Democracy works on rewarding people into positions of power based not on their merit, but on how popular they are (as shown through voting). Does this means that Objectivists would prefer, in an ideal society, to have no direct Democracy and instead have some sort of pseudo-authoritarian leadership that was more meritocratic? (Singapore comes to mind)
Nope. Democracy is fine as far as electing officials that are rationally chosen. Their should just be strict limits on what the elected officials can do, i.e., either strictly following the Constitution, or partially redrafting the Constitution such that it explicitly defines the purpose of government as the agency that defends individual rights via various mean, police, courts, military, etc., and nothing else.
One has to be precise about the definition of “democracy.” If it means that public opinion determines the law, that is a corruptive evil. But if you mean that the government rules by the consent of the people to provide a check against tyranny, that is desirable, though it is better called a republican, representative, or liberal system.
Democracy works on rewarding people into positions of power based not on their merit, but on how popular they are (as shown through voting). Does this means that Objectivists would prefer, in an ideal society, to have no direct Democracy and instead have some sort of pseudo-authoritarian leadership that was more meritocratic? (Singapore comes to mind)
The ideal implementation of government is a democratic republic, where elected officials vote for the people they represent. For the most part, this is what we have in America.
What do you mean by meritocratic? I’ve never heard this term before Also, there is nothing pseudo about that authoritarianism in Singapore. Just because the dictator there is semi-benevolent, it doesn’t make him any less of a dictator.
On a side note- to anyone who cares, g-mail has the greatest spell checker in the history of man.
What do you mean by meritocratic? I’ve never heard this term before
In a meritocracy, people are rewarded to higher positions based on their merits. Most businesses operate as a meritocracy, they need to for their survivial.
Also, there is nothing pseudo about that authoritarianism in Singapore. Just because the dictator there is semi-benevolent, it doesn’t make him any less of a dictator.
Although the government of Singapore is dictatorial, that government is surprisingly un-authoritarian. Business thrives because the Government lets it. Although at the same time. there are many insane and innane laws that direct the social laws in that nation (I think we all know about Singapore’s hatred of gum as being one of the more humorous examples). Although I like some aspects of Singapore’s Government, other elements are far from ideal.
I had assumed that Objectivists would prefer if in an ideal nation, the government was run like business. We don’t all get to vote for people to join the office because, being only people we are capable of being swayed by wrong arguments, capable of falling into the trap of emotions, and capable of making uninformed choices. It would be to dangerous to give “the people” the power to elect officials.
Instead, government would be a profession, one that a person had to apply to be accepted into, and one that they would need to dedicate full time services to.
Government would of course require strict constitutional limits to stop it from falling into totalitarianism and tyranny.
I assume the closest thing to a positive portrayal of this is Heinlien’s Starship Troopers.
The entire idea of a “meritocracy” is a non-concept. It’s fundamental origin lies in a failure to distinguish between economic and political power.
Unlimited democracy (as GC mentioned, sort of) is simply the tyrrany of the majority and is also rejected by Objectivism as a viable system.
The fundamental principle that determines whether a government system is perceived as functional or not by Objectivists is whether it protects AS AN ABSOLUTE the rights of the citizenry. Not some rights, but ALL rights, and not that rights are “allowed” by the government, but that the functions of government are recognized to be DERIVED from those rights and thus may not interfere with them.
Objectivism advocates one thing: rule by objective laws, not by men. America was (briefly) one such place, in theory if not ALWAYS in practice. The government of the U.S. is not the whims of a particular individual, it is a yellowing and ancient piece of paper preserved as the greatest political document in the history of the world: the U.S. constitution.
There are other threads on the board discussing whether a representative republic (not democracy) is the best system, and if not, how you would make improvements on it. In theory, any system that protected rights as a matter of principle would be acceptable, but it was pointed out that the representative republic of the U.S. is the only system that ever HAS.
Actually, “meritocracy” is not only a non-concept, but an anti-concept, for the exact reason JMegansnow listed.
Democracy works on rewarding people into positions of power based not on their merit, but on how popular they are (as shown through voting). Does this means that Objectivists would prefer, in an ideal society, to have no direct Democracy and instead have some sort of pseudo-authoritarian leadership that was more meritocratic? (Singapore comes to mind)
The problem with any sort of popularly elected government is that ultimately it is the not so moral voting majority who decide how the rules (no matter how rational and good) are to be enforced. Thus, while the Supreme Court may be the final arbiter of the law, the makeup of the Court is determined by popularly elected politicians. And one of the characteristics of politicians is to buy votes from the less wealthy majority with money collected from the more wealthy minority. That is why the modern growth of government has coincided with the growth of democracy.
In a meritocracy, people are rewarded to higher positions based on their merits.
By whom, and by what standard, is such “merit” measured?
By whom, and by what standard, is such “merit” measured?
Well I would assume that merit would be decided by internal criteria, whether that criteria is actually good enough, would be another matter.
Well I would assume that merit would be decided by internal criteria, whether that criteria is actually good enough, would be another matter.
Don’t assume. Can you provide an example? A law degree? Ten years running a successful business? Matching tennis shoes?
Is there any “qualification” that is not either a form of elitism or completely arbitrary? I doubt it. So, why is the qualification that you were able to get a substantial portion of the population to vote for you not good enough?
Don’t assume. Can you provide an example? A law degree? Ten years running a successful business? Matching tennis shoes?
I go to a High School. I want to get accepted into a College. The College sets a SAT score that I have to get to get considered, this is their way of increasing the number of “good” applicants.
Is there any “qualification” that is not either a form of elitism or completely arbitrary? I doubt it. So, why is the qualification that you were able to get a substantial portion of the population to vote for you not good enough?
Because all it shows, is that you got a large portion of the population to vote for you and is not indicitive of how well you will do your job. In fact, it is probably more indicitive of how well you can manipulate large groups of people.
There are other threads on the board discussing whether a representative republic (not democracy) is the best system, and if not, how you would make improvements on it. In theory, any system that protected rights as a matter of principle would be acceptable, but it was pointed out that the representative republic of the U.S. is the only system that ever HAS.
I would agree that Representitive Democracy is the most effectigve form of government that currently exists because it limits the rule of the masses and dilutes their voice. This however, does not change the fact that in the US, the Supreme Court is still seen at a higher standard to the White House and Congress, because its occupants have no need to fear getting voted out and so can makes 100% reason based decisions without having to deal with the court of “public opinion”.
You are forgeting that in the context of a rational society, the context we should be talking about here, people would choose their government representatives based on reason, and not how well they look on T.V. or their “powers of persuasion”.
A rational society does not mean a society comprised of only rational members, it means a society structured around rational laws. People will still make irrational decisions, etc. The point is that the irrational will not be rewarded; it will fail, and not harm those that are rational or at least MORE rational.
Strangelove: I meant specifically, what qualifies one to hold public office? If all politicians were appointees such as Supreme Court Judges (oh, judges on the state level are often elected, IIRC) what would be the result? What would be the result if one had to fulfill a list of specific qualifications (degree, test scores, what have you) in order to hold public office? At the state and local level, officeholders are FREQUENTLY people that got irritated with the direction the government was going and decided to run for office. Institute some kind of testing and these principled individuals have no way to make a bid to get things changed, or at least not without considerable personal expense.
Under a republican system, no matter who voted for you or how many, you still don’t have the power to change the fundamental nature of the law. That is actually why simple numbers are a sufficient test of a candidate’s worthiness.
A rational society does not mean a society comprised of only rational members, it means a society structured around rational laws. People will still make irrational decisions, etc. The point is that the irrational will not be rewarded; it will fail, and not harm those that are rational or at least MORE rational.
Yes, I agree, and didn’t mean to imply everyone would be rational, but I would think that in such a society a majority, or very close, would be rational. And a majority is exactly what it takes to get elected. I would use the early history of this country (US) as such an example.
Rational isn’t an on/off switch, remember, but a continuum. People can behave rationally in some respects while still being irrational in others, thus not qualifying as entirely “rational”. In a rational society, no one has to be FULLY rational except possibly a few intellectuals that help to defend the system and provide a rational basis for it. That is what I mean; that the rational in people is rewarded while the irrational is dismissed.
Strangelove: I meant specifically, what qualifies one to hold public office? If all politicians were appointees such as Supreme Court Judges (oh, judges on the state level are often elected, IIRC) what would be the result? What would be the result if one had to fulfill a list of specific qualifications (degree, test scores, what have you) in order to hold public office? At the state and local level, officeholders are FREQUENTLY people that got irritated with the direction the government was going and decided to run for office. Institute some kind of testing and these principled individuals have no way to make a bid to get things changed, or at least not without considerable personal expense.
First off, I concede that the use of the term and concept of “meritocracy”, was unwise and I will not attempt to defend it further.
I would rather that Government was run like the Sony Corporation. As we should all be well aware, Sony’s newely apointed CEO is the first non-Japanese one that they have ever had. He has been appointed because the current one, was not only failing to meet company targets, but also was convinced that the company literally needed someone who “spoke another language” in order to properly manage the company. (more on this can be read in a recent Fortune magazine).
If the Sony was held hostage public opinion, and had to take a survey from its employes as to who the new CEO should be, I guarantee that the Japanese employes would not elect the westerner, even though he is more qualified for the job.
Even though there was not any official “test” that was taken to determine if the westerner was more suited to the position, one test that did not have to be taken, was the test of public opinion.
Now, although the Supreme Court is probably the most respected institution of the three branches of Government, it is not perfect and in my opinion, the guarantee of service untill death, prevents allowing more capable judges to replace inadequate ones, but that is a minor concern.
To deal with your concern, I would not advocate for “Government” as a career choice to be held off from all people interested in holding office. If someone believes that they are capable of doing a better job of mayor/governor/etc then the man currently in office, then it makes sense to try and compete for the position, but not compete though votes. An evangelical Christian may be unhappy that his state does not ban abortions, so he has every right to seek Governorship, but instead of seeking it by rallying the faithfull and storming the ballot box, he would have to “apply” for a Government position, be given a smaller level job, and be evaluated as a company evaluates a manging director. If he bans abortions and gay marriage in his area of work, then the area under his auspice would suffer economically and as a result, would not be able to get a “promotion” to Governor. Thus, Reason triumphs.
One lesson I took from first reading The Fountianhead, was the anything which falls into the court of public opinion, be it the media, or architechts, is ultimately withheld from being able to reach its full potential.
To deal with your concern, I would not advocate for “Government” as a career choice to be held off from all people interested in holding office. If someone believes that they are capable of doing a better job of mayor/governor/etc then the man currently in office, then it makes sense to try and compete for the position, but not compete though votes. An evangelical Christian may be unhappy that his state does not ban abortions, so he has every right to seek Governorship, but instead of seeking it by rallying the faithfull and storming the ballot box, he would have to “apply” for a Government position, be given a smaller level job, and be evaluated as a company evaluates a manging director. If he bans abortions and gay marriage in his area of work, then the area under his auspice would suffer economically and as a result, would not be able to get a “promotion” to Governor. Thus, Reason triumphs.
The point of objective laws is to prevent anyone from making laws because they “want to”. The Governor is an Executive position, too, so he can’t make laws ANYWAY. He can only issue orders to see that the laws are carried out. Only the legeslative branch should be able to make laws.
The difficulty has arisen because the wall of separation of powers is crumbling, that, and there were some inherent contradictions in the system that led to its slow slide into disgrace. Eliminate those contradictions and you have a perfectly functioning system.
One lesson I took from first reading The Fountianhead, was the anything which falls into the court of public opinion, be it the media, or architechts, is ultimately withheld from being able to reach its full potential.
Say what? The “court of public opinion” is how Capitalism WORKS, in a sense.
Let me re-phrase that, anything which defines itself by public opinion. Example, a politician who wants to win an election so takes several polls to decide which issues he can win on. Irrespective of his actual principles and convictions.
Objectivists do not support Democracy, when advocated as a primary basis of a political system. If all Iranians vote for a law saying that every Iranian must pray 5 times a day, the law is still evil. If all but the richest Russians vote to make all property state-owned, that is similarly evil.
So, if “Democracy” means a government where the majority can impose its rule upon the minority, Objectivism does not support that.
However, if one has a Capitalist political system – with respect for individual rights – one could use voting as a means of deciding who takes a particular office.
In the context of a Capitalist society, a Presidential candidate could not offer anything populist to anyone. All the goodies a politicians offer us are taken from others. Think, for a moment, about the mayor of a small town in the U.S. Even this mayor can do more favors for certain citizens of the city (and deny the rights of others) than could a President under a Capitalist system.
If you are not thinking of a Capitalist society, but some type of mixed-economy, I’d guess (but am not sure) that experience has shown true democracies to be slightly slower in moving a country toward tyranny. Yet, here too, democracy is not a primary factor. For instance, compare European, American and Asian democracies.