The content of that value determination is pretty important if we want to have a discussion past generalities.
Well what do you want to discuss here? My values? What we think society's values are? As I said, there is no definitive list, so in the context of the OP, the merits could be anything.
So we're creating a hypothetical of a society that is based on merit, and when I ask how we define merit, you answer with "Whatever the society defines merit to mean."
... So, I guess we're not going to have any productive discussion at all then? Ok. Glad we clarified that.
So we're creating a hypothetical of a society that is based on merit, and when I ask how we define merit, you answer with "Whatever the society defines merit to mean."
... So, I guess we're not going to have any productive discussion at all then? Ok. Glad we clarified that.
Not if you don't actually want to talk about the topic in the OP, no. I didn't choose the topic, I'm simply defending the notion of merit. If you want to question the usefulness of the notion of merit, we can have that discussion. If you want to discuss different takes on it, we can have that discussion. If you want to question the fundamentality I give to it in moral politics, we can have that discussion. What discussion do you want to have?
You asked what merit means, and I told you. To reiterate in slightly different terms: it means the societal conception of the quality of goodness or worthiness. It's relative to the society including scale, but it's not without a clear definition.
I believe in various systems in competition and collusion with each other best suffices to underpin society. Competent nepotism works in family and business. Meritocracy works best in larger job fields, when the metrics are well defined and specific to everyone. Socialism does work for government so as long as there is an understanding that pure socialism like pure capitalism leads to ruin. Whilst communism is a myth and lie born of a brilliant man's imagination.
And in some ways merit based pay has created places where short term thinking, cheating, and attract min/maxers like into the area of the banking field. There are only a few places to be truly meritorious, and that is often sports where you take away most of the mitigating factors to a competition and eliminate as many variables as possible for a linear outcome structured as a game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Wellfare makes the genuine merit-based society a genuine merit-based society, it would continue to support those who don't have enough even after the society has entered become actively and practically genuinely merit-based.
What would make someone poor in a world that is genuinely merit-based?
Wellfare makes the genuine merit-based society a genuine merit-based society, it would continue to support those who don't have enough even after the society has entered become actively and practically genuinely merit-based.
What would make someone poor in a world that is genuinely merit-based?
Wellfare makes the genuine merit-based society a genuine merit-based society, it would continue to support those who don't have enough even after the society has entered become actively and practically genuinely merit-based.
What would make someone poor in a world that is genuinely merit-based?
Being an artist in a world of scientists.
Being a scientist in a world of artists.
Being a think tank in a world of warriors.
Being a warrior in a world of think tanks.
Meritocracy and freedom cannot co-exist because people's skills aren't equally valuable and if we force everyone to be a doctor, because that's what the country needs, we end up like Cuba.
I'm an artist, I'm also a seasonal crab fisherman. Guess which one pays my bills? Clue, it's not the one I spent 4 years studying for.
In the formative years of a meritocratic society art has no use, neither does game design, or leisure writing, showmanship, graphic design, marketing, sports. There is no time for elite craftsmanship and selling unnecessary stuff when we have Africa, the Middle-East and South America to fix so we can start from scratch. A meritocratic society would also have to be a global society by the way because otherwise foreign politics will browbeat it into relationships and treaties that may not be meritocratic.
And we all know what would happen to the handicapped and mentally ill during the early stages of meritocracy, it's not a coincidence eugenics always show their ugly mug where these fantasy politics are discussed.
Meritocracy may eventially develop a society much like our own except without nearly as many marginals or billionaires, but it's birthing years would be decidedly dystopic and it may never even reach maturity unless it's ruled by an actually omnipresent and omnipotent entity because as mentioned above, apparently meritocratic endeavors such as finance, are chock full of cheaters going from business to business and leaving them dry.
Wellfare makes the genuine merit-based society a genuine merit-based society, it would continue to support those who don't have enough even after the society has entered become actively and practically genuinely merit-based.
What would make someone poor in a world that is genuinely merit-based?
Meritocracy and freedom cannot co-exist because people's skills aren't equally valuable and if we force everyone to be a doctor, because that's what the country needs, we end up like Cuba.
This being only if merit is only to the country. Very important distinction to be made here: what we are talking about doesn't have to something that would be considered a meritocracy, due to the nature of the definition of merit being used here (at least by me).
For reference, merit "the quality of being good or worthy". This being anything that makes one considered good or worthy, and not just something economic or somesuch.
One thing to be clear: I don't advocate a purely merit based society. I advocate a strong basis in merit.
The problem is that merit is a value based system, like all economic systems. There is no absolutes and what works for most will not work for at least some. Specifically being good or worthy is also a value judgement which is fundamentally an emotional system. Example of do I buy the normal jar of peanut butter or an economy size of peanut butter. I get more with economy and it is cheaper per quantity, but do I use that much peanut butter, can I afford that much peanut butter and do I like peanut butter that much? All economic systems are value based and that is why they are flawed. There is no correct answer.
Just stepping in to point out some of you guys have very twisted perceptions on the importance of heritage on future success. Being the son of a rich man does not give you huge advantage because of the money, but because you're being taught and breed by a business minded person and will become business minded yourself. You also are introduced in the elite's social network which is far more important then having cash in your bank account.
Who do you think will have a better chance of becoming a billionaire ?
- Someone with a family with no business background that just won 15 million dollars on a lottery.
- The son of a CEO who had his inheritance 100% taxed.
Taxing this sort of money will not even out the playing field. Parent-son relationships can't be taxed and that's everyone's number one endowment.
Just stepping in to point out some of you guys have very twisted perceptions on the importance of heritage on future success. Being the son of a rich man does not give you huge advantage because of the money, but because you're being taught and breed by a business minded person and will become business minded yourself. You also are introduced in the elite's social network which is far more important then having cash in your bank account.
Who do you think will have a better chance of becoming a billionaire ?
- Someone with a family with no business background that just won 15 million dollars on a lottery.
- The son of a CEO who had his inheritance 100% taxed.
Taxing this sort of money will not even out the playing field. Parent-son relationships can't be taxed and that's everyone's number one endowment.
Inequality of human ability is not of concern here, it's power that does not relate to ability. Having a good start in life not in terms of money is actively desirable because it does work to ensure a productive member of society. Inheriting loads of money while you're growing up does not, in only does work to ensure that others don't have the resources to achieve their potential and happiness in life- while sometimes such a person receiving a lot of inheritance will spread it around to those who need it, a lot of others will mostly use it for themselves.
Just stepping in to point out some of you guys have very twisted perceptions on the importance of heritage on future success. Being the son of a rich man does not give you huge advantage because of the money, but because you're being taught and breed by a business minded person and will become business minded yourself. You also are introduced in the elite's social network which is far more important then having cash in your bank account.
Who do you think will have a better chance of becoming a billionaire ?
- Someone with a family with no business background that just won 15 million dollars on a lottery.
- The son of a CEO who had his inheritance 100% taxed.
Taxing this sort of money will not even out the playing field. Parent-son relationships can't be taxed and that's everyone's number one endowment.
Inequality of human ability is not of concern here, it's power that does not relate to ability. Having a good start in life not in terms of money is actively desirable because it does work to ensure a productive member of society. Inheriting loads of money while you're growing up does not, in only does work to ensure that others don't have the resources to achieve their potential and happiness in life- while sometimes such a person receiving a lot of inheritance will spread it around to those who need it, a lot of others will mostly use it for themselves.
Most of then will actually invest it, which is probably a better destination for society then taxing and spreading it around.
There's also a lot of cases (most cases actually) were money is actually a massive family business. How do you tax it without reducing the family's share ? Is it fare that a family loose the property of their own company just because the family chief died ?
Meritocracy and freedom cannot co-exist because people's skills aren't equally valuable and if we force everyone to be a doctor, because that's what the country needs, we end up like Cuba.
They get healthcare out of that, tho.
A gilded cage is still a cage. Mexicans get healthcare too and they weren't forbidden from leaving their country, don't have resource allocations and aren't forced to study something they don't want to so that they country looks better.
Yes there are more doctors in Cuba than Mexico, yes there are less unemployed in Cuba than Mexico, but I'd wager the later has quality over quantity because when americans can't afford american doctors they don't go that far south.
Are we discussing merit based society or some sort of Brave New World style totalitarian government planned society?
A key problem here is that there is no clear meaning of merit. Are we talking intelligence, power, looks, celebrity? Who determines this? What incentive is there to do anything of worth for society past merely meeting some arbitrary standard?
Also, what exactly about capitalism is not merit based? If anything, it represents pure merit based society, if you consider merit to be providing value to the society as judged by its members. Each market transaction represents this value judgement.
Not really.
Do you think our society at large values the work of a typical stock trader above that of a teacher or soldier? The monetary rewards would suggest that they do, by a large gap in fact, but I doubt the people would agree.
Capitalism is merit-based in the sense that it rewards some very specific forms of merit very highly. But merit is a broad and very subjective term. You could easily argue that the teacher is doing more good, adding more value to our society, than the stock broker.
a)I'm Bill, i'm a good/'normal' guy, loving friends and family while caring about my society too, i mean well and i'm eager to put considerable effort into things as long as i keep having my personal life intact
b)i'm not a smart person, let's say i have an IQ(for whatever that means) slightly below average
c)i don't have an intimidating physique either, i'm not naturaly talented for some sport, or physical labour
d)i'm not particularly talented for some specific craft/trade
e)i prefer to learn a little bit of everything rather than specialize in a single field
f)i can communicate with other just fine, but i'm not very charismatic/attractive
wtf happens to me in that 'merit based society'? do i crawl under a bush and die? don't i deserve a normal life?
It depends on what merit means here. Considering my definition that's been mostly the central point of this thread, what happens to Bill is dependant on what society he lives in, what notion of merit that society follows.
The notion of merit I have been talking about is really a category isolating a certain component of social systems. It's not a set of values, it's the set of societal sets of values. The point behind the term is that what different society's values are is a central part of differentiating their social philosophy.
a)I'm Bill, i'm a good/'normal' guy, loving friends and family while caring about my society too, i mean well and i'm eager to put considerable effort into things as long as i keep having my personal life intact
b)i'm not a smart person, let's say i have an IQ(for whatever that means) slightly below average
c)i don't have an intimidating physique either, i'm not naturaly talented for some sport, or physical labour
d)i'm not particularly talented for some specific craft/trade
e)i prefer to learn a little bit of everything rather than specialize in a single field
f)i can communicate with other just fine, but i'm not very charismatic/attractive
wtf happens to me in that 'merit based society'? do i crawl under a bush and die? don't i deserve a normal life?
It depends on what merit means here. Considering my definition that's been mostly the central point of this thread, what happens to Bill is dependant on what society he lives in, what notion of merit that society follows.
The notion of merit I have been talking about is really a category isolating a certain component of social systems. It's not a set of values, it's the set of societal sets of values. The point behind the term is that what different society's values are is a central part of differentiating their social philosophy.
hmm, by merit don't we usually mean ambition, productivity, initiative and intelligent risk taking? (i assume he refers to some purely capitalistic society, with hardly any form of state intervention/redistribution/taxes in which everyone gets what he deserves/cans)
The original post, and consequently this thread really, was a response to my comments. The definition of merit those comments where based on is this 'the quality of goodness or worthiness', and specifically in this context, '...as determined by society'. Call it societal merit or societal value if you wish, it's not important. Qualities like ambition, productivity, initiative and intelligent risk tasking are some of those values of society.
Merit is a loose term here because it's descriptive, not prescriptive. How much society should be based on merit and what the merits are is nothing to do with the meaning of the term itself.
the question is where will the reward of those with 'merit' come from
Employers and government aid (if eligible) would be the main sources of income. Note that government's role in a merit based society is probably (and I think it should be) to ensure that things are indeed merit based- enacting regulation and wellfare. This allows specialisation.
Well what do you want to discuss here? My values? What we think society's values are? As I said, there is no definitive list, so in the context of the OP, the merits could be anything.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It doesn't necessarily have to be yours or mine or society's currently. But it needs to be defined in specific terms.
For example, Spartan merit is different than Athenian merit. The ideal societies of which would be starkly different.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
I get that. But which do you want to discuss?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
... So, I guess we're not going to have any productive discussion at all then? Ok. Glad we clarified that.
Not if you don't actually want to talk about the topic in the OP, no. I didn't choose the topic, I'm simply defending the notion of merit. If you want to question the usefulness of the notion of merit, we can have that discussion. If you want to discuss different takes on it, we can have that discussion. If you want to question the fundamentality I give to it in moral politics, we can have that discussion. What discussion do you want to have?
You asked what merit means, and I told you. To reiterate in slightly different terms: it means the societal conception of the quality of goodness or worthiness. It's relative to the society including scale, but it's not without a clear definition.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
And in some ways merit based pay has created places where short term thinking, cheating, and attract min/maxers like into the area of the banking field. There are only a few places to be truly meritorious, and that is often sports where you take away most of the mitigating factors to a competition and eliminate as many variables as possible for a linear outcome structured as a game.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
What would make someone poor in a world that is genuinely merit-based?
I'd imagine not. The guy who inherited anything didn't get it out of their own merits.
Criminal activity (given fines), laziness, etc.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Being an artist in a world of scientists.
Being a scientist in a world of artists.
Being a think tank in a world of warriors.
Being a warrior in a world of think tanks.
Meritocracy and freedom cannot co-exist because people's skills aren't equally valuable and if we force everyone to be a doctor, because that's what the country needs, we end up like Cuba.
I'm an artist, I'm also a seasonal crab fisherman. Guess which one pays my bills? Clue, it's not the one I spent 4 years studying for.
In the formative years of a meritocratic society art has no use, neither does game design, or leisure writing, showmanship, graphic design, marketing, sports. There is no time for elite craftsmanship and selling unnecessary stuff when we have Africa, the Middle-East and South America to fix so we can start from scratch. A meritocratic society would also have to be a global society by the way because otherwise foreign politics will browbeat it into relationships and treaties that may not be meritocratic.
And we all know what would happen to the handicapped and mentally ill during the early stages of meritocracy, it's not a coincidence eugenics always show their ugly mug where these fantasy politics are discussed.
Meritocracy may eventially develop a society much like our own except without nearly as many marginals or billionaires, but it's birthing years would be decidedly dystopic and it may never even reach maturity unless it's ruled by an actually omnipresent and omnipotent entity because as mentioned above, apparently meritocratic endeavors such as finance, are chock full of cheaters going from business to business and leaving them dry.
This being only if merit is only to the country. Very important distinction to be made here: what we are talking about doesn't have to something that would be considered a meritocracy, due to the nature of the definition of merit being used here (at least by me).
For reference, merit "the quality of being good or worthy". This being anything that makes one considered good or worthy, and not just something economic or somesuch.
One thing to be clear: I don't advocate a purely merit based society. I advocate a strong basis in merit.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Who do you think will have a better chance of becoming a billionaire ?
- Someone with a family with no business background that just won 15 million dollars on a lottery.
- The son of a CEO who had his inheritance 100% taxed.
Taxing this sort of money will not even out the playing field. Parent-son relationships can't be taxed and that's everyone's number one endowment.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Inequality of human ability is not of concern here, it's power that does not relate to ability. Having a good start in life not in terms of money is actively desirable because it does work to ensure a productive member of society. Inheriting loads of money while you're growing up does not, in only does work to ensure that others don't have the resources to achieve their potential and happiness in life- while sometimes such a person receiving a lot of inheritance will spread it around to those who need it, a lot of others will mostly use it for themselves.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Most of then will actually invest it, which is probably a better destination for society then taxing and spreading it around.
There's also a lot of cases (most cases actually) were money is actually a massive family business. How do you tax it without reducing the family's share ? Is it fare that a family loose the property of their own company just because the family chief died ?
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
A gilded cage is still a cage. Mexicans get healthcare too and they weren't forbidden from leaving their country, don't have resource allocations and aren't forced to study something they don't want to so that they country looks better.
Yes there are more doctors in Cuba than Mexico, yes there are less unemployed in Cuba than Mexico, but I'd wager the later has quality over quantity because when americans can't afford american doctors they don't go that far south.
Not really.
Do you think our society at large values the work of a typical stock trader above that of a teacher or soldier? The monetary rewards would suggest that they do, by a large gap in fact, but I doubt the people would agree.
Capitalism is merit-based in the sense that it rewards some very specific forms of merit very highly. But merit is a broad and very subjective term. You could easily argue that the teacher is doing more good, adding more value to our society, than the stock broker.
It depends on what merit means here. Considering my definition that's been mostly the central point of this thread, what happens to Bill is dependant on what society he lives in, what notion of merit that society follows.
The notion of merit I have been talking about is really a category isolating a certain component of social systems. It's not a set of values, it's the set of societal sets of values. The point behind the term is that what different society's values are is a central part of differentiating their social philosophy.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The original post, and consequently this thread really, was a response to my comments. The definition of merit those comments where based on is this 'the quality of goodness or worthiness', and specifically in this context, '...as determined by society'. Call it societal merit or societal value if you wish, it's not important. Qualities like ambition, productivity, initiative and intelligent risk tasking are some of those values of society.
Merit is a loose term here because it's descriptive, not prescriptive. How much society should be based on merit and what the merits are is nothing to do with the meaning of the term itself.
Employers and government aid (if eligible) would be the main sources of income. Note that government's role in a merit based society is probably (and I think it should be) to ensure that things are indeed merit based- enacting regulation and wellfare. This allows specialisation.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice