tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post1941923149753330662..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: The Incoherence of MeritocracyBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-26382731908474806712019-06-03T09:38:31.072-04:002019-06-03T09:38:31.072-04:00The problem of cynicism in leaders goes well beyon...The problem of cynicism in leaders goes well beyond meritocracy, I think. Whenever we're aiming towards an ideal in an imperfect world, we can be encouraged when we achieve some success, and taken aback when we fail. A political leader is at the tip of the spear and is likely to be aware of all the setbacks and systematic social problems. A meritocracy would represent a great challenge to nature's inhuman indifference, and so whenever nature intrudes on the perfect plan, as it were, the leader will have to withstand that disappointment and recommit herself to the ideal, to avoid becoming jaded and nihilistic. <br /><br />One of the main ways nature asserts its dominance in the human oasis is in the familiar process by which power corrupts the person who has the opportunity to overpower others. The fiasco/catastrophe/apocalypse of the Trump presidency should dishearten idealists for centuries to come. We see a smug Mueller, a centrist who trusts in the law and in the legal system, even as the monstrous psychopaths in the White House have obviously wiped their asses with the American Constitution and legal traditions. Mueller wants to hand the whole thing over to Congress even as Bill Maher points out the obvious: Congress, and particularly the Republican Party which literally had to cheat for decades to cling to power (gerrymandering, voter suppression, Electoral College, etc), is thoroughly corrupt and incapable of doing what's right. <br /><br />Presumably these problems are theoretically fixable, but there are also psychological and existential problems to address. What kind of a man or a woman (or a machine?) is needed to oppose nature's tendency to keep us living as beasts in the jungle? How can that kind of leader be created or found?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-60527642493486347312019-05-31T21:40:30.066-04:002019-05-31T21:40:30.066-04:00"Thanks for your thoughts, Sybok. I didn'..."Thanks for your thoughts, Sybok. I didn't mean to rain on your parade, but I go where the inspiration strikes."<br /><br />Never apologize for criticism. I used to be an avid poster on internet forums, but I found myself being either banned or just told to leave because some users found my opinions offensive and, lacking the capacity to refute my arguments, whined that was trolling the forum. I find your arguments refreshing and I am grateful to have found someone who is actually capable of offering rational criticism rather than tantrums. I'm not emotionally committed to meritocracy (the party or the idea), it just one of those fantasies that give me a reason to get out of bed in the afternoon. I suppose you could compare it to the faith of an existential Christian; though I think my 'religion' requires a little more faith.<br /><br />It all goes back to the trauma I experienced at six when my mom told me that Star Trek wasn't real: there were no aliens, no spaceships and humans hadn't even colonized the Moon yet. I knew Star Trek was a show, of course, but I thought it was a show based on an underlying reality like Law & Order. Up until I was six I really believed that there was a United Federation, fleets of starships whizzing around the galaxy and dozens of humanoid aliens! I seriously planned on attending the academy when I turned sixteen! I don't think my patents realized what a trauma it was for me to realize it was all fiction. But it gave me a good model of how humans SHOULD behave and how a proper civilization might function.<br /><br />As for Mueller, I find it very difficult to relate to him. Judging from the thoroughness of his report he seems to sincerely believe in the system; if he were as cynical as either of us he would have just halfed-assed the entire project. I think Trump's surprise victory drove a lot of people a little closer to madness. Speaking for myself, I was actually questioning my own sanity for the first year or so to the extent that I seriously considered seeing a psychiatrist a few times. I found it easier to accept that I might be crazy for believing in Trump's election then to accept that hundreds of thousands of people were crazy enough to vote for him. I've since come to a grim acceptance of my own sanity, but I still suspect that either Trump or someone else may have hacked the voting machines to turn the tide in his favor. <br /><br />Sanity, as you know, is relative. Muller might be insane for believing that anyone really cares how flagrantly Trump has attempted to obstruct his own investigation. Frankly, I think half the people I know are insane by that definition. The problem is I can't tell if they are being sincere. Perhaps their indignation is just an act to conceal their own cynicism and lack of concern. Do you think Roman Catholics really feel any sympathy for the victims of their clergy? Do you think any of them really believe there is anything wrong with raping little kids? <br /><br />I don't. <br /><br />I think their indignation is nothing more than a cynical pose and that they would gladly hand their own sons and daughters over to be sodomized if they believed it would increase their chances of going to Heaven. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just hopeless when it comes to understanding how the minds of my fellow humans work. All I can do is put myself in their shoes and imagine why I would continue to be a part of a global child sex ring that masquerades as a religion.Syboknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-21901119679908468472019-05-30T09:31:04.427-04:002019-05-30T09:31:04.427-04:00Thanks for your thoughts, Sybok. I didn't mean...Thanks for your thoughts, Sybok. I didn't mean to rain on your parade, but I go where the inspiration strikes. <br /><br />I agree that your garden analogy gets at the political ideal. So if we're talking about what I call the mixed meritocracy, the realistic, flawed attempt to create one by pursuing the political ideal, a problem I raise is that the guardians would be flawed too. <br /><br />As I say, "The trick would be to preserve an interest in morality while observing the ease with which most people fall well short of their ideals...Persistent faith in an unnatural ideal in the face of flagrant daily violations, on account of nature’s palpable indifference to what should be done would require a type of mania or other insanity that might disqualify the individual from a leadership role in a meritocracy. So the elites in a mixed meritocracy would tend to be con artists, masters of what Leo Strauss and Plato called the noble lie. Their greatest merit would be their ability to pretend that progress is feasible or that a flawed population is likely to adopt worthy principles in the first place."<br /><br />I agree that objectivity in a leader is possible. We can call an objective but non-sociopathic leader a "guardian" as opposed to a "technocrat." I wonder, though, what prevents a guardian from sliding into cynicism. <br /><br />A great example would be Robert Mueller. If Donald Trump gets away without his comeuppance, I think Mueller's faith in the law would have to be regarded as insane. Bill Maher's criticism of Mueller would be vindicated (link below), which is to say that Mueller's by-the-book approach would be an insane, technocratic, foolish failure to rise to the level of the hero who's needed to set history right. Mueller would have been outplayed by the sociopaths. If, however, Mueller's approach is vindicated and Trump is somehow punished for his villainy (whether he's impeached, indicted, or voted out of office), that would make Mueller a good example of a realistic guardian, which would count as a point against the cynical take in the above article. <br /><br />Could Mueller preserve his faith in the garden ideal after seeing the manifest injustices perpetrated by Trump, and indeed after recognizing those injustices as signs of the nation's decline? If the law becomes a plaything for powerful sociopaths who are obviously above the law, what could keep the faith in the political ideal other than a type of insanity? Should the objective guardian, then, be insane?<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4LMxMLTCpsBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-79585711918114544432019-05-29T19:30:21.006-04:002019-05-29T19:30:21.006-04:00Your 2nd point concerns the type of people who wou...Your 2nd point concerns the type of people who would be qualified to run a meriticracy. You contend, correctly, that a saint would not be fit to rule since he wouldn't have the stomach to do what was necessary to maintain order. A sociopath would have no qualms about putting down anyone who stepped out of line but he isn't someone who could ever be trusted with power in the first place. Now, what you say is true as it goes, but I think it also happens to be a false dichotomy. The most important quality for anyone in a position of authority is sound judgment. A good leader is not overly burdened by sentiments. Both compassion & greed are sentiments, and sentiment is the enemy of clear judgment. <br /><br />To give you a concrete example of what I mean, think of Spock from Star Trek. He is as dispassionate as anyone can be. He isn't a a cold-blooded psychopath, but neither is he overwhelmed by pity when strong actions are required. He has a firm moral center, but his ethical code is not dictated by emotions.<br /><br />A guardian of our meritocracy may not share Spock's utilitarian ethics nor would she suppress the slightest stirring of emotion; but none of that is necessary. All that's required is that our guardian be cool headed enough to put aside her feelings when acting in her capacity as guardian & instead act on pragmatic ethical principles that conduce to the type of society she is administering. I don't consider this beyond human capacity. While it's true that the majority would not be able to do it, history proves that some can. A well known example is Winston Churchill when he was PM of Britain during WWII. After the British decoded the German enigma cypher they were faced with a moral dilemma: should they use this knowledge to save the lives of innocent Britons by evacuating them from places the Germans had targeted for bombing & thereby risk alerting the enemy that their code had been broken? Or should they allow innocent people to die so that they could continue to eavesdrop on the Nazis & use that inside knowledge to defeat them & end the war? <br /><br />These are the types of hard decisions the guardians would be confronted with. They must be at once dispassionate & scrupulous. These traits rarely coexist within the same person or even exist singularly in individuals. But that was Socrates' point: those who are competent to rule are the rarest & most unlikely of persons. You might label them amoral technocrats, but I think there is a sharp distinction between the two. The amoral technocrat doesn't base their decisions on any ethical principle, but only does what she must to keep the system running smoothly, wheres a guardian would have definite principles & the system would never be an end in itself. It was amoral technocrats who bailed out the failed banks back in 2008 at the expense of their victims. A guardian would more likely have socialized the banks, initiated an investigation & put those who perpetrated the ponzi schemes on trial for fraud & possibly treason as well.<br /><br />Maybe 'meritocracy' isn't the most best word for the type of government I'm imagining, but I used it for two reasons. The 1st is that when people fantasize about living in a society that would give every individual a fair chance & reward them according to their respective accomplishments, meritocracy is the word that most readily comes to mind. The 2nd reason is that the type of government I'm describing is pretty consistent with the platform of a global movement that calls itself 'The Meritocracy Party'. As far as I know they are the only political party in the world at present that champions a 100% inheritance tax on everyone, and their overall goal seems consistent with the general idea of 'meritocracy' as most would understand it. I'm not a formal member myself, but I support their agenda and, since reading their manifesto, I've been brainstorming practical ways to implement their policies should they ever succeed in coming to power.Syboknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-44554720103157009452019-05-29T19:19:59.216-04:002019-05-29T19:19:59.216-04:00As I see it you've brought up two crucial poin...As I see it you've brought up two crucial points & I would like to address each in turn within a separate post.<br /><br />Your 1st point concerns the purpose of a meriticracy. You point out that. If we work backwards & assume that the purpose of a given government can be deduced from what types of people rise through its ranks most readily, then it becomes clear that ANY government could be described as a meritocracy. For example: if the US government is predominantly composed of men who sit on the boards of large corporations, then it could be inferred that the US is a plutocracy. Conversely, if the US is a plutocracy then it would expected that the government is staffed by some of the same people who occupy the highest levels of its top corporations. Hence, as a plutocracy the US is about as meritocratic as can be. However, this definition of 'meritocratacy' makes the term rather redundant; in this sense 'meritocratic' could simply be replaced with 'efficient'.<br /><br />What's really at issue here is the purpose of government. The 1st book of Plato's Republic covers this topic pretty thoroughly. Socrates compares the art of government to the art of medicine while Thrasymachus compares it to shepherding. Socrates reasons that a physician exercises his art to cure his patient, while Thrasymachus argues that the shepherd has no ultimate interest in his flock and only feeds and protects them so he can fleece and devour them in the future. Naturally, these analogies lead to two irreconcilable ideals of statesmanship. I tend to side with Socrates on semantic grounds since, as I see it, there is no practical difference between the kind of despotism Thrasymachus advocates and the state of nature. A government can be many things, but one thing it cannot be is its opposite. 'Government' implies civilization: a factitious social structure which is the very antithesis of primitive savagery. <br /><br />But I think I have an even better analogy for government than Socrates did: a civilization is a garden and its government is the gardener. The difference between civilization & savagery is like the difference between a well-cultivated garden & a sward of weeds and toadstools: the former is 'unnatural' in the sense that it requires constant maintenance if it isn't going to revert to the default state of nature. A 'government' that only served to facilitate the exploitation of the weak by the strong would be as redundant as a gardener who never bothered to weed. So a government worthy of the name would be one that serves the general interests of its citizens rather than the private interests of the few; and a meritocratic government would be one which does this in the most efficient way possible by ensuring that each of its citizens have everything they need to actualize their full, individual potentials in a way that contributes to the overall richness of the civilization. For Socrates, that every man and woman should serve society by doing whatever it is that they are best at is the very definition of social justice; I wholeheartedly agree. <br /><br />No civilization has ever had a perfect government in this sense; but every one has been forced to accept some sort of unnatural breach of jungle law from time to time in order to survive. The Roman Republic had to fall so that Rome, as a civilization, could continue to exist under the considerably more humane control of the emperors. Athens would never have survived long enough to become a center of learning if not for rulers like Solon, Cleanthenes & Pisistratus who did what they could to protect weak citizens from strong ones. Spartan history as we know it began with a massive redistribution of land & the cancelation of debts. And that's just from classical history. I'm sure you could think of plenty more examples.Syboknoreply@blogger.com