Meritocracy is just another word for ableism.
You think power should be based on ability? No, *responsibility* should be based on ability. Power should be based on whether you are affected by the outcome. In other words, power should be based on need.
What is the purpose of power? What is its use? To ensure that what you want or need becomes a reality.
Some people, when in power, will use it to ensure that others get what they want or need, because that is what the person in power wants. Others will use it towards selfish ends. But whether selfish or altruistic, the person in power weilds it according to their own desires.
If your goal is truly to be altruistic, then you should give the power you hold to those in need. Use your power to empower others. Because only the person in need truly understands their need and what will assuage it.
The value of human beings does not come from their abilities. The value of their abilities comes from human beings.
An ability is worthless and meaningless if it is not used in service of the needs of a living, breathing human being. And having an ability that can be used this way does not make the holder more worthy to have their own needs met.
So even though I am not a communist by any stretch of the imagination, I can agree wholeheartedly with Marx in his assessment of what is right regarding abilities and needs. "From each according to [their] ability, to each according to [their] need," is a self-evident truth, derivable from first principles and the sole assumption that human beings have worth in the first place.
@hosford42 I ask in a friendly tone how is this, or how would you apply this regarding an economic system composed of millions of participants? Things such as opportunities of education, social safety nets, medical care, and basic subsistence? 🤔
@Huntn00 I'll say up front, I don't have all the answers. I'm still figuring things out, as we all are for our entire existence.
I believe strongly in equality for all, but I also recognize that we are constrained by practicality and live amongst a sizeable number of people who have no qualms about behaving selfishly. That's the reason I can agree with Marxist ideology without being a communist. Capitalism and the free market serve to motivate those selfish folks to better society in return for selfish gain. We treat them as if they are more deserving because of their abilities, because this serves to help our needs be met at a societal level. A necessary evil, you might say.
But capitalism also results in wealth concentration, as we currently implement it, which is an evil which is *far* from necessary. This is largely due to our economy being centered around for-profit corporations with disparate levels of ownership.
More to follow...
@Huntn00 There is nothing special about for-profit corporations, that they should be enshrined in our legal system and receive the special treatment they get. We can accomplish the same things through cooperatives. There are a few aspects of cooperatives that make them a much better organizational method, from a societal perspective. They prevent the concentration of wealth, since they are equally co-owned by the workers and/or customers instead of wealthy investors. For the same reason, they prevent the concentration of power, since they operate democratically. They are also more stable and robust to economic impacts. And if all publicly traded corporations were instead cooperatives, we could do away with the stock market and its inherent volatility altogether.
@hosford42 For decades I’ve asked, how much money does it take to live a good life, say annually-$100k, $300k, $1m, $10m?I’m believe in caps on wealth and income, which is a hostile notion to today’s capitalism. As the smartest person on the block and most valuable, you should be at the top. We just need to redefine what the top is. Post WWII, the top tax bracket was in the 90% range for less than $1m annual. With consensus and bigger numbers, we could do something similar today.
@Huntn00 I like the idea of wealth caps. But I hesitate when you say smart people "should" be at the top, for the very same reason. Differences in pay are a useful means to an end, nothing more. They serve to motivate folks who won the birth lottery to share what they can do with everyone around them. We don't need arbitrary pay differences to do that. It can be done with a smaller range of variation. But even when we pay someone more than someone else, it doesn't mean they *deserve* it.
@hosford42 Humans beings respond to reward, are motivated by reward. Until we can change our nature to WE>ME instead of ME>WE the system most likely needs to continue to be reward based on effort and value. I’m open to counters and to what those rewards should be.
@Huntn00 This is exactly what I'm getting at when I say we have to be pragmatic. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't pay people to do work, because then they might not do it. It's just that having to pay somebody more for a skill they have doesn't mean they morally deserve it. That extra pay is a means to an end. But I see so many people who conflate "I can get more money" with "I deserve to get more money". It serves their ego, but it isn't true.