this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
84 points (92.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43968 readers
926 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is the definition I am using:

a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kindness@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[Meritocracy] is not something that only occurs in the top branches of the government. It’s something that should occur in every level of every organization, in every office and in every pay-grade.

Please look into Feudalism. Then please look into why it has faded into obscurity. The Japanese had a particularly poignant understanding of it.

The idea is that you get enough rewards (money, social capital, etc.) that you will find the work worthwhile.

This is capitalism or social credit.

“who’s on top”, but in a perfect world no one is.

Popularity contests are a bad way of making choices

This is anarchism. Which leads to mob rule, the definition of power in the majority, and then to fragmented autocracies. ie Individuals grouping up to gain advantages then forming gangs, tribes, and engaging power struggles.

Right we do the worst option, in which the governing body distribute funds based on political power.

Which country is "we"?

The law is a bunch of rules, chosen by people in power

Not laws, 'the law'. As in the determiner of how the rules apply to the people. This is typically the police, legal interpreters, courts, on up until you hit judges and legislators, who hold the power to modify laws.

We don’t have to have the perfect definition

Because perfection is an illusion. The reason behind outdated-laws, governments struggling with complexity, and loopholes is precisely because any time there is ambiguity, there exists abuse. Meritocracy being founded on an ideal implementation where everyone in society supports the idea and nobody tries to abuse the system is folly, bound to fail at first brush with ambiguity.

There are many possible algorithms.

Forgive my bluntness, but your ideals are half baked, complexities waved away as if the pieces will fall into place after taking the leap, and tried but not studied. You would need a much better understanding of history and the governments that have already existed before you could convince me meritocracy can survive beyond dreams and ideals.

Apologies. I wish you luck on your journey through life.

[–] erez@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's a very condescending comment. Maybe I came across as condescending too. Either way, if your criticism was supposed to be helpful, I'm sorry to say that it isn't. You didn't provide any evidence that I'm wrong. From my perspective, it sounds like you just don't understand me, so you decided to give up.

Anyway, I'm not that enthusiastic about debating strangers over the internet, I only replied because you sounded curious. So I'm equally happy to bid you farewell.

[–] Kindness@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago

I'm sorry I caused you to feel that way.

From my perspective I had expectations I was speaking with someone who had intensely considered a governing system they were fond of and were intimate with its faults. Instead, I'm rather put out to be speaking with flashes of inspiration, as rapidly as they can form, to justify or mitigate any shortcomings.

While I might enjoy acting as a sounding board when expected, I'm feeling rather disappointed this wasn't a debate.

Debating may be the purest form of sharing and refining ideas. My comment was not out of malice, but I apologise for the rude response and letting my emotions get the better of me.