But you see droop224, you are just confirming my assertions. I am sorry but I just don't buy your "this is the REAL world" argument. Meritocracy is not your goal but rather to decrease inequalities. There is nothing wrong with that...but I think its wrong to use the ideals of "meritocracy" as a smokescreen to hide your true intentions. You are in favor of places where meritocracy would decrease inequality and probably against a meritocracy in areas that would increase inequality. Is that a fair assessment? If so, then you are not in favor of any form of meritocracy. Its possible for two very different ideologies to favor the same policy for different reasons. This is one of those instances.

I feel it.. I feel it coming on.. here it comes..... It's time for.... DROOP's ANALOGY

Here is the analogy

Me, You, Julian , and Blackstone we all decide to race the hundred yard dash. This race represents monetary success in life.

There are 4 lanes each with different pluses or minuses. For instance in lane one the runner start 25 yards ahead the start line. In lane two the runner starts 50 yards in. Both lane 3 and 4 start at the appropriate starting point however lane 3 has ten hurdles. These differing lanes represent life, but more importantly the simple unfairness of life.

We don't know each other, you may be a track star, I may be a fat slob, but regardless we all pick our names blindly out of a hat. This represents the priviledge of birth. Where and to whom we were lucky enough to be born to.

Now, the gun shoots the race starts and we want to know.... who's the fastest runner? Well we don't know who's gonna win. Just because one of us started fifty yards away from the start line does not mean that that person will win. the person that started 25 yards in only has to make up 25 yards, so if he is fast enough, and the other person is slow enough... He could win. If the guy at the 50 yard line tripped over his own feet, he could come in dead last. And if the guy had lane 3 with the hurdles, could be the trackstar and over take lane 1 and 4 and maybe even two who had no obstacles and a 50 yard headstart.

But likely if you had people of similar speed, a.k.a average people, the track lanes would decide the winner.

So here is where our views differ. To me, meritocracy would be who is the fastest runner. But how can I determine who truly is the fastest runner with lanes that do not match.

From what you just posted, you would criticize me and say I am not for meritocracy if I think we should shave 1 second of for every hurdle that the person in lane 3 has to hop over. You would criticize me for saying hey, let's double the time of the person who ran the fifty yards and compare it to the guy in lane 4 who ran the full hundred yards. YOU would criticize me if the runner in lane 1 were a 1/2 second behind the runner in lane 2 and I wanted to call the runner in lane 1 the winner of the race, even though the runner in lane 2 had a 25 yard headstart but could only get to the finish line a half secon sooner than runner in lane 1.

Again to me the fastest runner represents meritocracy. From your statements I feel as if you believe the person who comes to the finish line first represents meritocracy.

So when you say:

"Meritocracy is not your goal but rather to decrease inequalities. There is nothing wrong with that...but I think its wrong to use the ideals of "meritocracy" as a smokescreen to hide your true intentions."

I don't want to deny what your saying, but I don't see how you don't see synergetic nature of these two things. If you decrease inequalities you will increase meritocracy. And if you increase meritocracy you have less need to artificially create rules to enforce fairness.

If I start pulling the guys back from the 50 yard line and the 25 yard line, if I start removing hurdles out of lane 3. I create an environment that has greater equality. And the greater this equality grow, when the gun shoots, the better chance I have of deciphering who is the best runner just by looking at the finish line.

What inequalities do you reduce? And more importantly, why?

The only way to get a "true meritocracy" is to take every child at birth and toss them into a government creche to raise them, and even then you won't have a "true meritocracy", you'll just eliminate all but the biological inheritance. You'll still have the natural inequalities produced by one creche being better than another, by one cohort of babies at a creche networking with one another better than the others (which boosts the average child of that creche's chances over the average child of other creches), etc. How do you decrease these inequalities?

The "accident of birth" refers to more than just the economic class of one's parents. It also covers those who are fortunate enough to be borne to hard working parents who pass on their values as opposed to lazy parents who pass on theirs. It covers those who are born in the United States as opposed to being born in a Hmong village. How do we decrease these inequalities?


Julian,
Being born an Englishman in today's world is one doozy of an inheritance, just ask most of the residents of Africa... By virtue of your birth, you are heir to a safetynet that will provide you with a better standard of living while doing nothing than working 80+ hours a week provides the vast majority of Africans.

As a purely theoretical idea, a true meritocracy is attractive. However, it is beyond impractical in the real world.

That was a lot to read, and frankly basically what you've said all along.

I'll add a new theory here.

The decreasing of inequalities here is basically the beginning of SOCIALISM. Seriously. You seem like a bright guy. This is pretty marxist (or at least Che'-esque) philosophy. We all should be raised in thatch huts wearing Army green until we're 18, then we can earn our own way?

Follow me. This is very easy to understand. People who are born into wealth will still be born into wealth. Silly laws that preclude kids from receiving money after death would never stop it. How would you stop a child from going to Harvard, or a kids parents from buying them into a small business, or from parents buying them expensive cars, etc, etc, etc??

The truth of the matter is that so long as we exist in a capitalist society, flush with it's less-than-perfect notions, this is going to be the fact of the matter.

Realistically, the majority of Americans don't get the 'leg up' that you're insinuating when their parents croak. Maybe a few credit cards get paid off (or things of that nature). What truly happens in the majority of American homes when their parents pass and they get a couple of $$$ in their pockets is NOT some monster windfall.

The Kennedys and the Gates and the Clintons and the Bushes will stay rich regardless of this silly notion you've portrayed. The rest of America has to work to decide their own fate...

Sorry droop224, but your analogy is deeply flawed from the simple fact that there is no objective way to measure the difference in track length. All things being equal...you would be right about what a meritocracy means. But your analogy assumes it is actually measurable whether one person is 10 yards closer to the finish line than someone else. It isn't measurable and can only be decided by an arbitrary third party who must make a moral decision about everyone's differences. That is where I have a problem. Its subjective how far i am from the finish line comparable to you. How about a Leder analogy? Lets say they are two kids: one a rich white kid from suburbia, the second a poor minority kid from the inner-city. Now based on those factors alone, one will assume who has the easier/more difficult life. But its possible that the rich white kid is a victim of neglect, abuse, or any number of afflictions while the poor minority kid had a good, nurturing family. Can you tell me who has the easier life? Is it even possible to measure it? Thats the problem when you break everything down into rich/poor or similar social factors. Because the merit of one kid's achievements is impossible to measure next to that of another...we shouldn't even try because it would just lead to more injustice.


That's incorrect droop for reasons i mentioned earlier. A meritocracy is essentially social darwinism, where the strong survive and the weak are left behind. As with all systems, it will still maintain a level of inequality. But what makes it distasteful is for the analogies i made earlier in reference to me and you having a bakery.