Want to Stick it to the Teabaggers?

[Kidlicious]

Authoritarian = setting rules and regulations (government control).
Liberal = easing rules and regulations (government control).

Democrats want liberal social policy but government control (authoritarian) economic policy. Republicans want authoritarian social policy (anti-gay, pro-death-penalty, anti-legalization) and liberal economic policy (less regulations and presence of government in the economy).

Class dismissed (see also: edits above).

Hmmm... That makes more sense since a normal person would equate social authoritarian with social darwinist.

[DaShi]

I'll go with communist.

[Ecofarm]

Social darwinism is social elitism but not necessarily social authoritarianism. I'm better than everyone else and discriminate (intellectually), but all perspectives (even ****) are needed to make our government system resilient. I don't believe that telling people what to do is the answer to a prosperous system.

Even a benevolent dictator sucks, because with advisors he still is not omniscient. Democracy and (truly) free markets (with informed consumers) are omniscient.

[DaShi]

Or theocracy.

[Ecofarm]

If you believe in voodoo.

[Heraclitus]

Social darwinism is social elitism but not necessarily social authoritarianism. I'm better than everyone else and discriminate (intellectually), but all perspectives (even ****) are needed to make our government system resilient. I don't believe that telling people what to do is the answer to a prosperous system.

Even a benevolent dictator sucks, because with advisors he still is not omniscient. Democracy and (truly) free markets (with informed consumers) are omniscient.

I think the way Democracy is set up today we loose so much information on the way up that it only works significantly better than classical Oligarchy in nearly perfect conditions. One might argue that all democracies devolve into oligarchies over time just as all dictatorships do.


And this isn't even touching the fact that not only is the rational voter is a myth, but so is the rational consumer is not as usefull an abstaraction as we once belived. We need something better. Even a system such as Futarchy as proposed by Robin Hanson would probably ouperform Democracy.

[Kidlicious]

Social darwinism is social elitism but not necessarily social authoritarianism. I'm better than everyone else and discriminate (intellectually), but all perspectives (even ****) are needed to make our government system resilient. I don't believe that telling people what to do is the answer to a prosperous system.

Even a benevolent dictator sucks, because with advisors he still is not omniscient. Democracy and (truly) free markets (with informed consumers) are omniscient.

So you are anti-authoritarian because you are an elitist?

[Ecofarm]

And because it's fair and best.

[Heraclitus]

I also belive in meritocracy. I'm anti-authority since I belive reality a far wiser judge than even the most benevolent dictator or electorate.

[Ecofarm]

Meritocracy is BS because all tests are biased.

You want your merit, earn it above and beyond or tough. You can get excessive respect and influence. Let's not pretend that effort, discipline, patience and persistence are worthless; we got plenty of meritocracy around here.

Meritocracy for basic human rights, as opposed to paychecks and personal/social influence, is stupid; it debases us.

[Heraclitus]

Meritocracy is BS because all tests are biased.

You want your merit, earn it above and beyond or tough.

True. But a blind test at least selects for *something* consitently. All one needs to do after that is established is see which tests being used result in better governance.

If you can't use tests... how does one measure merit? Acomplishments? How do you know they are due to his merit? Power? Don't we allready select for powerseeking?



Leaving that issue for a second... The real problem is that no one realizes that humans are ideologically radically divergent. Our near values are similar but they scale very poorly. Once you get to questions concerning future humanity or radical modifications things will get very messy. We have superficially similar but radically different views of what merit is depending on which part of our joint hoplesly inconsistent human worldview (or ethics/morality) we choose to extrapolate and rationalize.

[Ecofarm]

I edited (excessively, as most always). Meritocracy only becomes a real disaster for human and civil rights.

Regarding promotions (and, largely, even success) in the civilian and military world, it is not only useful but essential.

[Heraclitus]

I edited (excessively, as most always). Meritocracy only becomes a real disaster for human and civil rights.

I did a bit of editing before seeing your response & edit too. I think its best we just stick to posting replies otherwise no real conversation can come of this and it sucks for other people following it.

[Ecofarm]

End game... I believe in meritocracy too but not for civil or human rights.

[Heraclitus]

Meritocracy is BS because all tests are biased.

You want your merit, earn it above and beyond or tough. You can get excessive respect and influence. Let's not pretend that effort, discipline, patience and persistence are worthless; we got plenty of meritocracy around here.

Meritocracy for basic human rights, as opposed to paychecks and personal/social influence, is stupid; it debases us.

I don't think we are really on the same page here. Off course effort, discipline and patience are rewarded in any system! What one is trying to do when one advocates for "meritocracy" is encouraging people to use these and others merits to further their objectives with as little damage as possible to other people's objectives (power for power sake is an objective that by definition hurts other peoples objectives) ie Trying to steer the game as far away from zero sum as possible.