Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?

Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?

Consider the case of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy found in Star Wars--The Jedi Council. The Jedi Order holds the Jedi Council at the top of a pyramid who dictate the rules, course of action, ect. ect. as the primary governing body. One is only granted a position on the Jedi Council based upon merit, typically (essentially always) after receiving the rank of "Master".

Another example of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy is found in Star Fleet from the Star Trek Universe.

Are these systems superior to the model provided by Democratic Republics?

Thoughts?

No, because association with the Jedi is voluntary, association with a government is not.

spud_meister said:

No, because association with the Jedi is voluntary, association with a government is not.

Click to expand...

First, that is not true and is in strict contradiction to the "Social Contract" theory--as you are free to leave a society if you wish (in most circumstances; certainly in our own). Plato explores the exact idea you are promoting in some detail in his work (however, his position is the opposite of the view you submitted here); one notable book being the Crito.

Your response also doesn't address the fundamental question(s) being posed in the thread.

I will "kick-things-off" a bit more, to give members more to "chew on":

An example of an inherently flawed Meritocratic Oligarchy is a Timocracy-Stratocracy. A prime example of this in World History is Sparta. Another example is a Plutocracy as wealth is largely arbitrary and not a proper indicator of true merit. Furthermore, I think any Meritocratic Oligarchy revolving around a singular/primary concern (such as the two models just cited) is highly limiting at best and doomed to fail in a number of areas.

Now, as a counter to this, I would point out that Academia is already structured in a strictly hierarchical, Meritocratic Oligarchic manner and has a wide variety of disciplines concerns (i.e. it is not "Centralized" but operates on many, varied de-centralized wings). That is, in Academia being an Albert Einstein level Physicist grants you nothing in the History department, nor even in the Neuroscience (i.e. a distinct Science, separate from Physics) department--although such an individual would have a "vote" in particular areas of the Physics discipline. It is perfectly plausible to have varied sectors of society operate on a similar model.

The current model grants me (or some other unqualified individual) to have an equivalent vote alongside an Einstein-level Physicists on matters of Physics. Now, the amount of experts in any given field will almost (if not) always be drastically outnumbered by the numbers of non-experts in a given discipline. Thus, the "vote" of an expert will very quickly be drowned out by the masses of non-experts who have a "vote" as well.

xMathFanx said:

First, that is not true and is in strict contradiction to the "Social Contract" theory--as you are free to leave a society if you wish (in most circumstances; certainly in our own). Plato explores the exact idea you are promoting in some detail in his work (however, his position is the opposite of the view you submitted here); one notable book being the Crito.

Your response also doesn't address the fundamental question(s) being posed in the thread.

Click to expand...

You may be free to leave a society in theory, but that doesn't hold true in reality. With all land claimed by either government or private individuals, it is impossible to leave behind society and exist on your own. And it does address the fundamental question, if a government isn't in power by the will of the people, it is inferior to a government that is.

I will "kick-things-off" a bit more, to give members more to "chew on":

An example of an inherently flawed Meritocratic Oligarchy is a Timocracy-Stratocracy. A prime example of this in World History is Sparta. Another example is a Plutocracy as wealth is largely arbitrary and not a proper indicator of true merit. Furthermore, I think any Meritocratic Oligarchy revolving around a singular/primary concern (such as the two models just cited) is highly limiting at best and doomed to fail in a number of areas.

Now, as a counter to this, I would point out that Academia is already structured in a strictly hierarchical, Meritocratic Oligarchic manner and has a wide variety of disciplines concerns (i.e. it is not "Centralized" but operates on many, varied de-centralized wings). That is, in Academia being an Albert Einstein level Physicist grants you nothing in the History department, nor even in the Neuroscience (i.e. a distinct Science, separate from Physics) department--although such an individual would have a "vote" in particular areas of the Physics discipline. It is perfectly plausible to have varied sectors of society operate on a similar model.

The current model grants me (or some other unqualified individual) to have an equivalent vote alongside an Einstein-level Physicists on matters of Physics. Now, the amount of experts in any given field will almost (if not) always be drastically outnumbered by the numbers of non-experts in a given discipline. Thus, the "vote" of an expert will very quickly be drowned out by the masses of non-experts who have a "vote" as well.

Click to expand...

Again, you cite voluntary associations. Find me one, just one, meritocratic oligarchy that governs people involuntarily and was neither corrupt or tyrannical. A government needs be answerable to the governed or else it exists only to serve itself.

spud_meister said:

Again, you cite voluntary associations. Find me one, just one, meritocratic oligarchy that governs people involuntarily and was neither corrupt or tyrannical. A government needs be answerable to the governed or else it exists only to serve itself.

Click to expand...

This depends tremendously upon what you mean by "voluntary"--as if one wants to do anything in Academia (intellectual/academic pursuit), they will be bound to the established system. That is, there is no way of being a Physicist without association to the these channels as of current (even for an Einstein-level Physicist).

I don't think I know enough to even participate in this.
You guys are talking way over my head here.
Good luck to you all.
(time for me to read a book)

xMathFanx said:

This depends tremendously upon what you mean by "voluntary"--as if one wants to do anything in Academia (intellectual/academic pursuit), they will be bound to the established system. That is, there is no way of being a Physicist without association to the these channels as of current (even for an Einstein-level Physicist).

Click to expand...

One has a choice whether to enter academia or not. No-one has a choice to be subject to government. People enter academia knowing exactly what it entails, what the standards are, and agreeing to follow them. People are born subject to government they had no part in forming, and the only voice they get is through democracy.

The fundamental reason democracy works is not because it's efficient, or fair, or any other nonsense, but because power is available to those who seek it. If you take away people's access to the power structure, they'll seek power through other means. Your meritocracy, if it doesn't allow equal access to power, will sooner or later find itself a dictatorship, or subject to a revolution, simply because by choosing leaders based on arbitrary values, you're going to be denying power to other people.

PleasantValley said:

I don't think I know enough to even participate in this.
You guys are talking way over my head here.
Good luck to you all.
(time for me to read a book)

Click to expand...

Look at it this way, the Soviet Union was a meritocracy. Stalin merited the top job because he was really good at killing the opposition.

spud_meister said:

Look at it this way, the Soviet Union was a meritocracy. Stalin merited the top job because he was really good at killing the opposition.

Click to expand...

Street thugs usually win out over intellectuals every time. It is easier to pound their face in the dirt than to win a discussion with them.
I guess that is one way to look at it.
Every time I think of Stalin, I think about that time in the Politburo where everyone kept clapping for over 30 minutes because no one wanted to be the first to stop.
Now that is power!

spud_meister said:

One has a choice whether to enter academia or not.

Click to expand...

If you want a "vote" in what occurs in the discipline of Physics (or any other academic subject), then you are required to enter the Meritocratic Oligarchic system established by Academia

spud_meister said:

No-one has a choice to be subject to government. People enter academia knowing exactly what it entails, what the standards are, and agreeing to follow them. People are born subject to government they had no part in forming, and the only voice they get is through democracy.

Click to expand...

Or leave and enter a Social Contract with a different Government. Also, there is always the option of living off-the-grid individually or as part of a Commune

spud_meister said:

The fundamental reason democracy works is not because it's efficient, or fair, or any other nonsense, but because power is available to those who seek it. If you take away people's access to the power structure, they'll seek power through other means. Your meritocracy, if it doesn't allow equal access to power...

Click to expand...

?? What in the world are you talking about? The entire point of a Meritocracy (particularly the type I am discussing) is that people are given an opportunity to rise through the ranks based on their merit in a given discipline (just like in Academia). If you want a vote as a Physicist (to continue with this example), then you need to demonstrate yourself proficient in the area, which is evaluated by other experts in that specific area. Just as people have an opportunity currently to raise to any heights in Academia based upon skill/talent/ect., so would be the cases in all other disciplines in the hypothetical Meritocracy (discussed in a previous post).

PleasantValley said:

Street thugs usually win out over intellectuals every time. It is easier to pound their face in the dirt than to win a discussion with them.
I guess that is one way to look at it.
Every time I think of Stalin, I think about that time in the Politburo where everyone kept clapping for over 30 minutes because no one wanted to be the first to stop.
Now that is power!

Click to expand...

I hope you realize he (Spudd) is promoting a complete straw-man argument as to derail the conversation the same way people on the Left tend to invoke Hitler/Nazi/Fascism/ect. as a "knee-jerk" response. It is intended to "poison the well" in hopes that others will lack the depth critical thought to see through the transparent veneer in place

xMathFanx said:

I hope you realize he (Spudd) is promoting a complete straw-man argument as to derail the conversation the same way people on the Left tend to invoke Hitler/Nazi/Fascism/ect. as a "knee-jerk" response. It is intended to "poison the well" in hopes that others will lack the depth critical thought to see through the transparent veneer in place

Click to expand...

No, I did not notice that. Thank you for educating me.

xMathFanx said:

If you want a "vote" in what occurs in the discipline of Physics (or any other academic subject), then you are required to enter the Meritocratic Oligarchic system established by Academia

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's still a choice.

Or leave and enter a Social Contract with a different Government. Also, there is always the option of living off-the-grid individually or as part of a Commune

Click to expand...

All of which are unrealistic, and require funds and skills that many don't posses.

?? What in the world are you talking about? The entire point of a Meritocracy (particularly the type I am discussing) is that people are given an opportunity to rise through the ranks based on their merit in a given discipline (just like in Academia). If you want a vote as a Physicist (to continue with this example), then you need to demonstrate yourself proficient in the area, which is evaluated by other experts in that specific area. Just as people have an opportunity currently to raise to any heights in Academia based upon skill/talent/ect., so would be the cases in all other disciplines in the hypothetical Meritocracy (discussed in a previous post).

Click to expand...

A meritocracy, as a system of government, is designed to exclude people. Where people are excluded from a system of government, they seek power through other means. Perhaps describe how you would work a meritocratic oligarchy so that I can point out specific flaws in your idea.

PleasantValley said:

No, I did not notice that. Thank you for educating me.

Click to expand...

I'm not, what I'm doing is attempting to apply a concrete argument against an idea made from smoke. Hopefully MethFan will provide an actual description of how his meritocracy would function so I can pick that apart instead of assuming what he means.

It depends on who gets to decide what is "merit" and what is not....

spud_meister said:

I'm not, what I'm doing is attempting to apply a concrete argument against an idea made from smoke. Hopefully MethFan will provide an actual description of how his meritocracy would function so I can pick that apart instead of assuming what he means.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to waste my time constructing a potential hypothetical model for such a system on the scale of an entire society if you refuse to engage with even the strengths & weaknesses of a successful model already submitted in Academia and/or discuss the pros & cons of Star Fleet/Jedi Council/ect. ect.

spud_meister said:

I'm not, what I'm doing is attempting to apply a concrete argument against an idea made from smoke. Hopefully MethFan will provide an actual description of how his meritocracy would function so I can pick that apart instead of assuming what he means.

Click to expand...

A "Force-based" merit system is entirely conceivable (where the most aggressive/"strong" rise to power), however I already the inherent flaws of singularly-focused Merit based societies and/or when the "merit" criteria in question is not fundamentally irrational prior to your Stalin post. Therefore, yes, it is a straw-man "argument" intended to "poison the well" rather than a "concrete argument against an idea" promoted in this thread--as if you wanted to make a concrete argument you would engage with one of the models I actually submitted (preferably, the real world (quite highly) successfully model of Academia)

xMathFanx said:

I'm not going to waste my time constructing a potential hypothetical model for such a system on the scale of an entire society if you refuse to engage with even the strengths & weaknesses of a successful model already submitted in Academia and/or discuss the pros & cons of Star Fleet/Jedi Council/ect. ect.

Click to expand...

Your thread is predicated on comparing it to a democracy, all I'm asking about is governance, and the allocation of power.

xMathFanx said:

A "Force-based" merit system is entirely conceivable (where the most aggressive/"strong" rise to power), however I already the inherent flaws of singularly-focused Merit based societies and/or when the "merit" criteria in question is not fundamentally irrational prior to your Stalin post. Therefore, yes, it is a straw-man "argument" intended to "poison the well" rather than a "concrete argument against an idea" promoted in this thread--as if you wanted to make a concrete argument you would engage with one of the models I actually submitted (preferably, the real world (quite highly) successfully model of Academia)

Click to expand...

None of the models you submitted are comparable in scale or complexity to a democracy. All you examples are composed of a relatively small number of people sharing common interests and goals, who have chosen to follow the rules of the system in which they participate. You need to either explain, or show a model, that demonstrates a meritocracy that succeeds on a large scale. You're comparing apple seeds to an orange tree.

spud_meister said:

Your thread is predicated on comparing it to a democracy, all I'm asking about is governance, and the allocation of power.

Click to expand...

You fundamentally misunderstood the model that is up for discussion as witnessed by your post:

"The fundamental reason democracy works is not because it's efficient, or fair, or any other nonsense, but because power is available to those who seek it. If you take away people's access to the power structure, they'll seek power through other means. Your meritocracy, if it doesn't allow equal access to power, will sooner or later find itself a dictatorship, or subject to a revolution, simply because by choosing leaders based on arbitrary values, you're going to be denying power to other people." -spudd

I brought this to your attention, and you have yet to adjust for it. Thus, there is nothing else to discuss with you until you understand the basics. One doesn't move on to Calculus if they don't yet have a reasonable understanding of elementary Algebra

xMathFanx said:

Is a Meritocratic Oligarchy Superior to a Democratic Republic?

Consider the case of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy found in Star Wars--The Jedi Council. The Jedi Order holds the Jedi Council at the top of a pyramid who dictate the rules, course of action, ect. ect. as the primary governing body. One is only granted a position on the Jedi Council based upon merit, typically (essentially always) after receiving the rank of "Master".

Another example of a Fictional Meritocratic Oligarchy is found in Star Fleet from the Star Trek Universe.

Are these systems superior to the model provided by Democratic Republics?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Not to derail this discussion onto Star Wars, but since the OP brought it up: (Mild spoilers for The Last Jedi)


Back to the main topic, the one advantage that a democracy gives its citizens is that if they feel things aren't working out well, then periodically they get to vote for changes. No other system can do that.

I suppose Foldvary's cellular democracy idea is something like a meritocracy, or at least it would most likely form that way. With the way we do things now (mass democracy) we ensure money wins most of the time. Cellular democracy would ensure more qualified candidates would win as money isn't a major factor.

Phys251 said:

Back to the main topic, the one advantage that a democracy gives its citizens is that if they feel things aren't working out well, then periodically they get to vote for changes. No other system can do that.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is. In fact, the idea behind the alternative model up for discussion here is that citizens earn their vote in any area of society for which they are willing to put the effort into (if the corresponding proficiency is achieved)--just like in Academia. That is, this alternative model of the flavor Meritocratic Oligarchy submitted is fundamentally Quasi-Democratic in nature by design.

xMathFanx said:

Yes, there is. In fact, the idea behind the alternative model up for discussion here is that citizens earn their vote

Click to expand...

Why should citizens have to earn a right?

Phys251 said:

Why should citizens have to earn a right?

Click to expand...

"Superior" criteria (in this context): More efficient, rational, productive, healthy, self-sustaining, "just", ect. ect.

Consider, would Academia be "superior" if it were shifted from the current Meritocratic Oligarchic model to an open Democracy?