- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 41,583
- Reaction score
- 22,157
- Location
- Akron
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Do you believe that our social and economic systems are an example of functional meritocracy?
I am referring to today.If there was an Other I would have voted that. Under the current system, no, it's not a meritocracy since it's now corporatist. Before the government got involved in all the things they don't have the delegated power to be in I would say that it was.
They're trying to become that as far as Washington goes. . .in the mid 1900's deciding to give more creed to merit over other things.Do you believe that our social and economic systems are an example of functional meritocracy?
No today we are not a meritocracy ... we're a welfare state.I am referring to today.
Socially- No, you can be a complete dick head and get pretty far.Do you believe that our social and economic systems are an example of functional meritocracy?
Many things make the playing field uneven. And it truly is unfortunate. One of the biggest questions we have to ask is whether or not we should attempt to make the playing field more 'even' by disadvantaging those that were advantaged. Those who are disadvantaged are now disadvantaged still, but less. Those who were 'advantaged' will still be, but feel worse because something had been taken away from them against their will (potentially) - but they definately lost the freedom to choose to help. So again, do two wrongs make a right? (the first wrong being the unfair 'random' disadvantage, the second unfair forcing the 'advantaged' to a lower level of being advantaged)Overall, I think it isn't as too many things get in the way, such as unequal starting points in life, unequal opportunities in life, the fact that some get cancer while others do not, etc.
Not that we will ever really be able to fix those problems, but I do think they get in the way and make the playing field uneven.
I think in the case of the ideal being that everyone is able to provide for themselves and live a happy life, than yes, it would be a right. If you take something away from someone who has plenty, more often than not, they will continue to have plenty while it might help one or more people who otherwise would not have had that opportunity. Ultimately, I think we need to design our help systems to help those who want it and will work for it and not lazy people, but even if choice is lost for the person with plenty, they will probably still have plenty, so its not really worth worrying about.Many things make the playing field uneven. And it truly is unfortunate. One of the biggest questions we have to ask is whether or not we should attempt to make the playing field more 'even' by disadvantaging those that were advantaged. Those who are disadvantaged are now disadvantaged still, but less. Those who were 'advantaged' will still be, but feel worse because something had been taken away from them against their will (potentially) - but they definately lost the freedom to choose to help. So again, do two wrongs make a right? (the first wrong being the unfair 'random' disadvantage, the second unfair forcing the 'advantaged' to a lower level of being advantaged)
Compared to just about every other country on earth? Yeah. Is it perfect? No, of course not.Do you believe that our social and economic systems are an example of functional meritocracy?
well said as usual. I suppose I'm closest to a libertarian, so allow me to clarify a belief. If you believe people are more important than property, your beliefs are in line with mine. But by people, I also mean their freedoms and letting them choose to protect their own values - including the freedom to choose to be selfish.I think in the case of the ideal being that everyone is able to provide for themselves and live a happy life, than yes, it would be a right. If you take something away from someone who has plenty, more often than not, they will continue to have plenty while it might help one or more people who otherwise would not have had that opportunity. Ultimately, I think we need to design our help systems to help those who want it and will work for it and not lazy people, but even if choice is lost for the person with plenty, they will probably still have plenty, so its not really worth worrying about.
Of course, I don't believe in the sanctity of property as many conservatives & libertarians do or that I believe that people are more important than property. I am not sure which really applies best to me.
I think this is where we diverge. Again due to our different concept of freedom.well said as usual. I suppose I'm closest to a libertarian, so allow me to clarify a belief. If you believe people are more important than property, your beliefs are in line with mine. But by people, I also mean their freedoms and letting them choose to protect their own values - including the freedom to choose to be selfish.
Well said, I think the focus of property as a part of freedom is actually somewhat against human nature when it comes to laws. Its pretty easy to be happy, but you need security more than stuff.When I stop and think about it, sometimes I feel like it's crazy that I support making sure that people have this choice of keeping their property. I fully understand your argument. I mean, is that choice to keep their 'advantage'/property that they may have been born into really worth the cost of them potentially choosing to not give it up? (which in a lot of cases, they DON'T give it up!). That cost could even be people starving! When you're right, they could be just as happy and well-off potentially even if they did give it up. Believe me, there's a hippy inside each of us.
I would prefer it to be voluntary as well, but history has shown time after time that it does not work. I like the idea of people doing whatever they want with whatever they get, I just don't see how it could ever produce an end result that won't destroy itself. Its a fundamental flaw in humanity I think, but its one we must deal with, even if it means we cannot all be fully free and can only achieve the freedoms that are practical against our self destructive nature.But at the end of the day, I think the world will be better off if we play the cards we are dealt with and don't force each other to share. The philosophy behind those economics seem more sound to me. I suppose it's just against my nature to force people to help people. I would much prefer it to be voluntary.
Understood; but at the same time, many of us believe that spending money on social programs such as health care, education and basic needs is a good investment in our society. An educated and healthy society of citizens who have their basic needs met is a worthy goal, don't you think?But at the end of the day, I think the world will be better off if we play the cards we are dealt with and don't force each other to share. The philosophy behind those economics seem more sound to me. I suppose it's just against my nature to force people to help people. I would much prefer it to be voluntary.
I think I have more faith in humanity than that. Social Security, for example, wasn't enacted until AFTER the depression, when the elderly were found in the street because they had not saved for retirement. Or their pensions went bust. etc.I would prefer it to be voluntary as well, but history has shown time after time that it does not work. I like the idea of people doing whatever they want with whatever they get, I just don't see how it could ever produce an end result that won't destroy itself. Its a fundamental flaw in humanity I think, but its one we must deal with, even if it means we cannot all be fully free and can only achieve the freedoms that are practical against our self destructive nature.
I had to respond to this Krugman quote. Where does the strongest economic champion of statist solutions come off saying something so brilliant? Milton Friedman said it best when he stated, "One of the greatest mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."When I was young and naïve, I believed that important people took positions based on careful consideration of the options. Now I know better. - Paul Krugman