Supporters of American Democracy, defend yourselves.

@amist,

It's only flawed if we can do better. If we can't do better, then there is nothing to talk about. Any real discussion of a flaw must necessarily include a superior alternative.

1 Reply

@amist,

Your claim is that the current American system of representative democracy is PERFECT AND WITHOUT ERROR then?

Alright then, I accept your challenge.

Flaw: Unqualified people are called upon to do what they are unqualified to do.

Solution to the Flaw: Qualified people being called upon to do what they are qualified to do.

0 Replies

@amist,

amist;127345 wrote:

It's not a big problem. Explain to me how, if it is. The only evidence that could possibly be detrimental to my view is if there were many cases of meritocracies essentially of the type I have proposed had been implemented, and collapsed due to some fundamental flaw that was inherent in the system.

I see that you have ignored my request for a yes or a no as to whether a meritocratic state (as you understand "meritocracy") has ever existed. I'll take that as a no.

This is a very serious problem for your position, and I frankly think it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Evidence of multiple botched meritocracies is only one form of evidence that would undermine your position. The fact that you're unable to identify even one concrete example of a meritocratic form of government is even more damaging to your view, because it suggests that the project can never even get off of the ground in the first place.

The idea of erecting a meritocratic form of government isn't new. It's been around for millennia. One is entitled to wonder why, during all this time, a bonafide meritocracy hasn't sprouted up once in a while. Just about every other type of polity or regime has existed at one point or another. Why no meritocracy? I think the answer is obvious. If you have an alternative explanation, it would be interesting to hear it.

amist;127345 wrote:

The administrators of the meritocracy must have a clear and profound understanding of what the natural and inherent rights of the human individual are, and why they ought not be infringed upon. The administrators of the meritocracy must also understand what the role of a 'government' is in managing human affairs and interaction between people and peoples is. Once they understand these things, they will be able to administrate human affairs rightly and correctly.

With all due respect, this answer is vacuous. What people are asking you to do is explain how we can tell who these administrator folks are. Otherwise, there's no way to distinguish between a meritocracy and a state run by demagogues. And this is to say nothing of the assumption that there is such a thing as "natural and inherent rights" or that there is a single correct way of ordering human affairs.

I will add one final problem with your view (or with your exposition of your view): even assuming that such a state could be established, it just doesn't sound like a very interesting or fulfilling place to live. It promises to be even more bureaucratic than contemporary democracies, and on top of that, it creates a caste system.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;127134 wrote:

The Nazi occupation of Denmark unfolded in a unique manner. The conditions of occupation started off very leniently (although the authorities banned Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti (the Communist party) when the Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941), and Denmark retained its own government. The new coalition government tried to protect the population from Nazi rule through compromise. The Germans allowed the Folketing to remain in session, the police remained under Danish control, and the German authorities stayed one step removed from the population. However, the Nazi demands eventually became intolerable for the Danish government, so in 1943 it resigned and Germany assumed full control of Denmark. After that point, an armed resistance movement grew against the occupying forces. Toward the end of the war, Denmark grew increasingly difficult for Germany to control, but the country remained under occupation until the end of the war in May 1945.
Denmark succeeded in smuggling most of its Jewish population to Sweden in 1943 when the Nazis threatened deportation; see Rescue of the Danish Jews.

From Wikipedia.

Hmmm. Hardly fits in with your description of Denmark's relation to the Nazis. I think that King Christian wore a yellow star to symbolize his solidarity with the Jews of Denmark. And most of the Danish Jews were rescued by the Danish people. Denmark has a shining record during the Nazi occupation, so far as I can determine. It was the only country to have done so.

1. It wasn't my description.
2. Move there.

0 Replies

@amist,

This post is directed at Insty's last post.

Should I just ******* re name the thread? Because apparently it's not about critiquing American style representative democracy anymore. ANYWAYS, I will now carefully explain to you WHY YOU FAIL LOGIC.

Quote:

The fact that you're unable to identify even one concrete example of a meritocratic form of government is even more damaging to your view, because it suggests that the project can never even get off of the ground in the first place.

Okay, I am going to explain this as in detail, and clearly, as I possibly can...patience be damned. So please pay very, very close attention to what I am about to say, because I'm only going to explain it once, and in the future I will simply refer you back to this post if you still don't understand what I am saying. Let's look closely at what your premises are. Upon further examination, you have stated only one premise which I can extract from this quote.

1. There are no examples of a meritocracy arising in history

I got this premise, from the statement "The fact that you're unable to identify even one concrete example of a meritocratic form of government is even more damaging to your view". Now, I have not been able to identify a single concrete example of a meritocratic form of government. This is damaging to my argument. The part stating the damaging nature of this reality is simply there to indicate that an explanation of why it is damaging to my argument is coming. It also suggests, that the damage to my position is being done by the fact that I cannot identify an example of a meritocratic form of government. This however, only gives us that I am ignorant of any meritocratic governments which may have existed. Which wouldn't be damaging to my position in general were say, someone who had knowledge of these governments arguing for it. So I must deduce that your premise is that 'There are no examples of a meritocracy arising in history', since only my ignorance of them is not damaging to my position in general and it is suggested by your conclusion, that you are arguing that it is damaging to my position in this sense as opposed to as I am arguing it. That is to say, how I happen to be articulating it at this time, whether well or poorly.

Your conclusion, is contained in this statement.
"...because [the premise] suggests that the project can never even get off of the ground in the first place"
Your stated conclusion is that it follows from your premise that if there has never been a meritocracy in the history of human civilization, then the project could never have possibly gotten off the ground in the first place. Some operative words in your above statement being 'can never'.

Well, I can think of an obvious counter example to this conclusion, it is simply the case that no attempt at a meritocracy was ever made in earnest. Or also, that there exist certain obstacles in the path to establishing a meritocracy, that have yet to be surmounted (an obvious obstacle being the self interest of those who would clearly be removed from seats of power if they were allotted on a basis of merit). For your assertion that the establishment of a true meritocracy is impossible to be true, this conclusion calls for a demonstration of a contradiction inherent in the system itself. For certainly it doesn't defy any laws of nature at least I am aware of to have a meritocracy. Surely you must be suggesting at a fatal flaw inherent in the system, in fact you do suggest it again here;

"One is entitled to wonder why, during all this time, a bonafide meritocracy hasn't sprouted up once in a while. Just about every other type of polity or regime has existed at one point or another. Why no meritocracy? I think the answer is obvious."

I can only imagine that you are suggesting that the reason that a meritocracy has never cropped up is that there is some kind of self defeating principle or conflicting principles at work within a meritocracy necessarily. If this is actually your position, I would appreciate it if you laid it bare what these self defeating principles were. If it is not, I would either like a retraction of your entire last post, or an explanation of how that post does not imply the things I have deduced from it.

You went on to demand for me an explanation as to why no meritocracy has ever arisen. Before I do this, I would like to point out that there was a time before democracy existed, before representative government existed, NAY BEFORE GOVERNMENT ITSELF EXISTED! Now, would your same argument that 'no government has ever existed, how is it possible for one to come into existence?' have been valid in the paleolithic era? I think not. REGARDLESS, for the sake of argument accepting this prima facie erroneous argument against meritocracy as true...are there any possible explanations for why a meritocracy has not arisen thus far in history which do not involve some kind of intrinsic flaw in a system of meritocracy itself? Well, lo and behold, I've already given one. Earlier, I said that it may perhaps be the case that there are certain external obstacles which a coming meritocracy has not yet surmounted in its own establishment.

Quote:

(an obvious obstacle being the self interest of those who would clearly be removed from seats of power if they were allotted on a basis of merit)

This is clearly a realistic, extrinsic force which could conceivably be acting against the establishment of a meritocracy, is it not? Should you be unconvinced by this one counter example, let me present you with yet another.

That the people of the world throughout the history of the world have thus far been complacent and satisfied with a government which was merely tolerable and have not wished for a change from that which is merely tolerable to that which is not only better, but right!

I shall give you another. The campaign needed to be waged in order to gain public support for such a meritocracy (for even I admit it would not likely be possible to implement with only the few who would be fit to run it as supporting it) would surely take years and years, if not a generation or two, to wage. Especially against a populous untrained in the art of reasoned argumentation, which is indeedhow one must correctly arrive at the conclusion that a meritocracy is the best form of government. Surely three valid counter examples to your postulate that 'The answer is obvious why there is no meritocracy, it's because it's impossible'.

Quote:

What people are asking you to do is explain how we can tell who these administrator folks are.

It will require a certain class of people to be able to understand who this upper class of philosopher (maybe that adjective will help out) administrators will be. I certainly hope that all of you are at least capable of reaching being that class, if not of that class. What is the function of the state? It is surely to administer interactions between people and to ensure that they are civil. What is the function of the statesman? To aid in steering the state towards these ends. And the best statesman is the man who best understands the function of the state and how to use the limited powers granted to the state to direct it towards these ends. If you disagree with this definition of what the best statesman is, I would like to hear what the better definition is.

Quote:

And this is to say nothing of the assumption that there is such a thing as "natural and inherent rights" or that there is a single correct way of ordering human affairs.

It is not an assumption, and deed in establishing one the other follows. Now, first off, if you don't think that humans have natural and inherent rights, I am not entirely certain I feel safe allowing you around children. And it's not an assumption, it follows purely from reason. If you are a human, you are obligated to respect other humans as other rational autonomous beings. You are all thrown into the world, you are at their mercy as much as they are at your mercy. You are free in the world, and surely any unreasonable limiting of this freedom is a suppressing of your very nature. Is unreasonable limiting of natural freedom justifiable? Surely not, this is the definition of unreasonable. Then you ought not do it. If you wish do do what is not justifiable, then you are acting entirely at random, and why in the hell would you want to do that? So then, you ought not act in any way which constrains the freedom of another individual without reason. Well then, what would be a valid constriction of the freedom of an individual? Well, we have already said that we may not unreasonably restrict the freedom of an individual, so then, does this not make it reasonable to prevent individuals from unreasonably restricting the freedom of others? To this question I find my self forced to answer 'yes, yes it most certainly does'. And voila! Rights. So then, it follows from this, that a correct ordering of human affairs is one which constrains an individuals freedom to constrain the freedom of other individuals in any way!

Quote:

...It promises to be even more bureaucratic than contemporary democracies...

I concede, I have not outlined it with great clarity, because I wished for this thread to be a critique of one particular system, not an argument for another one. I also concede that much of the language I've used, though accurate in describing my system, is implicate of what you just described. But now that I've come this far I can tell you that this system is not in fact as you described. Recall, that the role of this administration is to correctly order human affairs, that is, interactions between humans. Which as I have said above, is to constrain the freedoms of individuals only so far as they are constrained from constraining the freedoms of other individuals! You are absolutely boundless and free so far as you are not encroaching on the freedom of another! So long as you are not slighting another in any way you are free to do whatever you like! It is in actuality, nothing like an uninteresting or fulfilling place to live. It would be a place that any individual can be free to make of it whatever he/she likes within his or her own power! Only insofar as he/she is not interfering with an-others ability to do so as well!

Now on to your last and most absurd claim.

Quote:

it creates a caste system.

Absolute tripe. When have I mentioned hereditary inheritance of administrative positions or social status even once! In fact! A caste system is in CLEAR AND DIRECT CONFLICT WITH A MERITOCRACY! Those in the government will simply be those who are the most qualified, regardless of origins. The administrators and the rest who would do the labor on which society depends would be separated out during the education and there would be permeability between the two tracks as one demonstrates his/her own ability. Those children with parents in the educational track would not receive any kind of advantage by having schooling be conducted at year-round boarding schools. The atomic household is done away with and the families of the children will be their classmates and their mentors. Everyone has an equal shot.

Now, I am going to post this post, in another thread. If you wish to discuss this further GO THERE. NOW CAN WE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET ON WITH THE INTENDED TOPIC OF DISCUSSION?!!?!!!

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 04:06 AM ----------

Akakakakakakakaka Reconstructo!!! Shut up about the nazi occupation of denmark it is beyond irrelevant start another thread please!!!

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;127354 wrote:

It's only flawed if we can do better. If we can't do better, then there is nothing to talk about. Any real discussion of a flaw must necessarily include a superior alternative.

Really? Argue this please.

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;127317 wrote:

What about Belgium, former Yugoslavia, Greece, Canada to name a few?
What about the resistance in other European countries? Germany?:detective:

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 05:53 AM ----------

What merits would you think important? Scholing, University, nett=tax-payer, old money, new money, Olypic medals, people's knowledge, empathy, christianity, race, gender, old age, landownership, nationality, etc..

Does the vice-president has to be born in USA?:detective:

What did those countries do? Canada wasn't even occupied. I was talking about saving the Jewish population, and helping the Jews as a nation. It was Denmark, alone, that did that. Much to its everlasting glory.

1 Reply

@Insty,

Insty;127378 wrote:

I see that you have ignored my request for a yes or a no as to whether a meritocratic state (as you understand "meritocracy") has ever existed. I'll take that as a no.

No answer means the answer is "no"? Of course not. Don't be silly. Even though he did not answer (or maybe he did, I don't know) I provided a link to Wiki that describes a meritocratic state (Singapore).

Quote:

This is a very serious problem for your position, and I frankly think it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Evidence of multiple botched meritocracies is only one form of evidence that would undermine your position. The fact that you're unable to identify even one concrete example of a meritocratic form of government is even more damaging to your view, because it suggests that the project can never even get off of the ground in the first place.

It suggests no such thing. Why would anyone think that? Besides, what is this about him being unable to identify one? You made that up by making up your own "no" answer just before. Don't be silly.

Quote:

The idea of erecting a meritocratic form of government isn't new. It's been around for millennia. One is entitled to wonder why, during all this time, a bonafide meritocracy hasn't sprouted up once in a while. Just about every other type of polity or regime has existed at one point or another. Why no meritocracy? I think the answer is obvious. If you have an alternative explanation, it would be interesting to hear it.

The answer is indeed obvious. There has been meritocratic government(s). And there have been and are meritocratic systems of other things than governments. In fact there are lots of meritocratic (but informal) systems on the internet.

Quote:

I will add one final problem with your view (or with your exposition of your view): even assuming that such a state could be established, it just doesn't sound like a very interesting or fulfilling place to live. It promises to be even more bureaucratic than contemporary democracies, and on top of that, it creates a caste system.

"it just doesn't sound like a very interesting or fulfilling place to live"? That's not even an argument. Don't be silly. If you really wish to argue against something, then you ought to present arguments. Preferably in some clear form not forms where people have to interpret your words beyond what is reasonable.

The caste system (of India) is not quite similar to a meritocratic system, but you probably already knew this you just tried (maybe) to give a guilt by association argument. Rhetoric doesn't work very well if people know logic and critical thinking. I happen to have studied both especially the first. If you didn't mean to give such an argument (even hidden argument as I had to try to interpreted it from your words), then what did you mean? I cannot read minds.

1 Reply

@Emil,

Emil;127468 wrote:

Really? Argue this please.

"It would be better if we did not have to breathe. Discuss this, without talking about how there isn't a workable system that doesn't involve us breathing"

If you talk about problems without discussing the alternatives you are just complaining.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

:Glasses:

kennethamy;127470 wrote:

What did those countries do? Canada wasn't even occupied. I was talking about saving the Jewish population, and helping the Jews as a nation. It was Denmark, alone, that did that. Much to its everlasting glory.

Yhe Jews were no nation, never been in Europe. In Europe they helped as bankers, merchants and philosophers. You could say helping them as a people. In Amsterdam about 85% of the Jewish population was never to return. The city police and transportcompagnies helped the Germans. The only resistance came from Calvinists & Communists.

About Denmark; did you know the Danish Queen dropped most of her titles ascending the Throne? Laughing

(1972)

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;127493 wrote:

"It would be better if we did not have to breathe. Discuss this, without talking about how there isn't a workable system that doesn't involve us breathing"

If you talk about problems without discussing the alternatives you are just complaining.

None of this is convincing either. Do you have any arguments to offer? Just to be clear, the above doesn't contain any arguments without serious interpretation.

0 Replies

@amist,

In Europe we have two meritocratic political entities. First the Holy See with the Vatican as it's base. Second the European Community with non-elected commissionairs etcetera. By treaty the European Parlement recently got a say in foreign politics.

1 Reply

@Emil,

Emil;127473 wrote:

No answer means the answer is "no"? Of course not. Don't be silly. Even though he did not answer (or maybe he did, I don't know) I provided a link to Wiki that describes a meritocratic state (Singapore).

Yes, it's clear that you haven't been following the discussion. I asked him several times to give a "yes" or "no" answer to the question. Each time he refused. In some contexts, silence implies assent. It just requires the application of some common sense. In any case, when I said that I'd take his refusal to answer "yes" as a "no," I was offering him yet another chance to say "yes." Again, he didn't. In fact, he went on to concede that he couldn't identify a meritocratic state.

As for your Wiki link, I didn't respond because I generally haven't been paying attention to your posts. This is because they tend to littered with words like "stupid," "silly," "idiotic," and the like. That kind of language is not only a camouflage for poor reasoning, it's also a bit insulting. I'm answering now just to make this clear for future reference: if you're interested in hearing my response to your posts (and I don't see why you would be) leave off using "stupid" and its cognates.

Emil;127473 wrote:

It suggests no such thing. Why would anyone think that? Besides, what is this about him being unable to identify one? You made that up by making up your own "no" answer just before. Don't be silly.

It strongly suggests such a thing. As I mentioned above, if you read his post, you'll see that he has conceded that he is unable to identify one.

Just a thought: things might seem a lot less silly to you if you paid attention to what people were actually saying.

Emil;127473 wrote:

The answer is indeed obvious. There has been meritocratic government(s). And there have been and are meritocratic systems of other things than governments. In fact there are lots of meritocratic (but informal) systems on the internet.

So far, you've mustered a single link to Wikipedia in support of this claim. You'll forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your argument. As for the "informal meritocratic systems" on the Internet that you've alluded to, I don't really know what you have in mind. Dungeons & Dragons groups, perhaps? In any case, I imagine such online meritocratic systems do exist. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with meritocracy as a form of governance in the real world. At least not without further argument. And I'm afraid that citation to additional Wiki articles doesn't count as "further argument."

Emil;127473 wrote:

"it just doesn't sound like a very interesting or fulfilling place to live"? That's not even an argument. Don't be silly. If you really wish to argue against something, then you ought to present arguments. Preferably in some clear form not forms where people have to interpret your words beyond what is reasonable.

Yes, this remark (and the one below) seems to have been misunderstood. I was not intending here to make a serious argument. My comments were intended playfully and as an attempt: (1) to prevent this thread from turning into a pissing contest; and (2) to shift the focus of discussion away from the hair-splitting and logic-chopping that has marked much of the preceding discussion (which, again, appears to have lost its steam) and to suggest a broader set of issues that might be worth including in the discussion.

I take responsibility for the misunderstanding.

Emil;127473 wrote:

The caste system (of India) is not quite similar to a meritocratic system, but you probably already knew this you just tried (maybe) to give a guilt by association argument. Rhetoric doesn't work very well if people know logic and critical thinking. I happen to have studied both especially the first. If you didn't mean to give such an argument (even hidden argument as I had to try to interpreted it from your words), then what did you mean? I cannot read minds.

This is a very trenchant observation indeed, but as I explained above, the remark you're responding to was offered in a spirit of playfulness. To the extent that I was serious, I was noting only that the meritocracies under discussion would be highly stratified in terms of rank. I take it that this is an uncontroversial claim. My point was simply that living in such a stratified state (in a state that makes stratification a high point of principle) isn't really appealing to me. Obviously, this wasn't meant as an argument against meritocratic forms of government.

Again, I take responsibility for the misunderstanding. Still, while I realize this is a philosophy forum, even here I think it should be okay for a person to express visceral, off-the-cuff reactions once in a while.

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;127551 wrote:

In Europe we have two meritocratic political entities. First the Holy See with the Vatican as it's base. Second the European Community with non-elected commissionairs etcetera. By treaty the European Parlement recently got a say in foreign politics.

At least two. There are lots of examples of meritocratic systems. I'll give another one. The danish ethical counsel. The counsel's members are determined/chosen like this:

[INDENT]"The Council consists of 17 members; a mixture of experts and laypeople with publicly substantiated knowledge of the ethical, cultural and social questions of importance to the work of the Council.

The Minister for the Interior and Health appoints the members according to the following rules:
1) Nine members shall be appointed by the Parlamentary Committee on the Council of Ethichs.
2) Four members shall be appointed by the Minister for the Health.
3) One member shall be appointed by the Minister for the Environment.
4) One member shall be appointed by the Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries.
5) One member shall be appointed by the Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation.
6) One member shall be appointed by the Minister for Economic and Business Affairs.

Furthermore the appointments shall ensure equal representation of men and women."

[/INDENT]This is however an example of illly (ill-ly) chosen experts. The last requirement is a piece of popular feminist crap. Chose the best experts whichever sex they happen to have. (This happens, most probably, to be men. Also consider the question: Who wants to be elected, as a women, if it is only because they have to elect some women?)

1 Reply

@Emil,

Is Greenland considered part of the American Continent? Is it proven Danish wend to America first? Or were it the Swedes?

0 Replies

@Insty,

Insty;127554 wrote:

Yes, it's clear that you haven't been following the discussion. I asked him several times to give a "yes" or "no" answer to the question. Each time he refused. In some contexts, silence implies assent. It just requires the application of some common sense. In any case, when I said that I'd take his refusal to answer "yes" as a "no," I was offering him yet another chance to say "yes." Again, he didn't. In fact, he went on to concede that he couldn't identify a meritocratic state.

I never know what people mean when they refer to common sense? What is this common sense thing? Is it what most people would think is appropriate (guessing from the word "common")?

It is beside the point that he went on to concede that he couldn't identify one. (Even though I suspect he did this only for the sake of the argument. It is rather easy to find examples of meritocratic systems, even a few of them are governments are closely related things.) The problem is that you deduced from a reluctance to answer your questions a "no" as the answer. That approach obviously doesn't work.

Quote:

As for your Wiki link, I didn't respond because I generally haven't been paying attention to your posts. This is because they tend to littered with words like "stupid," "silly," "idiotic," and the like. That kind of language is not only a camouflage for poor reasoning, it's also a bit insulting. I'm answering now just to make this clear for future reference: if you're interested in hearing my response to your posts (and I don't see why you would be) leave off using "stupid" and its cognates.

That's odd because if you do a search on my posts you will see that they very seldom contain such words. I'll guess that you read the two (I recall two posts in this thread) that did contain such words and then made a hasty generalization all my posts containing such words. That's not warranted/justified (it is an informal fallacy).

I don't see it as insulting as I was calling a specific element of the US's democratic system for stupid etc. not any person. Not even a category of persons. You can choose to read "stupid" etc. as whatever else fitting, non-insulting word you can dream up/find/invent. The fact is that such a system is pretty dumb (there was a new word for you).

Quote:

It strongly suggests such a thing. As I mentioned above, if you read his post, you'll see that he has conceded that he is unable to identify one.

Irrelevant whether he did concede it or not. It is the inference that is problematic. Even invalid inferences happen to yield true conclusions once is a while.

Quote:

Just a thought: things might seem a lot less silly to you if you paid attention to what people were actually saying.

Your insult has been noted.

Quote:

So far, you've mustered a single link to Wikipedia in support of this claim. You'll forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your argument. As for the "informal meritocratic systems" on the Internet that you've alluded to, I don't really know what you have in mind. Dungeons & Dragons groups, perhaps? In any case, I imagine such online meritocratic systems do exist. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with meritocracy as a form of governance in the real world. At least not without further argument. And I'm afraid that citation to additional Wiki articles doesn't count as "further argument."

Not my problem that you don't like Wiki links. I really cannot be bothered to go to the article and find one of the references for you. If you are interested in the issue, you will probably go and look up the evidence yourself. If not, then there is nothing I can do.

Besides, it is a dull point noting that I have not given many examples. It is not like I have been asked for any and even if I couldn't give any this instant it would not imply anything interesting (like that there are no such systems).

Quote:

Again, I take responsibility for the misunderstanding. Still, while I realize this is a philosophy forum, even here I think it should be okay for a person to express visceral, off-the-cuff reactions once in a while.

Smilies help humor without body language. Maybe you should consider using a couple of them.

And not much of the above anything to do with the topic. But this is quite common on this board. You start a thread and ask people to justify that A. They proceed to discuss all kinds of other things that are not related to A (like historical examples of meritocracy, jews of Denmark, ...). Feel free to actually begin arguing that democracy is a good form of government or something like that. Isn't that what the OP wanted?

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 08:07 PM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;127558 wrote:

Is Greenland considered part of the American Continent? Is it proven Danish wend to America first? Or were it the Swedes?

Another irrelevant post.

For the record, I think Greenland is customarily seen as belonging to Europe. At the time the vikings went to America, there was no clear distinction between danes and swedes and norwegians. Anyway, according to Wiki it is believed that Leif (the explorer) was born at/in Iceland.

Norse colonization of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Reply

@amist,

Insty, I have responded in mind numbing detail to all of your objections against me in my large post a page or two back. You appear to be pretending that I never made this post. If any of my points made in that post are invalid, I would appreciate it if you would point out to me why.

Just in case you're too lazy to go back one page and read it, I'll re post it here.

Quote:
The fact that you're unable to identify even one concrete example of a meritocratic form of government is even more damaging to your view, because it suggests that the project can never even get off of the ground in the first place.
Okay, I am going to explain this as in detail, and clearly, as I possibly can...patience be damned. So please pay very, very close attention to what I am about to say, because I'm only going to explain it once, and in the future I will simply refer you back to this post if you still don't understand what I am saying. Let's look closely at what your premises are. Upon further examination, you have stated only one premise which I can extract from this quote.

1. There are no examples of a meritocracy arising in history

I got this premise, from the statement "The fact that you're unable to identify even one concrete example of a meritocratic form of government is even more damaging to your view". Now, I have not been able to identify a single concrete example of a meritocratic form of government. This is damaging to my argument. The part stating the damaging nature of this reality is simply there to indicate that an explanation of why it is damaging to my argument is coming. It also suggests, that the damage to my position is being done by the fact that I cannot identify an example of a meritocratic form of government. This however, only gives us that I am ignorant of any meritocratic governments which may have existed. Which wouldn't be damaging to my position in general were say, someone who had knowledge of these governments arguing for it. So I must deduce that your premise is that 'There are no examples of a meritocracy arising in history', since only my ignorance of them is not damaging to my position in general and it is suggested by your conclusion, that you are arguing that it is damaging to my position in this sense as opposed to as I am arguing it. That is to say, how I happen to be articulating it at this time, whether well or poorly.

Your conclusion, is contained in this statement.
"...because [the premise] suggests that the project can never even get off of the ground in the first place"
Your stated conclusion is that it follows from your premise that if there has never been a meritocracy in the history of human civilization, then the project could never have possibly gotten off the ground in the first place. Some operative words in your above statement being 'can never'.

Well, I can think of an obvious counter example to this conclusion, it is simply the case that no attempt at a meritocracy was ever made in earnest. Or also, that there exist certain obstacles in the path to establishing a meritocracy, that have yet to be surmounted (an obvious obstacle being the self interest of those who would clearly be removed from seats of power if they were allotted on a basis of merit). For your assertion that the establishment of a true meritocracy is impossible to be true, this conclusion calls for a demonstration of a contradiction inherent in the system itself. For certainly it doesn't defy any laws of nature at least I am aware of to have a meritocracy. Surely you must be suggesting at a fatal flaw inherent in the system, in fact you do suggest it again here;

"One is entitled to wonder why, during all this time, a bonafide meritocracy hasn't sprouted up once in a while. Just about every other type of polity or regime has existed at one point or another. Why no meritocracy? I think the answer is obvious."

I can only imagine that you are suggesting that the reason that a meritocracy has never cropped up is that there is some kind of self defeating principle or conflicting principles at work within a meritocracy necessarily. If this is actually your position, I would appreciate it if you laid it bare what these self defeating principles were. If it is not, I would either like a retraction of your entire last post, or an explanation of how that post does not imply the things I have deduced from it.

You went on to demand for me an explanation as to why no meritocracy has ever arisen. Before I do this, I would like to point out that there was a time before democracy existed, before representative government existed, NAY BEFORE GOVERNMENT ITSELF EXISTED! Now, would your same argument that 'no government has ever existed, how is it possible for one to come into existence?' have been valid in the paleolithic era? I think not. REGARDLESS, for the sake of argument accepting this prima facie erroneous argument against meritocracy as true...are there any possible explanations for why a meritocracy has not arisen thus far in history which do not involve some kind of intrinsic flaw in a system of meritocracy itself? Well, lo and behold, I've already given one. Earlier, I said that it may perhaps be the case that there are certain external obstacles which a coming meritocracy has not yet surmounted in its own establishment.

Quote:
(an obvious obstacle being the self interest of those who would clearly be removed from seats of power if they were allotted on a basis of merit)
This is clearly a realistic, extrinsic force which could conceivably be acting against the establishment of a meritocracy, is it not? Should you be unconvinced by this one counter example, let me present you with yet another.

That the people of the world throughout the history of the world have thus far been complacent and satisfied with a government which was merely tolerable and have not wished for a change from that which is merely tolerable to that which is not only better, but right!

I shall give you another. The campaign needed to be waged in order to gain public support for such a meritocracy (for even I admit it would not likely be possible to implement with only the few who would be fit to run it as supporting it) would surely take years and years, if not a generation or two, to wage. Especially against a populous untrained in the art of reasoned argumentation, which is indeedhow one must correctly arrive at the conclusion that a meritocracy is the best form of government. Surely three valid counter examples to your postulate that 'The answer is obvious why there is no meritocracy, it's because it's impossible'.

Quote:
What people are asking you to do is explain how we can tell who these administrator folks are.
It will require a certain class of people to be able to understand who this upper class of philosopher (maybe that adjective will help out) administrators will be. I certainly hope that all of you are at least capable of reaching being that class, if not of that class. What is the function of the state? It is surely to administer interactions between people and to ensure that they are civil. What is the function of the statesman? To aid in steering the state towards these ends. And the best statesman is the man who best understands the function of the state and how to use the limited powers granted to the state to direct it towards these ends. If you disagree with this definition of what the best statesman is, I would like to hear what the better definition is.

Quote:
And this is to say nothing of the assumption that there is such a thing as "natural and inherent rights" or that there is a single correct way of ordering human affairs.
It is not an assumption, and deed in establishing one the other follows. Now, first off, if you don't think that humans have natural and inherent rights, I am not entirely certain I feel safe allowing you around children. And it's not an assumption, it follows purely from reason. If you are a human, you are obligated to respect other humans as other rational autonomous beings. You are all thrown into the world, you are at their mercy as much as they are at your mercy. You are free in the world, and surely any unreasonable limiting of this freedom is a suppressing of your very nature. Is unreasonable limiting of natural freedom justifiable? Surely not, this is the definition of unreasonable. Then you ought not do it. If you wish do do what is not justifiable, then you are acting entirely at random, and why in the hell would you want to do that? So then, you ought not act in any way which constrains the freedom of another individual without reason. Well then, what would be a valid constriction of the freedom of an individual? Well, we have already said that we may not unreasonably restrict the freedom of an individual, so then, does this not make it reasonable to prevent individuals from unreasonably restricting the freedom of others? To this question I find my self forced to answer 'yes, yes it most certainly does'. And voila! Rights. So then, it follows from this, that a correct ordering of human affairs is one which constrains an individuals freedom to constrain the freedom of other individuals in any way!

Quote:
...It promises to be even more bureaucratic than contemporary democracies...
I concede, I have not outlined it with great clarity, because I wished for this thread to be a critique of one particular system, not an argument for another one. I also concede that much of the language I've used, though accurate in describing my system, is implicate of what you just described. But now that I've come this far I can tell you that this system is not in fact as you described. Recall, that the role of this administration is to correctly order human affairs, that is, interactions between humans. Which as I have said above, is to constrain the freedoms of individuals only so far as they are constrained from constraining the freedoms of other individuals! You are absolutely boundless and free so far as you are not encroaching on the freedom of another! So long as you are not slighting another in any way you are free to do whatever you like! It is in actuality, nothing like an uninteresting or fulfilling place to live. It would be a place that any individual can be free to make of it whatever he/she likes within his or her own power! Only insofar as he/she is not interfering with an-others ability to do so as well!

Now on to your last and most absurd claim.

Quote:
it creates a caste system.
Absolute tripe. When have I mentioned hereditary inheritance of administrative positions or social status even once! In fact! A caste system is in CLEAR AND DIRECT CONFLICT WITH A MERITOCRACY! Those in the government will simply be those who are the most qualified, regardless of origins. The administrators and the rest who would do the labor on which society depends would be separated out during the education and there would be permeability between the two tracks as one demonstrates his/her own ability. Those children with parents in the educational track would not receive any kind of advantage by having schooling be conducted at year-round boarding schools. The atomic household is done away with and the families of the children will be their classmates and their mentors. Everyone has an equal shot.

Now, I am going to post this post, in another thread. If you wish to discuss this further GO THERE. NOW CAN WE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GET ON WITH THE INTENDED TOPIC OF DISCUSSION?!!?!!!

0 Replies

@Emil,

Emil;127561 wrote:

It is beside the point that he went on to concede that he couldn't identify one. (Even though I suspect he did this only for the sake of the argument. It is rather easy to find examples of meritocratic systems, even a few of them are governments are closely related things.) The problem is that you deduced from a reluctance to answer your questions a "no" as the answer. That approach obviously doesn't work.

No, it's entirely to the point that he conceded the matter. And you're just dogmatically asserting what's in question: namely, whether it's ever appropriate to infer a "no" answer from a person's refusal to answer "yes" or "no." I bet that if you think about it, you'll be able to imagine all sorts of everday situations in which such an inference is entirely reasonable. Just so here. Indeed, even if my inference had been incorrect, it still would have been an entirely reasonable one under the circumstances.

Emil;127561 wrote:

That's odd because if you do a search on my posts you will see that they very seldom contain such words. I'll guess that you read the two (I recall two posts in this thread) that did contain such words and then made a hasty generalization all my posts containing such words. That's not warranted/justified (it is an informal fallacy).

I think it's also an informal fallacy to hazard guesses in this fashion about why a person may have arrived at a particular conclusion.

Notice also that you've mis-stated my conclusion: I never claimed that "all" of your posts contain ("containing") such words.

Emil;127561 wrote:

I don't see it as insulting as I was calling a specific element of the US's democratic system for stupid etc. not any person. Not even a category of persons. You can choose to read "stupid" etc. as whatever else fitting, non-insulting word you can dream up/find/invent. The fact is that such a system is pretty dumb (there was a new word for you).

The fact that you weren't referring to a person as "stupid," doesn't mean that the use of the word ins't insulting. And of course even if you don't view the use of the word as insulting, it doesn't follow that it isn't insulting. I don't think "dumb" is better than stupid. In fact, I think "dumb" is a cognate of "stupid."

In any case, my intention was only to explain why I generally don't pay too much attention to your posts. If you want me to pay attention, you can refrain from using terms like "stupid." If not, not. I don't think this is much to ask -- especially if, as you say, you don't use such words very frequently anyhow. On the other hand, as I already mentioned, I doubt that it's important to you whether I pay attention to your posts.

Emil;127561 wrote:

Irrelevant whether he did concede it or not. It is the inference that is problematic. Even invalid inferences happen to yield true conclusions once is a while.

It is irrelevant whether he conceded or not, but not because the inference was invalid in either case; it's because the inference that he couldn't identify a meritocracy was reasonable whether he ultimately admitted it or not. If he had been aware of such a system and simply refused to say so, it would have been either highly negligent of him or highly evasive, given the number of times the question had been put to him.

Emil;127561 wrote:

Your insult has been noted.

I didn't think it was insulting.

Emil;127561 wrote:

Not my problem that you don't like Wiki links. I really cannot be bothered to go to the article and find one of the references for you. If you are interested in the issue, you will probably go and look up the evidence yourself. If not, then there is nothing I can do.

Very true. It's not your problem that I don't like Wiki links. And it's not my problem that you expect responses to the Wiki links you post without any comment. If you are interested enough in the issue, you can go ahead and take the time to make an actual argument for your position. If not, not.

Emil;127561 wrote:

Besides, it is a dull point noting that I have not given many examples. It is not like I have been asked for any and even if I couldn't give any this instant it would not imply anything interesting (like that there are no such systems).

It's not any duller a point than any other point in this exchange. No, you weren't asked for examples. You also weren't asked for Wiki links, but you provided them anyhow. If you wanted to provide examples to support your view, it wasn't necessary to wait for an invitation.

But you've missed the point: the problem is not that you haven't given examples; it's that you haven't given any argument. And that's important not because (or not only because) it goes to the the merits of your position; it's relevant as an additional explanation for why I didn't bother responding to your post -- viz., there wasn't anything to respond to.

Emil;127561 wrote:

Smilies help humor without body language. Maybe you should consider using a couple of them.

Fair enough. As I already said, I take responsibility for the misunderstanding on this point. I really don't like using smilies, but if it's necessary to avoid future misunderstandings, I'll consider it.

Emil;127561 wrote:

And not much of the above anything to do with the topic. But this is quite common on this board. You start a thread and ask people to justify that A. They proceed to discuss all kinds of other things that are not related to A (like historical examples of meritocracy, jews of Denmark, ...). Feel free to actually begin arguing that democracy is a good form of government or something like that. Isn't that what the OP wanted?

Yes, I think that's what the OP wanted. And in a previous post, I asked the OP to restate what his questions were. Because it is no longer clear to me exactly what sort of defense of American democracy is being sought. This isn't his fault. He has been busy responding to criticisms of his own position. And I think I am alone in being confused about the kind of arguments that the OP is seeking.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 04:38 PM ----------

amist;127574 wrote:

Insty, I have responded in mind numbing detail to all of your objections against me in my large post a page or two back. You appear to be pretending that I never made this post. If any of my points made in that post are invalid, I would appreciate it if you would point out to me why.

lol, I saw the post and I wasn't pretending that it didn't exist. I deliberately refrained from responding because I thought you didn't want to discuss those issues anymore and instead wanted to focus on the "INTENDED TOPIC OF DISCUSSION" (about which, I confess, I'm still confused). Anyhow, I would be more than happy to reply. It may take me awhile to trudge through your post, but I assure you that I'll get to it before too long.

In case you haven't noticed, I should point out that, in my exchange with Emil, I have responded to the last couple of points in your post (in which you respond to my remarks about how the state you've described doesn't seem like a very interesting place to live and that it would install a caste system). I will reproduce my responses here, but if you would like me to say more on this point, I will be happy to do so.

Quote:

Yes, this remark (and the one below) seems to have been misunderstood. I was not intending here to make a serious argument. My comments were intended playfully and as an attempt: (1) to prevent this thread from turning into a pissing contest; and (2) to shift the focus of discussion away from the hair-splitting and logic-chopping that has marked much of the preceding discussion (which, again, appears to have lost its steam) and to suggest a broader set of issues that might be worth including in the discussion.

I take responsibility for the misunderstanding.

Quote:

This is a very trenchant observation indeed, but as I explained above, the remark you're responding to was offered in a spirit of playfulness. To the extent that I was serious, I was noting only that the meritocracies under discussion would be highly stratified in terms of rank. I take it that this is an uncontroversial claim. My point was simply that living in such a stratified state (in a state that makes stratification a high point of principle) isn't really appealing to me. Obviously, this wasn't meant as an argument against meritocratic forms of government.

Again, I take responsibility for the misunderstanding. Still, while I realize this is a philosophy forum, even here I think it should be okay for a person to express visceral, off-the-cuff reactions once in a while.

Quote:

Fair enough. As I already said, I take responsibility for the misunderstanding on this point. I really don't like using smilies, but if it's necessary to avoid future misunderstandings, I'll consider it.

0 Replies

@amist,

I have given up on attempting to redirect the course of the thread. You continued the topic bringing up points which I had clearly and definitely refuted in my last post. This is why I bring it up again.

1 Reply

@amist,

amist;127590 wrote:

I have given up on attempting to redirect the course of the thread. You continued the topic bringing up points which I had clearly and definitely refuted in my last post. This is why I bring it up again.

It is sad because democracy as a good governing form is seldom defended. I don't recall reading/seeing any rigorous defense of democracy. This is odd because it is quite common for people to think that democracy is something good.

0 Replies

Supporters of American Democracy, defend yourselves.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know