[ home / overboard ] [ soy / qa / raid / r ] [ int / pol ] [ a / an / asp / biz / mtv / r9k / tech / v / sude / x ] [ q / news / chive / rules / pass / bans / status ] [ wiki / booru / irc ]

A banner for soyjak.party

/pol/ - International /Pol/itics & /Bant/er

Politics & countrywars
Catalog
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: frog (5) fact.png 📥︎ (1.33 MB, 2048x1965) ImgOps

 â„–3730859[Quote]

Inheritance must be abolished to give way to true meritocracy.

 â„–3730874[Quote]

>>3730859 (OP)
thats for leaking poors doe

 â„–3730876[Quote]

File: Gambas al Ajillo - Spain.PNG 📥︎ (745.96 KB, 1130x1724) ImgOps

Meritocracy is an ill defined ideal that we will likely never get close to achieving.

 â„–3730921[Quote]

>>3730876
That's a very retarded argument, just because it is impossible to reach doesn't mean we can't get closer.

 â„–3730939[Quote]

File: Emmentaler - Switzerland.PNG 📥︎ (590.47 KB, 1130x1878) ImgOps

>>3730921
How would a central governing authority seizing the assets of the deceased and redistributing them at its will be a step closer towards meritocracy? Pure nepotism does exist, but generally speaking a well-to-do couple of good genetic stock will produce offspring of a similar quality and the same is true of poorer, more unintelligent couples and their offspring.

 â„–3730942[Quote]

SHUT UP SATAN I WANT MONEY I WOULD GET RAPED 100 TIME SIF I MEANT I GOT MY MONIESS K WNAT MH STUFF I WANT TO BE A CONSUMERRIST I WANT MY TOYS

 â„–3730997[Quote]

>>3730939
It's best to make the offspring go through competition than rely on the predictive assumption that just because they may have good genetics from their parents they're already going to be superior. In other words why try to predict natural selection if we have the ability to make use of it. I don't have any statistics or anything but history is full of examples of kings and emperors having poor quality offspring, and hard-working capitalists leaving their companies to their retarded sons.

 â„–3731022[Quote]

File: Escargots de Bourgogne - F….PNG 📥︎ (647.62 KB, 1130x1750) ImgOps

>>3730997
An intelligent wealthy magnate is most likely to have loyalty first and foremost to his genetic kin, who can be reasonably expected to have a similar genetic quality to them although like you and I pointed out there are exceptions. A central governing authority's priorities lie in benefitting officeholders and the rent-seeking parties that got them in office, sometimes getting public support through hamfisted "spread the wealth" schemes that are often just wealth transfers to the governing authority's preferred classes.

 â„–3731026[Quote]

>>3730859 (OP)
Good idea in theory. Horrible to middle class families who have worked their whole lives to make sure their kid has a shot at life. But yeah I do agree nepobabies don't deserve their success.

 â„–3731046[Quote]

>>3731022
>who can be reasonably expected to have a similar genetic quality to them although like you and I pointed out there are exceptions

ok but seriously how much does this actually matter. the other guy has already pointed out that the offspring of great kings are often not so great. how can we look at those examples and then make a generalization in the opposite direction by saying that success depends a lot on genetics.

a lot of it is from the person themselves. if you have little drive for hard work, even if you get world-class tutors and schooling, you will still fail in life. but if you are hard working, you will succeed. genetics don't really play a part in that IMO, if anything its a learned behavior. i used to be really lazy but my parents got me in shape, now i have a strong work ethic. i think both of us obviously have racial inequalities in mind but that could easily be because of generational stupidity that was passed down through the environment.

 â„–3731056[Quote]

>>3731022
Well, the redistribution would of course have to be completely equal for everyone, or otherwise the idea of meritocracy doesn't work in the first place. Of course, you could make the argument that corruption by the central government would take place and the redistribution wouldn't be equal, but at that point you're criticizing the idea of central government as a whole and not this specific thing, which is fair enough honestly, I have no comeback for that.

 â„–3731074[Quote]

>>3731056
In theory this is where the "feedback loop" of democracy comes into play to stop self-serving politicians, in this theoretical issue and in many other real ones, but of course we can see how poorly it actually winds up in real life

 â„–3731086[Quote]

>>3731074
i mean real life western democracies were designed with bourgeosie appeasement in mind. it doesn't mean the idea itself are invalided but just that the systems themselves aren't what those ideas are meant to describe

 â„–3731102[Quote]

File: Moules Frites - Belgium.PNG 📥︎ (710.91 KB, 1130x1810) ImgOps

>>3731046
You are right that success depends on grit in addition to raw genetics, but productive habits and mentalities are more often instilled in the offspring of stable, well-to-do homes than in those of poorer households. Go into a high school AP calculus or physics class and you'll likely find a pattern among the kids: most come from educated families that are upper-middle class or wealthier, participate in multiple extracurriculars, and spend more time studying than their peers. This isn't just because these kids tend to be of high genetic quality, they were raised in an environment that places a premium on long term goals and intellectual and career achievements.
>>3731056
>Well, the redistribution would of course have to be completely equal for everyone, or otherwise the idea of meritocracy doesn't work in the first place.
This would be considerably less meritocratic than allowing individuals to leave their assets to chosen heirs. Taking resources away from wealthier heirs, often of good genetic stock and raised in atmospheres that dearly value hard work and intellectual accomplishment, and siphoning off some to poorer children, more likely to be of lesser genetic quality and to be raised in environments less demanding of achievement, is a step backward in terms of meritocracy.

 â„–3731117[Quote]

>>3731102
>You are right that success depends on grit in addition to raw genetics, but productive habits and mentalities are more often instilled in the offspring of stable, well-to-do homes than in those of poorer households. Go into a high school AP calculus or physics class and you'll likely find a pattern among the kids: most come from educated families that are upper-middle class or wealthier, participate in multiple extracurriculars, and spend more time studying than their peers. This isn't just because these kids tend to be of high genetic quality, they were raised in an environment that places a premium on long term goals and intellectual and career achievements.

Yeah, I actually completely agree with you on that. It's absolutely true that knowledge is capital that can be passed on. And the trends you are describing are also real. I guess I just don't want our search for talent to be strictly limited to this cohort of people. We should judge people equally (as much to our ability to do so) based on their skill, not just by profiling for better students. That's pretty much the goal of meritocracy for me.



[Return][Catalog][Go to top][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard ] [ soy / qa / raid / r ] [ int / pol ] [ a / an / asp / biz / mtv / r9k / tech / v / sude / x ] [ q / news / chive / rules / pass / bans / status ] [ wiki / booru / irc ]