Succession in meritocracy

How do you handle succession in a meritocracy?

Other urls found in this thread:

jstor.org/stable/3993280?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563467.2014.914160
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

the most merited person succeeds

Make it so they can be fired at any time. Alternatively give power to multiple officials in sectioned off areas (king of commerce, king of diplomacy, etc.) that way skills will better fit the job. Also you have to make sure military power is split up so no one just conquers the others.

Yeah but how is said merit calculated and by whom?

That's cool but I think you missed the point, how do you figure out the way to find out the more 'merited' people and then how do you put him/her in the position of power.

I guess it would either have to be some sort of trial and vetting process after being chosen by some sort of council of experts on each of those areas of expertise. It would definitely be tricky, but I imagine it would be similar to the election of a pope but with multiple councils and different criteria for each. There would also have to be intense inspection for corruption since it would be incredibly easy to just buy your way into office, possibly making the entire process completely public and/or having an extra-governmental organization be involved with monitoring the process.

A civil war/ coup, followed by a purge of rival factions that inevitably kills innocent civilians. Meritocracy is a meme.

Any idea of having a "meritocracy" means that you have to begin by defining what kind of "merit" yore taking about, and presumably establishing some system for determining who's meritous in that regard.

You can't have a general meritocracy. Because you could call any system meritocratic in that sense. Whoever wins has the merit of being best suited to win.

Look how China does it, a fiercely meritocratic bureaucratic system. Get all the bigwigs in a room and have them debate, they'll lose prestige if they pick a fuckup so often (with some notable exceptions) generally the most capable person who they see as fitting for the task gets it.
Of course this has it's obvious issues, but what system of government doesn't.

That's the problem with all meritocracies. Success can be had by luck, skill can be hidden by luck, popular opinion and charisma can make up for lack of skill.

>but what system of government doesn't.
a monarchy

Use a computer that calculates how much a person deserves it, using points.

Every 4 years the person with the most amount of points gets in, unless he refuses.

Coming up with the point values would be extremely flawed not to mention people can just lie on any sort of test in a way that goes beyond how they could lie to people.

similar to how the review process works for a scientific journal. i.e. top experts in different fields relating to policy (economists, political scientists, scientists, engineers, etc.) are summoned by a review board, and they have the job of interrogating candidates based on policy proposals.

I'm assuming if a person has a house and a car and dies how their kids inherit all that?

We can all agree that death will happen to anyone regardless of your merits. So let the kids have the house and the car. Now if the dead guy had billions on top of billions, some of it should go.

That would be my policy at first glance - a sort of a balanced contract.

>Get all the bigwigs in a room and have them debate

The trouble with their system is that you get in the room with the bigwigs and everyone agrees with the biggest wig, at least at their higher levels of government.

Why not just let the computer be in charge?

>Korra

>destroys 2 terrorist groups
>solves gigantic world ending spirit crisis
>wrecks supreme leader of the Earth nation
>but she's shit because she's a teenage girl with boy problems

What the fuck are you talking about

He's saying that possessions should be passed on but not cash I think. He doesn't understand that people would just buy up shit before they die and pass that on and this would drive prices up on many things, particularly land.

And my oh my is she a great fap.

You mad because she was a strong woman would could do more than preteen limp dick boy? Korra=goddess.

Well, Civil war does find out who is the most ruthless and capable commander so there's that

get spooked you fucking nerd

Eh, that's what makes China quite interesting for me is that it's SO fucking competitive, like, the rules and regulations they have for deciding/ appraising information and generally power is spread around the various councils and agencies that litter the bureaucracy that it prevents a BIG bigwig from emerging. But I do get your point, a certain level of cronyism is inevitable in any government, even what that limp dick said. It can also be seen from some picks for regional governors that the central party really doesn't give a fuck about ideology that much, certain provinces have had completely polar opposite economic and social programs depending on "whatever works, works".
But I digress, your point stands though in the case of China it's much more meritocratic than most suppose.

so there is a degree of plurality in the end, distributing risks

And what does that have to do with succession in meritocracy?

>He doesn't understand that people would just buy up shit before they die and pass that on
I actually had that thought as I wrote what I wrote, but decided to omit addressing, because I thought it's a detail, I wanted to show the idea, that you have to balance some stuff out.

Of course I should have anticipated some giant raging cancer would instantly come up with this trick and find the loop hole to fuck the system and go - NYANYANYA.

And it was you, turns out.

I have no clue. I think he was getting ahead of himself and describing how basic succession law would work in his meritocracy for every citizen.

Why would you even propose it if you knew the idea had an immense loop hole to exploit? Is this Karl Marx?

...

The point is you can make a law. I didn't mean all the cash to go either. Property has value too.
If you have 10 houses, well sorry, you don't get to keep ALL of that, maybe pay tax on them or something.
Also depends how many children are inheritting, if there are 5 kids, then it will probably level out more, so that has to be taken into account.

Ottomans had a tradition where when a noble died, the Sultan gained his land and money, not the heirs of the noble.

That's sort of the spirit, just not that extreme.

>If you have 10 houses, well sorry, you don't get to keep ALL of that
Why not? What authority does the state have to take somebody's property?

The show was boring, the characters were flat and I found it hard to get emotionally invested in any of the characters.

In China? if by that you mean that if a council makes a shitty selection (China is by far one of the most pragmatic states in terms of appointments) another body/section of state or government will jump on them. So a LOT of pressure to make a 'good' choice. One of the main benefits of a massive bureaucracy is that when a decision gets made, it's got some decent rationale behind it. But yeah, people really don't get how China operates on a state, regional or local level. Partly comes from implicit racism and stereotypes/ignorance and partly from how fucking hard it is to get any decent data/records to look at.

>If you have 10 houses, well sorry, you don't get to keep ALL of that, maybe pay tax on them or something.
You're just a common thief

>Ottomans had a tradition where when a noble died, the Sultan gained his land and money, not the heirs of the noble.
thats retarded, no wonder they failed

>show was boring
This is the biggest red flag when people talk about television shows. If you find a show boring it doesn't mean it's bad, it means it's just not for you.

Korra had absolutely no character development, she was a cunt from start to finish. She didn't learn anything and had everything given to her. No wonder tumblrinas love her.

In the case of TLOK it is because it's a bad show.

The dynasty lasted for 700 years

Not that I agree with the other guy, but some shows are objectively boring and terrible (ex. The Walking Dead)

/co/ is shit
they should be excised from this site like the cancerous tumor they are

>Why not?
For the sake of meritocracy in the case that the kids did 0 to deserve that.

The meritocratic state is not just there to take your stuff, there's roads and police and bla bla you've heard it all by the liberals.

The new thing here is that YOU like the meritocratic state and YOU signed the contract that YOU would give some if you died, just like everybody else who died - to preserve society etc.

But we also have some balance where it's just not complete and utter communism or whatever.

I'm trying to reconcile a meritocratic society with inheritance.

Sounds interesting, any books on this?

'Fraid unless you love looking through academic journals. I've got no history books to offer you though could prob link a few articles that might be of interest given half an hour, but you'll need a way of accessing them.

Are you joking? She begins the show ultra cocky because she mastered 3 of the elements crazy fast, then as she gets beaten down she gets humbled. Also she becomes far more concerned with the state of the world and how she as the avatar has to address these problems as the show progresses. I hate when people use "muh lack of character development" as an excuse when they have no idea what they are talking about and the fact that it isn't even necessary in many situation for a show to communicate what it wishes to say.

Should of mentioned I'm a politics and states kinda guy, not history. Only here as /pol/ is /pol/ and this place is the best for shitposting about stuff that I vaguely know about.

>the kids did 0 to deserve that
What the kids did is irrelevant, the person who earned the money has a right to do what he pleases with it, and if he chooses to give it to his children then that is his right. What did your "meritocracy" do to deserve the money? And don't start with that social contract bullshit, a one-sided "agreement" backed up by force is not a contract. What you are suggesting is not an inheritance tax, it is theft.

>What the kids did is irrelevant
It really isn't. Many of these OBSCENELY rich multimillionaire people who have their money from their parents are just not deserving to have all of it - paris hilton, trump that kind of person. (don't get political just because i mentioned trump in this context)

I find it hard to imagine a libertarian society that is meritocratic and funtcions properly, though you probably agree since you mentioned "inheritance tax" there

The show is still bad even with Korra's "development" (she still isn't a good character anyway). As another user said most of the characters are flat and uninteresting. The storytelling is quite bad and is filled with retcon. Really the only thing good about the series is the animation and the music.

I have no issue with reading those, but I'm afraid that I do not have a subscription to any of the sites that give you access to published journals.

Is this a trick question?

When one term limits out, the next best person takes over.

Again, you're looking at the kids and not the parents. The parents do not have to leave their money to the kids, they CHOOSE to. They have the right to do what they want with their money, whether or not we think that it is a smart thing for them to do with their money.
Also, while I am not personally a libertarian, a libertarian society would be meriotcraric because the rich people who don't know what they are doing will eventually lose their fortune to people who do know what they are doing.

the retcon was necessary considering that TLA ended in the most retarded way possible. In order to make anything make more sense they had to elaborate on the vague and fix the gigantic flaws they had created. The dislike of character is completely subjective and it only reflects what you prefer. Listen, this is Veeky Forums not /co/ or /tv/ and I don't really care if you don't like it. Let's just end it and stop derailing the thread.

You can be objectively terrible but it's really hard to be objectively boring, and it just isn't true when thousands of others find it interesting. I agree that the walking dead is boring and I could even point out how much of the storyline revolves around doing the same thing over and over and there is a lack of any meaningful artistic element to replace that hole in creativity but then there's plenty of others who watch it all the time who love the endless cycle of crouch walking and causally shooting extras in the head so i can't really say it's objectively boring.

downloaded some pdfs but wont let me post them. Two very good articles on it, jstor.org/stable/3993280?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents and tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563467.2014.914160 are the main ones you should read. They give you a pretty decent introduction but a lot of what I said comes from shit I can't remember/ is hard to find. Sorry. If you or a mate has any sort of university log in you can read and download them though.

>What authority does the state have
Guns and men to wield them.

Thief

Liar.

It's calculated based on merit by the other meritorious persons.

Thanks, lad.

"to the strongest"

Pretty sure by the time it actually fell they had long gone full Enlightenment with pro-bourgeois reforms too.

>the retcon was necessary considering that TLA ended in the most retarded way possible
Absolute nonsense. The ending was a fuck up but there was no reason to continue fucking up the world. If they wanted to fix the ending then they did a piss poor job screwing up already established rules in ATLA that were perfectly fine.

I dislike the characters because they're badly written. One dimensional characters is not an example of good storytelling.

You are wrong, there isn't a single one dimensional character in the whole main cast but again, this is Veeky Forums so fuck off.

Great examples you included there.

The people vote for experts in their profession, so if you're a doctor you vote for people in the Ministry of Healthcare, if you're a civil engineer you vote for people in the Ministry of Infrastructure, these ministers, being the people with governmental experience, then elect a leader who will handle the executive decisions.

devour the flesh of the weak

Glad to see it, having come here to post it.