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.

  • Kindness@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    [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 The reason behind outdated-laws, governments struggling with complexity, and loopholes is precisely because any time there is ambiguity, there exists abuse.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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 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.