View Full Version : Meritocracy Vs Dumbocracy

23rd February 2012, 11:04
Meritocracy itself is not a form of government, but rather an ideology. In government applications, individuals appointed to a meritocracy are judged based upon certain merits which could range from intelligence to morality to general aptitude to specific knowledge

Although meritocracy as a term is a relatively recent invention, the concept originates from the works of Confucius, along with other Legalist and Confucian philosophers. The first meritocracy was implemented in the 2nd century BC, by the Han Dynasty, which introduced world's first civil service exams evaluating the "merit" of officials. Meritocracy as a concept spread from China to British India during the 17th century, and then into continental Europe and the United States. With the translation of Confucian texts during the Enlightenment, the concept of a meritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditional ancient regime of Europe. In the United States, the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 prompted the replacement of the American Spoils System with a meritocracy. In 1883, The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was passed, stipulating government jobs should be awarded on the basis of merit through competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation.


Democracy is the ideal that all the citizens of a nation determine together the laws or actions of their state, requiring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to express their consent and their will. In practise, "democracy" is the extent to which a given system approximates this ideal, and a given political system is referred to as "a democracy" if it allows a certain approximation to ideal democracy.
The most common system that is deemed "democratic" in the modern world is parliamentary democracy in which the voting public takes part in elections and chooses politicians to represent them in a Legislative Assembly. The members of the assembly then make decisions with a majority vote. A purer form is direct democracy when the voting public makes direct decisions or participates directly in the political process. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level in many countries, such as the use of referendums in California and other US States, and Open Town Meetings in New England states and Landsgemeinden in two Swiss Cantons, though these systems often coexist with representative assemblies. Usually, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.[1] It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Although democracy is a fine Ideal, it obviously has it's draw backs, in that greed and lust reign supreme and the survival of the fittest mentality is promoted at the expense of the majority, crating massive class divides and an unhealthy society. A culture of peers and good Old boys completely undermines the morality of democracy but is a reality because of secrecy. The passage below explains this much better than I could;

Democracy - supposedly government of the people, by the people, and for the people - is a disguised oligarchy. A small, elite group govern in their own interests and take active steps to dupe the people, to provide misinformation and disinformation, to exploit the power of their office to disguise their many abuses. It is advantageous to them to maintain the people in a state akin to that of a flock of sheep or a herd of cows - docile, unthinking, easily controlled, lacking initiative, incapable of resisting.

Democracy, in practice, is government of the people, by the elite, and for the elite. It is the perfect instrument of control for the Old World Order. The people, brainwashed by relentless propaganda about "freedom and democracy", sedated by junk food, junk entertainment and junk culture, and starved of the sort of education that will furnish them with incisive, critical minds, do not know how to see through the lies. They are born suckers being taken for a perpetual ride.

Democracy becomes viable only at the point at which the vast majority of citizens are highly capable, clever, and resourceful. At that point, democracy and meritocracy intersect and become synonymous.

So how would a fair system based on merit be applicable today without compromising the freedom of the people?

What impact would a 100% inheritance Tax have on society? And what impact would a personal, market relative Income cap of say 1 or 2 million have on the average Joe? Would this be applicable to a republic with meritocratic values where funding is given on the merit of peoples god given talents, whatever they may be? Would this stop the life sucking vampirism we are all subjected to on a daily basis? A system where creativity, passion and hard work are rewarded, a system where we are not born guilty of our parents wrongs. A system where corporate entities could never buy a state but where the state is in fear of the will of the public. A system of service by the state with emphasis on education and production. Could this happen?

I'd like to discuss the pro's and cons of the reality this would create for the masses. Please share your views.