page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:04 AM

Originally posted by chr0naut
Establishment of a meritocracy requires inhibition of human nature & greed.

John Locke is a personal hero of mine, because he preached that human natured is inherently that of tolerance and sound reasoning, however the act of war calls that belief into question. A wise man once told me, that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, so with that said it is we as conscious beings who knowingly act on our own behalf while both destroying and acting righteously. Since we as a human species can rationalize such themes in relation to human suffering, we most certainly should not allow such a notion as inherent human nature to act as a scapegoat while we dismiss personal accountability for ones own actions. That said, you completely nailed it on the head with your composer example in regards to the social dilema that would arise from different human perspectives as to what is personally meaningful.
edit on 28-5-2012 by nickendres because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
reply to post by chr0naut

Merit would be determined by ideas and intelligence rather than family and money..

Rather, merit would be determined by the tried and true PROVEN SUCCESS of certain ideas and intelligences rather than family and money.

I'm glad you've brought meritocracy to the discussion here, but I feel you fall short of some of the premises of the very subject matter by forming prejudice against Freemasons, however I am not one. I find meritocracy to be one of their 'icing on the cake' final political implementations for the NWO. remember.. on every lodge floor there are black squares AND white squares..... (they're not ALL "evil")

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by chr0naut

Would an idiot who saves someone's life have more merit than the composer of a symphony? If Dr Josef Mengele claimed the results of his research and his doctorates gave him merit, would it? At some stage you have to put your feet on solid ground and admit that there has to be a process or criteria for selection. Who determines that? Can they be trusted or would they be corrupt and self serving too? Establishment of a meritocracy requires inhibition of human nature & greed.

Well, both would receive merit, but your right, at some point a criteria for awarding merit would have to be established. The idea of rewarding merit is better than the current system we have today. In current society it's all about where your born, who your parents are, what kind of accent you have, the color of your skin, how much money you have, etc.. The current system has failed, it's time for something new.. I think meritocracy or something similar is a suitable replacement.

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman


You could still continue striving for what your parent's strive for, just do it without their money.. Inheriting from your parents gives you an unfair advantage over people who are born to a family who is not as wealthy. In the case of 100% inheritance tax, everyone starts at the same point. No one starts ahead of the starting line, and no one starts behind it.

I am sure you have heard this before but LIFE IS NOT FREAKING FAIR. This meritocracy seems to be more akin to socialism you propose. Confiscation of wealth is a shared goal. And then who gets to decide how it is distributed? Why the Ones with the most merit of course which automatically discounts this system as unfair yet again. Its a good idea,but its just that a Idea since this is not a perfect world with humans treating each other fairly.

This boils down to JEALOUSY once AGAIN. Oh boo hoo we dont have this we dont have that. Grow the heck up and go out there and WORK for what you want and stop waiting for a handout or the goverment to save you. If you want to be jealous of the way america was founded by the parents leaving their wealth behind to make life easier for their offspring you might want to reconsider your Posistion because its not gonna happen. We would have to rewrite the entire Constituition as well as the bill of rights.

And about making the Family not important good luck doing that. Seriously. If a family works hard for something its not Cheating to give it as a gift when you die and cannot use it anymore. Your assumption that merit will be fair is flawed on the individual level. If we all think of ourselves NOTHING will get done. If everyone was like that the civilazation we currenlty have will revert into nothing but Anarchy.
edit on 28-5-2012 by yuppa because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:40 PM

Originally posted by yuppa
Its a good idea,but its just that a Idea since this is not a perfect world with humans treating each other fairly.
go out there and WORK for what you want
We would have to rewrite the entire Constituition as well as the bill of rights.

I took out some of your main points to illustrate my shared beliefs on several of the items. However, I don't believe the Constitution would really need to be revised, because The Bill of Rights adheres to the Social Contract Theory, by outlining the preservation of individual expression in accordance with federally mandated laws.
In addition, the United States was founded upon ideals, and I find that individual values is where the disconnect with regards to the current system is stemming from for a lot of people. Largely because these ideals made the assumption that peole would conduct their lives transparently, while at the same time the Founders disregarded the potential for the civic and professional adoption of Machiavellian power tactics.
The Founders expected leaders to act selflessly, and for citizens to take personal accountability for the conduct of their government. I can feel for the people who are just flat-out down on their luck by no fault of their own because of policy decisions, but I cannot disregard the fact that there are also people who simply refuse to better their own lives if others are willing to pay so they don't absolutely have to.
I have lived my life based on the idea that you don't always get what you want, but you will always get what you deserve. We already live in a merit system, which is is reflected in all social aspects, whether it be in school or in a job. You get grades, and you get paid an income based on your perceived worth, in addition to the efforts you made to become more "valueable". For the most part, what other people do is truly irrelevant, unless it unjustly compromises an individual's sovereignty. Nobody is making anyone do anything that they don't willing cooperate with, because I knowingly dictate my reaction to everything. People just need to make their own luck, be their own messiah, because ultimately they have to answer to themselves when they look in the mirror above anyone else.

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:10 PM
There is an even fairer solution that does not require someone to make value judgements to determine merit.

It is simply: mandatory voting, one person, one vote. No weightings or systems to account for preferential treatment. Just every person of voting age has an equal voice.

It is called Democracy.

... and before you reply erroneously, I do not regard America's Republic (or even the Westminster System) as a TRUE Democracy.

new topics
top topics
<< 1   >>

log in