn't the issue come down to when those in charge fail to listen or just ignore issues because it doesn't fit their world view. i.e if 97% or so the worlds climate scientists say we are having an impact on the global climate shouldn't we heed their advice.

 

[Spot261]

Consider the case of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy found in Star Wars--The Jedi Council. The Jedi Order holds the Jedi Council at the top of a pyramid who dictate the rules, course of action, ect. ect. as the primary governing body. One is only granted a position on the Jedi Council based upon merit, typically (essentially always) after receiving the rank of "Master".

Another example of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy is found in Star Fleet from the Star Trek Universe.

A Real-World model of a Meritocratic Oligarchic system is Academia.

None of these are governments.....

 

[Spot261]

You are one of the two members here (on TrekBBS) that actually has a grasp on what is being submitted (of those who have posted, that is). That puts you in the extreme minority, indeed (here & elsewhere). Most people never make it past the buzz word(s) "Oligarchy" vs. "Democracy"

Here is a link to this topic conversation on a separate Forum with the only other member I referenced before who has a very solid grasp of the system promoted here in relation to our current one--the members name is "analysis17456"

http://www.historum.com/philosophy-...c-oligarchy-superior-democratic-republic.html

I think you may be under representing the boards here. That the numerous real world academics, PhDs, lawyers and politically active sorts who are regulars here haven't taken your OP seriously doesn't mean they are intellectually inferior.

That they have been presented with a vague, shambolic amateur attempt at academic writing by someone who promptly launched a totally unjustified tirade of insults at anyone questioning where this might lead (or what value an extremely long winded closed question might have) is likely a factor

 

[BillJ]

Would Academia & the Scientific community be superior if it dispensed with the Meritocratic system and embraced Democracy? What do you suppose would happen if Academia became a Democracy starting next term? Would this prove an efficient shift in internal political organization? That is, what if anyone could be a Physicist at MIT? Do you see this as at all problematic?

This is apples and oranges. You can't have a legitimate government that doesn't represent everyone.

 

[Avro Arrow]

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.

I'm sorry, I have reviewed the other post again based on this, and I do not see that it crosses any lines.

Also, I know you are relatively new here, but just to let you know, posting more than twice in a row is considered spamming on this site. You have done that a couple times in this thread. Please use the multiquote ("+Quote") function to reply to multiple posts in a single reply.

If you haven't reviewed them already, you may want to take a look at our board rules here.

And just as an aside... what's with continuously claiming that posters here don't understand, and comparing us to posters on other boards? Starting a discussion and then constantly telling most of the people who want to engage with you that they don't understand the topic does not seem like a good way to encourage conversation.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Claiming anybody who disagrees with him "didn't understand the concept". Gee, I wonder why such a person would prefer a so-called meritocratic oligarchy over a democratic Republik.

 

[Spot261]

A. Top percentile PhD: 10
B. PhD: 7
C. MA/MS: 3
D. BA/BS: 1
E. AS: 1/4

Just as a matter of curiosity, how do you score on this scale?

 

[Refuge]

Well the bottom line is we have the systems we do and the leaders and current governments because of it.

Serves us right

 

[Amaris]

Well the bottom line is we have the systems we do and the leaders and current governments because of it.

Serves us right

Well, serves some of us right. The downside is that there is a significant number of people who are left out of the decision making process, and they get dragged along with it anyway.

 

[Refuge]

Well, serves some of us right. The downside is that there is a significant number of people who are left out of the decision making process, and they get dragged along with it anyway.

That is in part what I was wondering the OP was questioning. Those in the policy decision making processes should be qualified and representative. It's the criteria of what makes a good board member where the devil is.

Personally I like having representation and my vote is the only input I am likely to have. If I'm honest though I don't evaluate the candidate or the potential Cabinet/Parliament for their job skills. God help me it's a pretty vague process and a bit tribal at times. I would be more selective about a hiring someone to landscape my garden! Some kind of combination of the two is worth thinking about. Retain the right to vote and offer us quality leaders (Though I guess I'm falling into a negativity trap. A lot of our politicians are experienced high achievers in their previous work lives and they do bring that to the table).

 

[Amaris]

That is in part what I was wondering the OP was questioning. Those in the policy decision making processes should be qualified and representative. It's the criteria of what makes a good board member where the devil is.

Personally I like having representation and my vote is the only input I am likely to have. If I'm honest though I don't evaluate the candidate or the potential Cabinet/Parliament for their job skills. God help me it's a pretty vague process and a bit tribal at times. I would be more selective about a hiring someone to landscape my garden! Some kind of combination of the two is worth thinking about. Retain the right to vote and offer us quality leaders (Though I guess I'm falling into a negativity trap. A lot of our politicians are experienced high achievers in their previous work lives and they do bring that to the table).

I understand that, it's similar here in the U.S. I guess I'm at a point where I'm starting to believe maybe our government is too large, our population is too large to be represented fairly, and that as a result, things are starting to break down.

 

[urbandefault]

The US system was designed to be run by citizens who, when elected by their constituency, would serve a term or two and then return to live under the laws they created. It became a problem when the elected officials stayed in DC and created a special system for themselves apart from their constituents. The career politicians made themselves into an elite class with special rules that they can change at any time.

That's not to mention the bureaucratic class, which is a whole 'nother monster unto itself.