posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:55 PM
This thread is to give an overview of the Meritocracy Party and to give a description of my goals and ideas for the Meritocracy Party. If you should
have any questions regarding the Party or my stance on the individual issues, don't hesitate to ask.
The following is a list of the basic aims and principles of the Meritocracy Party:
1.) It's not who your parents are, It's who you are.
2.) It's not what others can do for you, It's what you can do for you.
3.) You start from the same point as everyone else, and you may go as far as your talents can take you.
4.) Talent is everything. Sex, race, religion, and age are irrelevant.
5.) 100% inheritance tax. This is to ensure the end of nepotism and cronyism. With 100% inheritance tax, everyone will have equal opportunity in life,
everyone is rewarded for what they can do for themselves, not what others can do for them.
6.) All merit and achievements will be rewarded.
Meritocracy also aims to abolish monarchy and democracy.
abolish the monarchy since it contradicts the first Meritocratic Principle. In a monarchy, the only thing that matter is the identity of your parents.
In a meritocracy, your parents are irrelevant. Talent is everything.
Democracy has become the single biggest obstacle to the rise of the most meritorious. In the USA, no matter your talents, you cannot become President
unless you have access to vast wealth to fund your campaign.
With the way things currently are, if you are born into a poor family, you are almost certain to remain poor, regardless of your merits. On the other
hand, If your parents are rich, you can start looking forward to a prosperous future, again regardless of your merits.
Meritocracy will seek to remove the link between parents' wealth and children's outcome in life.
Political parties will be done away with in Meritocracy, as they would be irrelevant. Parliament will be populated only by independent Members with no
set political affiliations other than commitment to meritocracy. Each independent member is selected on the basis of their merit relating to their
field of expertise. For example, Secretary of State for Health will be someone who works in the health field and is elected only by health workers;
the Secretary for Defence will be from the armed forces; the Foreign Secretary a serving official in the Foreign Office; the Secretary of State for
Education a serving teacher/headmaster/lecturer. In other words, members of parliament won't represent a political party or a geographical
constituency, but a particular field in which they have demonstrable experience, expertise and merit; and their constituents/voters will be people in
the same field who can make an informed decision about their ability.
The Prime Minister will be elected from amongst the members of parliament by the members of parliament. Every four years, members of parliament will
have to seek support from their voters, or be replaced. Critiques of government policy will be challenged by special committees. The committees will
include select scientists and philosophers, chosen because of their critical-thinking abilities and their expertise in challenging assumptions.
Members of parliament will be under close scrutiny by these committees to ensure that they are making the right decisions, all decisions and laws made
will be challenged by these committees.
Meritocracy will abolish the politics of principle in favor of the scientific method. In other words, what works and what doesn't over what's right
and what's wrong. Education is the bedrock of meritocracy. The current education system is designed to produce shoppers and obedient workers.
Education under meritocracy will produce independent free thinking individuals. True education liberates the mind, not the credit card. Meritocracy
will seek to provide alternatives to the family and also to put less emphasis on family. If a family fails, its members can be nurtured in a
different, constructive and productive environment of psychological and educational well-being. Community is the alternative. Family causes a 'dog
eat dog world'. People will do just about anything to help the interests of their family, even if it is at the expense of other families. Meritocracy
will ensure that the country is governed by its most talented individuals. Those individuals will not be constrained in any way. It's up to them how
to govern. But, they can be periodically voted out if they do not command the confidence of the people.
State Over Family
If i could give you the choice between being raised by two average office workers or by hundreds of elite individuals with breathtaking talents, which
would you choose... In the first case, of course, I'm referring to a typical family upbringing; in the second, the sort of upbringing a Meritocratic
state would offer. The state can call on the skills of millions of remarkable individuals that it has at its disposal. The state can bring children up
in the best possible way. As creative, constructive, inspiring individuals who can make a full and dazzling contribution to the state. Why should
children instead be condemned to the dreary boxed environment provided by the average family; to be raised by two untalented, bored and boring adults?
The Meritocratic state would like to send the majority of children to boarding schools, where they can escape the parental environment. Parents will
have the burden of raising children removed from them. Parent will have much more time to themselves, much more time to develop themselves, and can be
proud that they're doing the best possible thing for their children by turning them over to the experts. Children would be encouraged to spend as
much time as possible with their parents outside of school. Parents can provide one thing that the state cannot- love.
Meritocracy can solve the countries housing problems. Instead of building boxes for families (which is nothing more than a place to keep the useless
stuff you buy, we should turn toward community housing. This is based on existing well tried and tested examples: hotels, halls of residence for
students, and retirement homes for the elderly. These are predicated on single, en-suite rooms, with residents having easy access to communal areas,
for example, a lounge, a dining room, a kitchen etc. They save a huge amount of space in comparison with traditional houses and, above all, they
foster community living.
People are no longer socially isolated if their family situation collapses. Crime would fall because a good, helpful community would inevitably
address many of the social issues that lead to people embarking on criminal lifestyles in the first place.