Is a meritocracy lawful, or chaotic?

Well here's an idea just to throw a monkey wrench into your engine.

What do you do if it's a new society, and there are no traditions or codes. You literally have a group of people agreeing to start up a society and deciding it will be a meritocracy?

No governmental system is the flawless idea it is on paper, because they all fail to take into account the human element.

Lawful when the merits of your ancestors are what matters, chaotic if it allows for social climbers to rise by means of being good.

it can go either ways, depending on how you spin it

Alignment is a terrible system of morality that doesn't make any sense.

Rolled 2, 1 = 3 (2d6)

i dunno

John Rawls, is that you?

That is still a rule being followed.The more unpredictable and random the rise to power the more chaotic it is

>implying democracy and republicanism are mutually exclusive

They lay the groundwork for traditions not being a thing, so it'd be a society with chaotic bent.

Power taken and held entirely through brute force isn't a rule, it's a paradigm. A chaotic one.

You gonna tell me all those shitholes in Africa where warlords run everything are Lawful?

Question answered. Let's get out of this thread before the trolls and edgemasters overrun it.

t. Doesn't live in a Republic

>tfw I'm absolutely convinced that democracy just doesn't work because giving a mass of idiots the political power to change who's in charge is a terrible idea
>but the alternatives are worse because they take away control from the population, effectively outing them from any political influence that will without a doubt affect them

The human element ruins every form of government
Are we really just not made to work as big societies? Is happiness on a civilization scale just utopic?

I live in America, which is both

Nepotims is better anyway

Even ancient Greeks understood that democracy is absolute shit

Wasn't Meritocracy used as a joke when it was coined?

A term the elite use to make themselves believe that they deserve to be on the top of the heap because they have more merit.

A lot like democracy was a derogatory term, now that I think about it.

Lawfully chaotic

>never in reality
Some places come closer than others. Like parts of the tech industry did.

Sports are the ultimate meritocracy but then again it's hardly analogous with an entire human society.

You can justify literally anything under any alignment.

What a neutral good thing to say.

What about something like the Catholic Church? Ideally, the Pope is the Pope because he's the best person the Cardinals could find, and I would hardly call it "chaotic."

The problem is that no one takes the dunbar number into account when creating a structure for their civilization. We ask too much and expect too much from man. We stretch ourselves thin and then wonder why we break.
Neo-tribalism is the only way forward.

Chaotic. Laws instill a system whereby the meritorious could and should rise through the ranks, but demonstrably don't most of the time.

meritocracy is a meaningless label.
not to get into pretentious nihilism or something, but there must be something to determine what merit is.

>Are we really just not made to work as big societies? Is happiness on a civilization scale just utopic?
The problem is that we're beasts blessed with reason, but beasts nonetheless. And though blessed with reason, many use reason as an instrument to fulfill their own desires rather than as a measure to reach the greatest good. That's the great tragedy of the human condition: we have advanced too far to happily live as beasts, yet we are too beastly to live as reasonable beings.

I don't live in America and I can tell you that you're objectively wrong. Read the Federalist Papers, where your own Founding Fathers not only explain why America isn't a democracy, but why it's important that the American Republic limits democracy.

Yeah, that's also a big problem with meritocracy. Even if you manage to hit something like "wisdom" like Plato did, you can have special academies to educate the best and brightest to be rulers but these academies will eventually devolve into cliques and interest groups. Look at the Grandes Écoles of France, look at Oxbridge in the UK, look at the Ivy League in America. Regardless of merit, if you're not in one of those cool kid groups, you can almost forget about high level politics.

its neutral like the majority of governments. even if thats the super boring answer its still true

I don't think you actually know what democracy and republic mean

teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/federalist-no-10/
I'm pretty sure the architect of your republic is in a position to know the difference between a democracy and a republic.

See, your problem is that you define democracy as meaning only direct democracy, and republic as meaning representative democracy

By that definition, there are literally zero democratic countries

>Neo-tribalism is the only way forward.

Is this a thing? Are there any worthwhile papers on this?

A social system designed from the ground up actually taking human limits into account instead of evolving naturally sounds like a very interesting read.

If neo tribalism is anything like current tribalism, no thanks, we can do better than a system that shits on other people for not being in same tribe as you.

inb4 someone demonstrates my point by telling me to take my spacing to reddit.

No, we can't. We are biologically incapable of doing so, and all attempts to do so have resulted in systems that simply shit on everybody--and all have been motivated by profit, not a desire for harmony.

Small communities can achieve harmony. Large communities simply cannot. The human animal is social and has limitations.

Neither. It's either Good or Evil, depending on how one defines "merit."

>harmony
what are you, a ponyfag?

>we can do better than a system that shits on other people for not being in same tribe as you
As much as this is fifthgrader philosophy - have we ever been able to achieve this without an outside tribe to unite against? I used to live in the countryside and it was tribalistic hating of everyone else all the way down. Family members hated each other, but they usually stood united against the greater family. Family clans in a village hated each other, but the whole village is united in its dislike of the next village over. All the villages think badly of the other ones, but FUCK those guys in the other districts. The districts are all envious of each other, but damn those degenerates twenty kilometers over there in the other county. And on, and on, and on...
Honestly, unless we achieve some utopian state where everyone gets a humanistic, philosophic and scientific education straight out of the Enlightenment's and Kant's wet dream, I don't see us ever overcoming tribalism.

The answer is to foster healthy, yet not violently antagonistic competition between tribes.
The ultimate goal would be small towns of 150 people max with appropriate space allotted to them and some system of "citizen swapping" to maintain genetic diversity. These communities would compete as constructive, friendly rivalries. Finding different ways to one up each other each through meeting production milestones or creating works of some kind.
There is a reason population density correlates nearly perfectly with depression rates in most western countries.

To add on that. Nothing resembling a strict federal, overarching government.
The closest thing to that would be something like a cooperative festival held between the tribes every 5 years or so where fun is had and matters are discussed between tribal representatives. Bureacracy is the enemy of the human spirit, strike it down wherever you find it.

So how do you maintain all the shit our civilization has come to depend upon with no overarching system in place? Or does your plan also include restructuring our everything to somehow make shit like the internet maintainable by packs of discrete small groups?

>somehow make shit like the internet maintainable by packs of discrete small groups?
What? The internet already works this way.

Corporations already act this way. Group dynamics is the overarching force of management. Whoever told you that a federated system is necessary was trying to brainwash you.

Ok, so you're just replacing federal government with corporate government.

Good luck with that.

That's not what I'm saying at all dumbass. Did you just skim past the sentence and the word corporation scared you?

Chaotic at first as the new meritocratic order asserts itself, Lawful after, once all the all the competent people have filled the halls of power

>What? The internet already works this way.
So you're telling me your dinkyass towns are gonna be able to keep all our oceanic cables in good condition without some overarching system to coordinate all the shit that entails?

Put some more thought into your idea for the next time you pitch it.

Meritocracy is Good.
Nepotism is EVil.
Op is a Faggot.

Fuck off before I report you to the local PMC for an NAP violation

Now you're moving into the realm of "a completely chaotic universe is by definition uniformly chaotic and therefore orderly."

America is an Oligarchy, though.

Not that guy, but you have come to the correct conclusion. There are no democratic countries.

Representative democracy is a marketable term for what is usually an oligarchy

Hahahahha
haahahahhaha
haaaaaaaaahaa
aaaaaaaaaahaha
If civilization goes, so do sea cables within 2-3 decades, or even faster if accidents happen.
Satellites have a fixed burnout of what... 30-40 years? Because they are not high enough in orbit, and it turns out sunlight is harsh as fuck, as is solar winds.

Thats also ignoring how limited the land routes for cables are, and how many of them are not buried deep enough to survive greater disasters.
Or have switches that is powered by local electricity, meaning they are at the mercy of the local civilizations power plant.
The Internet is NOT fragile, but you run into a issue if you have to do a re route and gain another 200 ping and packet loss, and it keeps going up.

Every power is lawful by definition. Except ochlocracy and anarchy (chaotic), plutocracy and military dictatorship (neutral/chaotic) and representative tribal democracy (neutral).

Honestly, I'd say purely neutral. It cares about nothing other than your ability. Not your morals, not how well you follow the rules, just show well you do your job.

that is how americans are taught, and I suppose it's a way to lead the people to accept undemocratic practices.
you can't make up a definition and then make conclusions based on your fictional definition.

democracy is a system where power belongs to the people, it's in the name, and so is republic.
the mechanism by which the people exerise their power, directly or through a representative doesn't change that fact.

Also the idea of direct democracies without represenatives is a staple of anarchic thought.

>The ultimate goal would be small towns of 150 people max with appropriate space allotted to them and some system of "citizen swapping" to maintain genetic diversity. These communities would compete as constructive, friendly rivalries
who guarantees that?

a central authority who has a monopoly on violence is a necessity for peaceful coexistence.

>There is a reason population density correlates nearly perfectly with depression rates in most western countries.
the reason is social isolation due to people leaving their families and the place where they grew up and being uable to form meaningful relationship in their new place of residence.

>>tfw I'm absolutely convinced that democracy just doesn't work because giving a mass of idiots the political power to change who's in charge is a terrible idea
It doesn't work so bad in Switzerland. I don't know any country that is as democratic. People can vote to change the constitution, change the laws, fire anyone in a position of political power. And the country isn't so bad.

They seem to have more political understanding and have better critical thinking than country around it. For some psychologist it's because they have more responsibility so they work at it harder. Doing politics make you better at understanding politics, in short.
Meanwhile the average citizen in "democratic" country sit on front on the TV and vote once for his president and that's it.

>Is this a thing? Are there any worthwhile papers on this?
what do you think?
It's just a moron with no knowledge on sociology, anthropology, history and law philosophy who is talking out of his ass.

when someone tells you that the result of the collective knowledge and study of brilliand and cultured minds over the last 3 centuries is wrong and they have a brilliant yet simple solution that they hae reached by reading a couple of books and some posts on the internet, you can easily dismiss them as delusional morons.

Switzerland doesn't count because people there are filthy rich.

no you got it right. It is basically that simple. People NEED opposition to stay united. people need a shared goal or ideal something that connects them to others despite other differences. And no that fucking "human race' bull shit dosent work, not until some xenos come down shit.

My take of the ideal future of larger societies is confederacy. Bunch of largely autonomous communities united together against the rest of the world or what have you. Each set their own law, each have their own traditions, but all similar enough to get along. See talking rat pic related only less pretentious.

Saying that a country ruled by an oligarchy "supported" by the people is a country ruled by the people is foolish.
It's good, because it allows everyone to think they have power and they matter when they certainly doesn't.

In the end, the people don't have power, the elected official do. And in country like Switzerland, it's the other way around. There is actual power in the hands of the citizen. That's a democracy.

>There is a true democracy but it doesn't count! >We swear nobody can replicate this governemental system, so we surely shouldn't try!
Yeah, of fucking course, it doesn't count because reasons, and we surely shouldn't do it becasue reasons.
Fucking convenient.

>a central authority who has a monopoly on violence is a necessity for peaceful coexistence
Close, but I feel it dosent have to be a monopoly. What if police and national guard were merged and each province had its own branch of the guard to manage.

Democracy breaks down when internationalism comes into play. Democracy is not so different than more autocratic forms of government in the sense it has only a few points of interest needed to control. In a kingdom this could be nobility and the church, but in democracy its voting bloc. democracy cannot appeal to everyone for votes so people are grouped into blocs, the fishermen, the factory workers, the women, the veterans, ect. This leads to people appealing only to the blocs they feel they need to win an election or pass something through with votes. Democracy divides the people from each other more than autocratic government forms. It leads to increased tribalism.
Yeah pic related is fucking long just skim if you must.

...people have been able to work for basically forever. Feminism wasn't about women working, it was about the work they could do/the idea of married women working.

The focus on the family rather than the individual also means that people who are not married (Especially women) don't really get accurately represented. I mean, a Nun is never going to get married and have her husband's vote.

>democracy is a system where power belongs to the people

And America has that. The Representatives we send to Congress must win the people's vote, and if they fail in the eyes of their people, they are replaced.

The Presidency is chosen by the Electoral College, but the President is merely an executive officer; his job is to enforce laws (and interpret how they should be enforced), but he can't create them. That power rests in the hand of the Congress.

>the elected official do

Yes, but those officials are elected based on the idea that they will represent the will of their electorate, and if they fail to do so, they are replaced at the next election cycle with someone who will. And the official has no choice in that matter - if the people vote him out, then he's out.

This is the reason why even though Congress as a whole has a very low approval rating, individual Congressmen tend to be very highly rated in their districts - because they go out of their way to ensure that they are doing what the people of their district want them to do, to ensure re-election.

>This leads to people appealing only to the blocs they feel they need to win an election

The thing here is that the total number of people in those blocs must add up to 51%. It's not good enough to appeal to the tinkers, tailors, and candlestick-makers if they together only make up 15% of the electorate.

>This leads to people appealing only to the blocs they feel they need to win an election or pass something through with votes.

As opposed to appealing to no one?