The Jackass

[Arkansasguy]

I've pointed out in the past that democratic meritocracy tends to promote the most arrogant people to high office. Nothing demonstrates this better than Donald Trump. That said, I support him because a pompous jackass like him is needed in our current climate to stand up to the mediaocracy. Also, on the dem side we have a choice between a habitual liar and an open Communist sympathizer. On the Republican side we have a range of candidates, and while Carson would be good, many of the others suck. Absent Hillary getting nominated AND indicted next year, there's no way Pontius Bush can win, he exemplifies everything conservatives hate about the GOP, and he's a consummate coward. Fiorna is more of a man than he is, and he's second only to Pataki the Ripper in how awful of a Presudential candidate he'd be.

[phuckphace]

seconding this

if I were as rich as Trump, or even 1/18th as rich, I'd be especially cautious about flaunting it and I sure as hell wouldn't go around flashing my Rolex with a shit-eating grin - pride is the deadliest mortal sin and usually comes before a precipitous fall.

that said, I'm convinced that Trump's bombastic image is just that - an image. if you've ever seen footage of him in his earlier days, you can tell he's actually a serious guy with his head on straight. I read somewhere that he once broke down on the side of the road, a family stopped to help him out and he paid off their mortgage in return - if it's true it goes to show that Trump hasn't forgotten his humble origins, unlike every other billionaire out there.

Carson's supporters are people who really ought to just go with Trump, but they can't bring themselves to do so because dinosaurs being 6,000 years old is more pressing of an issue than the future of our country. while I don't really care if he's a YEC, I do care that he supports TPP (he does, google it).

[Arkansasguy]

I read somewhere that he once broke down on the side of the road, a family stopped to help him out and he paid off their mortgage in return - if it's true it goes to show that Trump hasn't forgotten his humble origins, unlike every other billionaire out there.

Actually that's just the thing, he didn't have humble origins. He inherited a lot of his wealth, and his father gave him a jump start in his company. People raising themselves from poverty to extreme wealth through their own skills is where the bad kind of pompous jackass comes from.

Carson's supporters are people who really ought to just go with Trump, but they can't bring themselves to do so because dinosaurs being 6,000 years old is more pressing of an issue than the future of our country. while I don't really care if he's a YEC, I do care that he supports TPP (he does, google it).

My reasoning for liking Carson is because if he were the nominee, both party establishments would have cows. Stuff like the TPP and the flat tax are why I prefer Trump. (Though I think Trump-Carson would be great, if that happened they (the party establishments) would have the whole barn)

[phuckphace]

I noticed that Trump hasn't lampooned Carson like he has the others - he's probably smart enough to realize that dumping on Carson will likely cost him the middle America Evangelical vote. some e-analysts have even claimed Trump might pick Carson as his running mate.

[Arkansasguy]

I noticed that Trump hasn't lampooned Carson like he has the others - he's probably smart enough to realize that dumping on Carson will likely cost him the middle America Evangelical vote. some e-analysts have even claimed Trump might pick Carson as his running mate.

I wouldn't be surprised if they've got a pact that whichever of them gets the nomination will pick the other as VP.

[Hyper]

I think y'all got the definition of meritocracy wrong. No matter how I look at it there is not a single make-believe-democracy out there that is meritocratic

[Arkansasguy]

I think y'all got the definition of meritocracy wrong. No matter how I look at it there is not a single make-believe-democracy out there that is meritocratic

It's true that there's no such thing as meritocracy in the same sense that there's no such thing as communism, i.e. it's not actually possible in the real world. But I'm using it to refer to those systems which are ideologically meritocratic.

[Hyper]

It's true that there's no such thing as meritocracy in the same sense that there's no such thing as communism, i.e. it's not actually possible in the real world. But I'm using it to refer to those systems which are ideologically meritocratic.

How is democracy ideologically meritocratic?

[Arkansasguy]

How is democracy ideologically meritocratic?

It holds to an ideal of practical equality in which anyone can achieve political power, if they can earn it by convincing the public of their virtue.

[Hyper]

It holds to an ideal of practical equality in which anyone can achieve political power, if they can earn it by convincing the public of their virtue.

Yeah that sounds more like populism to me.

[Arkansasguy]

Yeah that sounds more like populism to me.

It is. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

[Hyper]

It is. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

According to who, what standards or logic? To me they are. A meritocratic system is based upon an individuals participation and added value.

Democracy as we have it in the modern world is just based on populism. Gaining the popular vote isn't a meritocratic achievement beyond the act itself in comparison to other populists.

[phuckphace]

also lol @ "Pontius Bush", I'm totally stealing that

this election is going to be a goldmine, I can feel it. the only thing that would make it even greater is if all the simpering pseudocons offed themselves after their defeat. maybe Carlos Slim will throw a state funeral for Pontius B. and posthumously award him the Order of the Golden Taco

[Judean Zealot]

It holds to an ideal of practical equality in which anyone can achieve political power, if they can earn it by convincing the public of their virtue.

Except that democracy gives that final decision over to the masses, while a meritocratic aristocracy would only give the decision to men of virtue.

Technically, you can "tighten the screws" on my proposal as much as you will without changing it's essential form. On my proposal you can technically raise the standards so high that only a (non hereditary) aristocracy of a thousand men would get the suffrage (although I feel that minimising the pool of candidates and ideas is ultimately detrimental).

[Arkansasguy]

According to who, what standards or logic? To me they are. A meritocratic system is based upon an individuals participation and added value.

Democracy as we have it in the modern world is just based on populism. Gaining the popular vote isn't a meritocratic achievement beyond the act itself in comparison to other populists.

Yes, its true that democracy isn't "really" meritocratic. Because meritocratic government is impossible. But the idea is that voters are to select the "best" candidate. That the "best" candidate as judged by voters is usually bad is exactly my point.

also lol @ "Pontius Bush", I'm totally stealing that

It's a reference to his impeccable fortitude in the case of Terry Schiavo.

Except that democracy gives that final decision over to the masses, while a meritocratic aristocracy would only give the decision to men of virtue.

Technically, you can "tighten the screws" on my proposal as much as you will without changing it's essential form. On my proposal you can technically raise the standards so high that only a (non hereditary) aristocracy of a thousand men would get the suffrage (although I feel that minimising the pool of candidates and ideas is ultimately detrimental).

The problem with your system isn't that it's not restrictive enough on suffrage, it's that your "men of virtue" are probably not going to be men of virtue. Men who are convinced of their own virtue tend to be vicious, which is precisely why ideological meritocracies always turn into kakistocracies.

[phuckphace]

It's a reference to his impeccable fortitude in the case of Terry Schiavo.

I hope this is a joke

[Arkansasguy]

I hope this is a joke

Yes, it was sarcasm. His fortitude was comparable to that of Pilate.

[Judean Zealot]

Yes, its true that democracy isn't "really" meritocratic. Because meritocratic government is impossible. But the idea is that voters are to select the "best" candidate. That the "best" candidate as judged by voters is usually bad is exactly my point.
Because the voters are idiots. The voters don't get to decide who gets to vote.

The problem with your system isn't that it's not restrictive enough on suffrage, it's that your "men of virtue" are probably not going to be men of virtue.

These would be men who haven't just gotten a diploma. These would be men who have shown a love for learning way above the norm, and who have impeccably fulfilled their duties to their parents, spouses, children, and communities. However you look at it, these are good men. They may not be the greatest saints ever, but they are good and decent people. In any event, they would be far better than some spoiled brat who was heir to the throne the second he popped out between his mother's legs. Or for that matter, the flattering sycophants who would be promoted by said brat.

Men who are convinced of their own virtue tend to be vicious, which is precisely why ideological meritocracies always turn into kakistocracies.

Like Jacob (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2031) and Socrates (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html)?

[phuckphace]

realizing that voters are idiots and can't be trusted is part of what drew me to the authoritarian krew. it took another minute to make the connection between our modern iLives and all this omnipresent misery (it clicked after about ten seconds into the first Beav episode) but now here we are giving a Putin-style double thumbs-up to public executions on a Bernie Sanders forum

however, in the case of Trump (and Hitler) elections can occasionally be useful. but that's part of what inherently sucks about duh-mocracy - you never know if the voters will go for a half-decent guy or a total imbecile. even worse if they're all imbeciles.

Yes, it was sarcasm. His fortitude was comparable to that of Pilate.

phew! :P

[Arkansasguy]

Because the voters are idiots. The voters don't get to decide who gets to vote.

But that's just the thing, the average voter is capable of correctly managing his own life. He only turns into an idiot when it comes time to vote. This is because a man is much more able to manage affairs which are his particular responsibility, than affairs which are his responsibility only in a vague way. In other words, the making of important decisions by election inherently removes the sense of responsibility from the electors which they would have if they were individually responsible. Which is precisely why it is better to vest the care of the state in a single individual, rather than even a wise multitude. Hereditary succession is just the best way of choosing this individual, because it is least prone to dispute as to who the rightful ruler is, and because it allows the ruler to be prepared for his task from birth.

These would be men who haven't just gotten a diploma. These would be men who have shown a love for learning way above the norm, and who have impeccably fulfilled their duties to their parents, spouses, children, and communities. However you look at it, these are good men. They may not be the greatest saints ever, but they are good and decent people. In any event, they would be far better than some spoiled brat who was heir to the throne the second he popped out between his mother's legs. Or for that matter, the flattering sycophants who would be promoted by said brat.

The problem is that those who would be best at showing their virtue, however defined, to whoever was responsible for judging it, would not be the virtuous but rather the vicious. The royal heir, on the other hand, has no need of convincing anyone of his virtue, which means that he is free to pursue true virtue. While he certainly isn't guaranteed to do so, he at least is not impeded by a requirement of demonstrating virtue to others.

Like Jacob (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2031) and Socrates (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html)?

The case of Socrates is exemplary. He refrained from participating in Athens' political system, precisely because it would obstruct his pursuit of virtue to try to obtain and exercise political office. Note by the way that he expressly disavowed being wise, insisting only on being innocent.

[Judean Zealot]

But that's just the thing, the average voter is capable of correctly managing his own life. He only turns into an idiot when it comes time to vote. This is because a man is much more able to manage affairs which are his particular responsibility, than affairs which are his responsibility only in a vague way.

If a man sees his duty to the state as merely a vague matter he has already failed in his civic duty, and as such would not get suffrage.

In other words, the making of important decisions by election inherently removes the sense of responsibility from the electors which they would have if they were individually responsible.

I am not proposing a system of referendum, even of the optimates. I propose a two tier government- the lower being the legislative branch, and being elected so by the optimates, while the executive power is invested into a council of three men elected by the legislature.

Hereditary succession is just the best way of choosing this individual, because it is least prone to dispute as to who the rightful ruler is, and because it allows the ruler to be prepared for his task from birth.

Although historically, that's not what usually happens. Usually the heir is a self centered brat who knows that he will be the most powerful man in the land, regardless of how little he deserves it.


The problem is that those who would be best at showing their virtue, however defined, to whoever was responsible for judging it, would not be the virtuous but rather the vicious. The royal heir, on the other hand, has no need of convincing anyone of his virtue, which means that he is free to pursue true virtue. While he certainly isn't guaranteed to do so, he at least is not impeded by a requirement of demonstrating virtue to others.

Being accountable to others is a benefit, not a hindrance, to good morals. Of course, if one must answer to fools then that's not so, but that's not the case in my system.

In addition, I would assert that a man's virtue is apparent in all that he does, even if he doesn't actively promote himself.

Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed.
(Ecclesiastes 8:1)
The case of Socrates is exemplary. He refrained from participating in Athens' political system, precisely because it would obstruct his pursuit of virtue to try to obtain and exercise political office. Note by the way that he expressly disavowed being wise, insisting only on being innocent.

Socrates didn't participate in Athenian politics because, again, it is detrimental to have to answer to fools. And although he begins the Apology with a disavowal of wisdom, it is clear from what follows that this is just a rhetorical trick, in the style of Marc Antony's funeral oration for Caesar. (http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/julius_caesar.3.2.html)

Socrates quite clearly imputes to himself impeccable virtue, and even suggests he be rewarded for it by the Eleven. Morever, in the Phaedo (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html) he does the same as well, and states his absolute confidence in his virtue, and by extension, his immortality.

In addition, I give you the example of Job. The entire book is him defending his own virtue, and concludes with God affirming that virtue, and merely rebuking Job for not understanding that, virtue notwithstanding, God has other calculations.

[Arkansasguy]

If a man sees his duty to the state as merely a vague matter he has already failed in his civic duty, and as such would not get suffrage.

His duty to the state is vague unless it is instantiated with particular duties. Even Cato didn't take responsibility for everything in the government.

I am not proposing a system of referendum, even of the optimates. I propose a two tier government- the lower being the legislative branch, and being elected so by the optimates, while the executive power is invested into a council of three men elected by the legislature.

Better than our actual system, but still requires pandering to the masses, even if only to the well-educated masses.

Although historically, that's not what usually happens. Usually the heir is a self centered brat who knows that he will be the most powerful man in the land, regardless of how little he deserves it.

According to what? Republican propaganda?


Being accountable to others is a benefit, not a hindrance, to good morals. Of course, if one must answer to fools then that's not so, but that's not the case in my system.

In addition, I would assert that a man's virtue is apparent in all that he does, even if he doesn't actively promote himself.

Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed.
(Ecclesiastes 8:1)


Socrates didn't participate in Athenian politics because, again, it is detrimental to have to answer to fools.[/QUOTE]

Being accountable to superiors is a benefit to good morals. But democracy, even your restricted version of it, inverts this by requiring men to answer to their subordinates.

In addition, I give you the example of Job. The entire book is him defending his own virtue, and concludes with God affirming that virtue, and merely rebuking Job for not understanding that, virtue notwithstanding, God has other calculations.

Job is another example of the error of virtue=worldly power and success. There's another prime example of this I can think of, although I don't think you'd accept it.

[Judean Zealot]

His duty to the state is vague unless it is instantiated with particular duties. Even Cato didn't take responsibility for everything in the government.

He pretty much did, and he made sure to be thoroughly educated in any state matter which arose.

Better than our actual system, but still requires pandering to the masses, even if only to the well-educated masses.

Being accountable to superiors is a benefit to good morals. But democracy, even your restricted version of it, inverts this by requiring men to answer to their subordinates.

But this is my point. The legislator's accountability is not to their inferiors, it is to their peers.


Job is another example of the error of virtue=worldly power and success.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. The virtue Job was extolling himself for was his morality and devotion to God.

[Arkansasguy]

He pretty much did, and he made sure to be thoroughly educated in any state matter which arose.

But there aren't nearly enough Cato's to make a system based on rulers being virtuous workable.

But this is my point. The legislator's accountability is not to their inferiors, it is to their peers.

They are elected, right? If so, then they have to pander to their subjects, which is an inversion of the proper ordering of authority.


I'm sorry, I don't understand. The virtue Job was extolling himself for was his morality and devotion to God.

And his virtue didn't stop him from suffering in the world. My point was that he evinces that virtue=worldly power is not a biblical idea.

[Judean Zealot]

But there aren't nearly enough Cato's to make a system based on rulers being virtuous workable.
There might be, given the proper conditions. All it takes is getting people out of their inattention to their souls. Also, even if they're half of Cato they'll be good enough for me.

They are elected, right? If so, then they have to pander to their subjects, which is an inversion of the proper ordering of authority.

You're stuck in the mindset that the governing class is above the people. They're not. They are, in the truest sense, the people's servants, and a servant must be accountable to his master.

Edit: on second thought, you're right, and the service which they provide is that of ruling, at times even with force. Nonetheless, there remains a distinction between their peers, who are capable of choosing their rulers, and as such must be answered to, and the masses, who are incapable of choosing and as such ought not to be answered to.

I would compare it to the doctor of an educated layman and a child, respectively.

And his virtue didn't stop him from suffering in the world. My point was that he evinces that virtue=worldly power is not a biblical idea.

I don't see where I ever implied that it is. Job suffered so that he may grow in his devotion to God by remaining so even through adversity.

Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that we have a man who is both fully virtuous and cognizant of it, who doesn't shy from "boasting" about it.

[Arkansasguy]

There might be, given the proper conditions. All it takes is getting people out of their inattention to their souls. Also, even if they're half of Cato they'll be good enough for me.

There's something you're not getting. Let me explain with a hypothetical, adapted from one I saw in an orthosphere blog, it's called the city of the damned:

Suppose there were a city, in which it has been revealed to you that all of the inhabitants are wicked, and would be condemned if they died right now. But you are given power to establish their form of government. You may not establish yourself or any other foreigner over them. It is possible though that after you have established your government, some of them might repent and become virtuous. What form of government will you give them?

You're stuck in the mindset that the governing class is above the people. They're not. They are, in the truest sense, the people's servants, and a servant must be accountable to his master.

Edit: on second thought, you're right, and the service which they provide is that of ruling, at times even with force. Nonetheless, there remains a distinction between their peers, who are capable of choosing their rulers, and as such must be answered to, and the masses, who are incapable of choosing and as such ought not to be answered to.

I would compare it to the doctor of an educated layman and a child, respectively.

Even wth the electors, they are still established as their superiors.

I don't see where I ever implied that it is. Job suffered so that he may grow in his devotion to God by remaining so even through adversity.

Regardless, that's not the point. The point is that we have a man who is both fully virtuous and cognizant of it, who doesn't shy from "boasting" about it.

It's been awhile since I've read Job, but I skimmed it, and it seems he's defending piety, showing the folly of those who insist that piety is useless in hard times. Hardly the same as arguing his own virtue.

[Judean Zealot]

There's something you're not getting. Let me explain with a hypothetical, adapted from one I saw in an orthosphere blog, it's called the city of the damned:

Suppose there were a city, in which it has been revealed to you that all of the inhabitants are wicked, and would be condemned if they died right now. But you are given power to establish their form of government. You may not establish yourself or any other foreigner over them. It is possible though that after you have established your government, some of them might repent and become virtuous. What form of government will you give them?
I don't know. In my opinion, it seems rather elementary that no virtuous government can be formed without an original core of virtuous men.



Even wth the electors, they are still established as their superiors.

Yes, but not in the sense that they need not be accountable. Again, as far as medical instruction goes a physician is the superior, yet he still remains answerable to his educated patient.

It's been awhile since I've read Job, but I skimmed it, and it seems he's defending piety, showing the folly of those who insist that piety is useless in hard times. Hardly the same as arguing his own virtue.

Apparently, it's high time you read it again.

[Arkansasguy]

I don't know. In my opinion, it seems rather elementary that no virtuous government can be formed without an original core of virtuous men.

I want you to try to design a governmental system that doesn't depend on the virtue of its leaders. Obviously this is best government not good in an absolute sense. You might also consider what systems will increase the chances that some will become virtuous.



Yes, but not in the sense that they need not be accountable. Again, as far as medical instruction goes a physician is the superior, yet he still remains answerable to his educated patient.

That is different. A doctor is an expert and is hired freely for his service. A public official however cannot simply be dismissed by one of his subjects.

Apparently, it's high time you read it again.

Fair enough.

[Judean Zealot]

I want you to try to design a governmental system that doesn't depend on the virtue of its leaders. Obviously this is best government not good in an absolute sense. You might also consider what systems will increase the chances that some will become virtuous.

My own. It will at least compel all aspiring public officials to have some understanding of philosophy, which hopefully will bring them to better their ways.





That is different. A doctor is an expert and is hired freely for his service. A public official however cannot simply be dismissed by one of his subjects.

Question begging. I am asserting that there ought to be a legal way in which this can be done to those who abuse the office, just as we have in the case of a doctor. Merely saying that in practice they are viewed differently doesn't detract from my argument in any way.

[Arkansasguy]

My own. It will at least compel all aspiring public officials to have some understanding of philosophy, which hopefully will bring them to better their ways.

And is it not more likely that those in whom power is originally vested will simply judged their fellow wicked to be virtuous, and deem those who actually do become virtuous to be unworthy of public office?





Question begging. I am asserting that there ought to be a legal way in which this can be done to those who abuse the office, just as we have in the case of a doctor. Merely saying that in practice they are viewed differently doesn't detract from my argument in any way.

I understand what you're saying, but the essential difference still remains. You, individually, can choose at any time to get another doctor. You can't just choose on your own to replace a public official.

[Judean Zealot]

And is it not more likely that those in whom power is originally vested will simply judged their fellow wicked to be virtuous, and deem those who actually do become virtuous to be unworthy of public office?

Not with the office of Censor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor). Those public officials who relax their moral standards can expect swift removal and punishment.

In any event, I grant you that in the scenario you give there is only slim chance for success. However, there is equally small, if not smaller, chance of your beloved monarchy not working as well. Either way, that's not the current reality, nor am I so pessimistic that it shall ever be so.

I understand what you're saying, but the essential difference still remains. You, individually, can choose at any time to get another doctor. You can't just choose on your own to replace a public official.

Obviously, it can't be arbitrary, otherwise you'd have anarchy. My problem is that you're presuming that having a framework for their legal removal leads to the very same anarchy. I'd like some historical supporting evidence.

[Arkansasguy]

Not with the office of Censor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor). Those public officials who relax their moral standards can expect swift removal and punishment.

In any event, I grant you that in the scenario you give there is only slim chance for success. However, there is equally small, if not smaller, chance of your beloved monarchy not working as well. Either way, that's not the current reality, nor am I so pessimistic that it shall ever be so.

If the censors are corrupt, then they will remove the virtuous rather than the wicked. Would it not seem that hereditary power would actually be better, because at least then a ruler who became virtuous would not have to fear removal by the vicious? For if a meritocracy filled with virtuous men could ensure it would continue to be filled with virtuous men, would it not follow that a meritocracy filled with vicious men (which would actually be a kakistocracy) could ensure it would continue to be filled with vicious men?

I am going to bring this back to the actual world.

Obviously, it can't be arbitrary, otherwise you'd have anarchy. My problem is that you're presuming that having a framework for their legal removal leads to the very same anarchy. I'd like some historical supporting evidence.

I'm not assuming that at all, I'm just pointing out that state authority, however allocated, is not analogous to the expertise of a skilled service provider.