Most People Here, Would Happily Live In A Meritocracy.
Listening to what most people say on here, I think that most people would be more happier in a meritocracy - where leadership is picked by ability rather than a democracy.(The biggest popularity contest there is)
First "democracy" is a general category for any elected government, "republic" on the other hand is
one specific subtype of democracy, so the US can be legitimately called either a republic or a
democracy because it is both. Second "meritocracy" exists solely in concept except far back in
history when kings/emporers/warlords were chosen because they proved themselves in battle and thus
had the most merit. There has never been, nor is it realistic to expect there to be, a government
where everyond submits a resume and an impartial committee chooses who does what based on merit. So
it's really just an academic debate discussion. Third, since we can safely say NO ONE on this site
has shown themselves to have such overwhelming merit that they would warrant a top spot in a
meritocracy then that means no one here stands to benefit from one and likely most people here would
be against meritocracy.
I don't think so. First off, we live in a republic not a democracy and I'm ok with that form of
government. Second I think that a meritocracy would quickly degenerate in to a form of class geared
feudalism.
Is america a republic? Same thing. What I meant was a president picked for his ability alone not his appearance and popularity. And if you come back with another point about feudalism you're off the "most people" list.
02 Jun 2009 18:05
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
