Is meritocracy compatible with egalitarianism?

most societies have been governed by logos.

I think that was ironic

Meritiocratic works in principle to kill corruption.

Egalitarian works in principle to kill prejudices.

In truth, you bits of both for functional system.

egalitarianism leads to genocide

>egalitarianism isn't equality of oportunity, it says everyone is worth the same
oh fuck off with your special snowflake definition that's only there so you can beat a strawman to death.

They dont contradict eachother you literal retard

Yes it's compatible, an egalitarian wants to remove legal discrimination so people can pursue the careers / lives they want, a meritocrat wants the best qualified to be hired for a given job, this in fact REQUIRES egalitarianism. You don't have to be a meritocrat to be an egalitarian, but you DO have to be an egalitarian to be a (consistent) meritocrat.

>egalitarianism isn't equality of oportunity, it says everyone is worth the same

Everyone is worth the same, therefore, everyone should have the same opportunities. Egalitarianism requires equality of opportunity.

Name even one society that was governed by logic. ONE.

>an egalitarian wants to remove legal discrimination so people can pursue the careers / lives they want
This is mostly a theoretical thing though.

Modern progressives believe in the unsubstantiated dogma that ability among races, genders, etc. is equal and that that a certain minority group being underrepresented in a certain academic field, profession, etc. implies a systemic bias against them rather than an inherent lack of ability in that minority group.

And their tool to solve that is not just removing the legal discrimination but to set up positive discrimination.

>This is mostly a theoretical thing though.

Political theory is a theory? Wow, thanks for the insight!

>progressives

Rad Progs are not egalitarians, they believe in hierarchy based on race, class, and ideological purity. Most of them don't even claim to want egalitarianism, they're open about wanting to put colored people and cunts into every position of power. Classical Progs DO believe in egalitarianism, we may disagree on how they want to achieve it (communism) but you can't deny the ultra-egalitarian ethos of the likes of the Hippies.

>Political theory is a theory? Wow, thanks for the insight!
No, what you describe as "egalitarian" is a theoretical thing because in practice egalitarians work the way I described.

>Rad Progs are not egalitarians, they believe in hierarchy based on race, class, and ideological purity.
Races, genders, etc. differ in intellectual ability and people are naturally inclined to favour their own, so a true egalitarian society is only possible with a racially homogeneous society.

>No, what you describe as "egalitarian" is a theoretical thing because in practice egalitarians work the way I described.

You've met ALL egalitarians? And yes, politic terms such as "egalitarian" are theoretical, you think humans are programed with ideological attitudes and are unable to overcome them? The most meritocratic man in the world might still hire his brother over a stranger, and the most egalitarian might leave his possessions to his kids and not to charity. Political labels are just approximations, if we see someone who is more likely to hire on merit rather than other factors, we call him a "meritocrat", but that doesn't mean he is locked into being 100% meritocratic in all or even most of the areas of his life, and it doesn't even mean that he DOES hire for merit, for all we know he is hiring at random, or is being bribed.

>Races, genders, etc. differ in intellectual ability and people are naturally inclined to favour their own, so a true egalitarian society is only possible with a racially homogeneous society.
An egalitarian society made up of racists can only be homogenous, yes. Most of us can perfectly well accept that the races and sexes are different without thinking this means we have to abandon egalitarianism, tho. People like you would have kept Thomas Sowell on the plantation picking cotton.

>You've met ALL egalitarians?
I don't need to because I'm talking about a tendency.

>you think humans are programed with ideological attitudes and are unable to overcome them?
Humans are unable to overcome their nature. Deluded "educators" like modern progressives who believe to be able to train racism or sexism out of people will ultimately realise that their attempts are fruitless.

>An egalitarian society made up of racists can only be homogenous, yes.
People are inherently racist, people are inherently sexist. If you want an egalitarian society you need to get of what makes us different or come up with structures which systemically counteract the inherent biases of people.

>People like you would have kept Thomas Sowell on the plantation picking cotton.
People like me? What kind of person am I?

>>>/reddit/

>Humans are unable to overcome their nature

Which to you means they must always act 100% in accordance with every value they espouse?

>If you want an egalitarian society you need to get of what makes us different

Strawman. Egalitarianism only requires LEGAL equality, not that everyone must become identical clones.

>People like me? What kind of person am I?

Well, you're a racist who rants about "egalitarianism" as tho it were a synonym for "social justice", so I'm going to guess you're some kind of white nationalist or neo nazi.

>Which to you means they must always act 100% in accordance with every value they espouse?
No, of course not, and I don't think it's values we're talking about but ingrained evolutionary developed behavioural patterns which interfere and bias the reasonable mind.

>Egalitarianism only requires LEGAL equality, not that everyone must become identical clones.
Legal equality means little when you have interest groups within your community that practise masonry behind everyone else's backs and put their own kind in positions of power.

>so I'm going to guess you're some kind of white nationalist or neo nazi.
I firmly believe that the white ethno-state is preferable to the liberal ideal of the multi-cultural society. However, even within such a state there would be inherent differences between people that would affect each other's perception. If you want someone to be assessed fairly you have to make him anonymous first.

But even if you got rid of all these hurdles and created a society that fairly assesses each individual, you would likely not end up with an even distribution of races, genders, etc.

Go find some "modern progressives" to argue with then. This is Veeky Forums

How do you account for more successful and intelligent black people than you?

>However, even within such a state there would be inherent differences between people that would affect each other's perception. If you want someone to be assessed fairly you have to make him anonymous first.

Here's the thing, retardo: perfect anonymity isn't possible, and doesn't solve the basic problem which you yourself pointed out, which is, people will always prefer their own kind. So if egalitarianism is nonsense because people aren't clones, then meritocracy is nonsense because people aren't sociopahs. Quit thinking of these as either / or options, they are simply abstractions of patterns of behavior.

Of course.

With a tax on the wealthy and a basic income, the productive remain wealthy, while all have the capital to become productive. Egalitarian and meritocratic.

Except your example is neither of those things. How is taxing only the productive meritocratic OR egalitarian? And universal income is not egalitarian, you can have a very unequal and unjust society that pays off the poor with bread and circuses, the welfare is both a salve for in-egalitarianism and a terrible trap of dependency on the state, both counter to real egalitarian principles of equality under the law ans equality of opportunity.

>How do you account for more successful and intelligent black people than you?
An outlier does not disprove a general tendency.

>perfect anonymity isn't possible, and doesn't solve the basic problem which you yourself pointed out, which is, people will always prefer their own kind.
Why is perfect anonymity not possible? It depends on the underlying system. This is besides the point though.

>if egalitarianism is nonsense because people aren't clones
You're free to attribute people equal worth, equal dignity, etc. it won't however affect that people are not equal in ability, which in turn grants people social status making them not equal again in the end.

The problem with egalitarianism is that people are not equal in ability. The problem of meritocracy is that people are not free of biases.

In essence, both the political left and the political right have it partially right.

These things aren't in opposition if you define egalitarianism as equality of opportunity.

If you think about it, equality of opportunity itself can justify a lot of state intervention into society, like taxation and spending on public school and so on.

>An outlier does not disprove a general tendency.
I'm sure it still bothers you though, doesn't it?

The egalitarian part is where everyone is treated the same by the state, one basic income per person, and we do not tax poor people whatsoever.

The meritocratic part is that the wealthy now have to earn their money, they cannot rely on rents because all rents go to the citizens.

>people are not equal in ability

Wait, so liberals are full of shit when they say everyone should be of equal height? Is that what egalitarianism means to these idiots?

the attempt to force rigid distinctions won't work.
if you want a meritocracy, you need an egalitarian starting point followed by limited interference outside that.
i.e. let's consider we're in a contest to invest to reach $1m first. You start with $1000, I start with $100,000. If I hit $1,000,000 when you're hovering around $750,000 am I really the one with greater merit?
But to equalize our incomes before the competition would, by definition, be an egalitarian measure. It would force us to an equal starting point to deduce our merits in developing beyond that point.

>An outlier
Do you consider yourself upper middle class? Cuz a couple of million blacks are.

They aren't all niggers.

/pol/ aside, even a purely meritocratic society, in its right mind, will want to do anything and everything within its means to maximize the potential of its population - and much like an egalitarian society, that means finding the diamonds in the rough by boosting the odds of the lowest of the low showing unexpected potential insomuch as possible.

...Or, alternatively, national deathmatch.

>it won't however affect that people are not equal in ability, which in turn grants people social status making them not equal again in the end.

Which is why egalitarians don't generally advocate for equality of OUTCOME. It is because everyone is different that we need equality of opportunity, so that a person's outcomes in life are commensurate to his talents and opportunities. When a society is unegalitarian, one's talents don't matter nearly so much as one's bloodline.

>The problem with egalitarianism is that people are not equal in ability. The problem of meritocracy is that people are not free of biases.

Now you're getting there. The next step is to see that these are not conrete concepts at all but simply abstractions from patterns of preference. No-one is "a meritocrat" or "an egalitarian", there are generally some limits to what they will tolerate and they might very well be both or neither at the same time. we can judge which of two options is "the meritocratic one" or "the eglatiarian one", but that doesn;t mean we're committed to total and absolute meritocracy / egalitarianism in every aspect of our lives, just as you can enjoy a delicious cheeseburger or salad without committing to eating NOTHING but cheeseburgers OR salads from then on.

>In essence, both the political left and the political right have it partially right.

>The egalitarian part is where everyone is treated the same by the state

You mean except for the people who are being taxed? Oh, they get the "free" income everyone else gets? The income THEY paid for? Okay, I guess that's fair then.

>they cannot rely on rents because all rents go to the citizens

If Georgism is what you meant, that's not even close to what you said. Taxing the wealthy doesn't end landlordism, why would it? So they get slightly less income, well guess what, looks like rent is going up across the board, good thing the govt is giving everyone all those neetbux!

>You mean except for the people who are being taxed? Oh, they get the "free" income everyone else gets? The income THEY paid for? Okay, I guess that's fair then.

No, they get the same precise deal as everyone else. They get the basic income and they pay the same taxes. The exemption is for poor people, who would not pay taxes.

>If Georgism is what you meant, that's not even close to what you said. Taxing the wealthy doesn't end landlordism, why would it? So they get slightly less income, well guess what, looks like rent is going up across the board, good thing the govt is giving everyone all those neetbux!

Georgism is slightly old-fashioned. I'm not interested in reducing the income of landlords, I'm interested in a population that can be as productive as possible. The most productive people, the very wealthy, have regular injections of free money until they become productive.

>taxing the wealthy

Taxing the things that create wealth. The wealthy own these things. They pay the same taxes as anyone else does.

I pay the same private plane tax as anyone else, I just don't have a private plane so I don't pay it. Am I in some way taking advantage of the wealthy? By your logic I am.

Not nearly as much as my views bother you apparently.

>It is because everyone is different that we need equality of opportunity, so that a person's outcomes in life are commensurate to his talents and opportunities.
It is important to realise that opportunity alone is worth little without the ability to make something out of it. Opportunity alone won't solve society's problems. Half of the population is below average in intelligence, so no amount of effort will turn these people into engineers and doctors. The smart and talented ones will always end up on top somehow, safe for a few unlucky, important is to not let the not-so-smart and not-so-talented ones not live in misery.

>The next step is to see that these are not conrete concepts at all but simply abstractions from patterns of preference. No-one is "a meritocrat" or "an egalitarian"
We are talking about the ideals and their implementations, not about individuals that may hold certain views.

Meritocracy is possible without egalitarianism.

t. Confucius.

It's like a kid just scanned a Wikipedia article and started posting.

It's a teenager, you can tell by the black-and-white thinking.

smells of reddit

>the actual definition of something is irrelevant because it doesn't support my opinion