• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Something Teribbly Wrong with American Politic's

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
agent00f said:
The rules surrounding markets are arbitrary human constructs and not "natural/divine law" as the religious propose.
Click to expand...
I dont know where divinity came into the picture? However, I view those arbitrary rules as natural extentions to "one hump for two bananas".
Either way its a minor dispute, not worth getting into a word fight over. Have a nice day 🙂.
 
cytg111 said:
I dont know where divinity came into the picture? However, I view those arbitrary rules as natural extentions to "one hump for two bananas".
Either way its a minor dispute, not worth getting into a word fight over. Have a nice day 🙂.
Click to expand...

American "libertarians" who see those arbitrary rules as natural extensions to "one hump for two bananas" as created by god.
 
agent00f said:
"Classic" liberalism (ie capitalism) was generally in the interest of wage workers in comparison to feudalism. The key difference to Rand types is that this argues for a practical benefit instead of religious decree.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but that wasn't the purpose of it, and it wasn't driven by those workers. Liberalism has always had the trait of regarding the lower-orders as a problem to be managed, to be helped with what the system can spare (when things are going well) so as to keep them from making trouble (or, less cynically, so they shouldn't suffer too much), but rarely has it expected them to actively participate or even cease to be the lower-orders.

Which I think is part of the reason why some of those so treated have reacted against it. It's why politics in Britain didn't continue as Whigs vs Tories. Certainly a lot of anti-EU sentiment seems to be about that, as the EU is essentially a technocracy. There's a separate racial angle as well, especially with Trump, which is a huge issue with a separate etiology but I can't agree that it's the whole story. I suppose the huge difficulty is in reconciling both those stories with each other. Perspectives are dependent on which most relates to your own life.

agent00f said:
Also capitalism isn't meritocracy unless you define merit as accruing money. Seems you're more than aware whether Trump possess orders of magnitude greater merit than you. Similarly for people who got rich off CDO's.
Click to expand...


But that's my point - it's why 'meritocracy' is a problematic concept. An awful lot of 'merit' is a consequence of good fortune. It's not just money, it's education and connections and health and nutrition and cultural-capital and all the rest of it. Meritocracy is often promoted by those who don't really want to change anything. It's the logic of the grammar school. It's what Cyril Burt was all about with his IQ tests.

The very word 'meritocracy' was originally coined as a disparagement of the concept, it wasn't supposed to be considered a desirable thing. Meritocracy is a chimera. You either face up to the need to push for equality-of-outcome (with all the economic inefficiencies and even moral discomfort that can entail), or you accept that ever-increasing stratification is inevitable (which I suspect will be a lot more economically inefficient in the end).

To each according to their needs, not according to their merit.
 
pmv said:
Absolutely, but that wasn't the purpose of it, and it wasn't driven by those workers. Liberalism has always had the trait of regarding the lower-orders as a problem to be managed, to be helped with what the system can spare (when things are going well) so as to keep them from making trouble (or, less cynically, so they shouldn't suffer too much), but rarely has it expected them to actively participate or even cease to be the lower-orders.

Which I think is part of the reason why some of those so treated have reacted against it. It's why politics in Britain didn't continue as Whigs vs Tories. Certainly a lot of anti-EU sentiment seems to be about that, as the EU is essentially a technocracy. There's a separate racial angle as well, especially with Trump, which is a huge issue with a separate etiology but I can't agree that it's the whole story. I suppose the huge difficulty is in reconciling both those stories with each other. Perspectives are dependent on which most relates to your own life.
Click to expand...

Part and parcel of liberalism is progress, ie the same hegalian history that motivated marx and basically all the thinkers of that time. Democracy a la political communism was a western liberal ideal, the founders of the US were liberal as shit, they were the vanguard of political progress alongside the french. The terminology is just confusing in europe because their "liberals" got stuck in time, sometime in the 1700's, so they gradually became the conservatives by definition, to conserve that period.

But that's my point - it's why 'meritocracy' is a problematic concept. An awful lot of 'merit' is a consequence of good fortune. It's not just money, it's education and connections and health and nutrition and cultural-capital and all the rest of it. Meritocracy is often promoted by those who don't really want to change anything. It's the logic of the grammar school. It's what Cyril Burt was all about with his IQ tests.

The very word 'meritocracy' was originally coined as a disparagement of the concept, it wasn't supposed to be considered a desirable thing. Meritocracy is a chimera. You either face up to the need to push for equality-of-outcome (with all the economic inefficiencies and even moral discomfort that can entail), or you accept that ever-increasing stratification is inevitable (which I suspect will be a lot more economically inefficient in the end).

To each according to their needs, not according to their merit.
Click to expand...

No, by definition merit isn't good fortune, ie winning the lottery isn't merit by definition. Now I suppose merit is easier built with some fortune, which is why meritocracies endeavor to equalize opportunity.

It's just good practical policy for decision-making/etc to be done by the capable instead of incompetents.
 
pmv said:
Absolutely, but that wasn't the purpose of it, and it wasn't driven by those workers. Liberalism has always had the trait of regarding the lower-orders as a problem to be managed, to be helped with what the system can spare (when things are going well) so as to keep them from making trouble (or, less cynically, so they shouldn't suffer too much), but rarely has it expected them to actively participate or even cease to be the lower-orders.

Which I think is part of the reason why some of those so treated have reacted against it. It's why politics in Britain didn't continue as Whigs vs Tories. Certainly a lot of anti-EU sentiment seems to be about that, as the EU is essentially a technocracy. There's a separate racial angle as well, especially with Trump, which is a huge issue with a separate etiology but I can't agree that it's the whole story. I suppose the huge difficulty is in reconciling both those stories with each other. Perspectives are dependent on which most relates to your own life.
Click to expand...

The liberalism of modern day Dems isn't what you describe at all. It's not what the New Deal or the Great Society have been about. It's not why Dems sponsored ACORN or why they oppose measures that discourage voting.


But that's my point - it's why 'meritocracy' is a problematic concept. An awful lot of 'merit' is a consequence of good fortune. It's not just money, it's education and connections and health and nutrition and cultural-capital and all the rest of it. Meritocracy is often promoted by those who don't really want to change anything. It's the logic of the grammar school. It's what Cyril Burt was all about with his IQ tests.

The very word 'meritocracy' was originally coined as a disparagement of the concept, it wasn't supposed to be considered a desirable thing. Meritocracy is a chimera. You either face up to the need to push for equality-of-outcome (with all the economic inefficiencies and even moral discomfort that can entail), or you accept that ever-increasing stratification is inevitable (which I suspect will be a lot more economically inefficient in the end).

To each according to their needs, not according to their merit.
Click to expand...

"Meritocracy" is bullshit coming from people who want to eliminate estate taxes.

You're mostly right about the rest of it, I think. I won't argue so much for equality of outcome as just making sure that all Americans can live decent & satisfying lives independent of all the variables of fortune that you mention & to increase the cultural capital of the population in general.

The truth is that too many Americans have accepted the emotionally aappealing pablum of the right wig financial elite insead of insisting on a bigger piece of the pie. We won't get it with a protestant work ethic or notions that we should "earn" everything based on financial success & what the Job Creators allow us. They've been cutting us out of the pie for decades as an enormous shift of national income to the top illustrates entirely.

I mean, the Rust Belt is rusty because that's how the Job Creators left it. Y'all been dumped, Honey. And bigly. And, yeh, the gubmint let that happen because of who we elected to run it. Cuz God, guns, gays, abortion, Terrarists! Welfare moochers, Jade Helm, Buttery males & Freedumb!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top