Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Andrew WK:
mer·i·toc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mr-tkr-s)
n. pl. mer·i·toc·ra·cies
1. A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.
2.
a. A group of leaders or officeholders selected on the basis of individual ability or achievement.
b. Leadership by such a group.
meritocracy
n 1: a form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects 2: the belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth
The problem with meritocracy is the wallies with superior intellect are usually unable to tie their own shoelaces....just because you can calculate the square route of 84759837549257 in your head doesn't mean you have the common sense to govern a country.
Not only that.... "A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement"....would normally mean the college pukes, and you need lorry loads of money to go to college, so aren't we back to a plutocraty? [/b]
You don't need THAT much money to go to college in the U.S. There are plenty of community colleges and state universities, and you can always get loans to go wherever the hell you can get into (I did) and, don't they let you into college for free in Europe if you keep up your grades?
That being said, I don't think college grads have the corner on intelligence, necessarily...nor do I think that poor people cannot have intelligent thoughts or ideas, I only was saying that GGW's point is valid to an extent.
I think that, for the most part, in America, if one is willing to work hard and play by the rules (yes, of capitalism), they can do OK, except for a few bad-luck cases. These bad-luck cases (and even the just too lazy or bad to do anything useful for society cases) are usually provided for by social programs.
So, what's the problem again?