This argument for meritocracy is what a real communist will tell you about communism now. It works basically for anything that we don't have good working examples for right this second. Given that there are no good working examples and/or haven't been any so far, how would we fix the problems that we have seen and can foresee?
Given those concerns, I think it is not reasonable to just say "we need to try again and try harder" because it does a disservice to those times it was tried in the past. Maybe there is a fundamental problem there that still has to be solved?
For a meritocracy, this isn't super complicated. Who decides what has merit? How will you measure this? Are the things that you measure the right things? Given that there is a possibility for side-channel information (for example, certain groups of people having terms they "look for" and that you only know about being part of this group), how will we solve this?
You'd also be doing injustice to his saying. A (liberal) democracy gives every one the same opportunity. This isn't the case with so called meritocracy.
Well isn't giving everyone the same opportunity the definintion of a meritocracy? Of course no society is a meritocracy, but it is hard to think of a better system.
No; Meritocracy is judging by the results. If we're both in a dancing competition, but you have dance shoes and I wear a workman's steel toed both, giving you the win is meritocratic, even though the opportunity isn't equal.
If you judging system by it's ideal implementation, then you should argue for Communism (we all know how that turns out, and to what a douchy sausage fest so called "meritocracies" ends as)
Say you need brain surgery. Are you telling me you will choose based on some criteria other than results?
I will pick a 9 headed purple alien if it will do the best job. And I won't care that it had the advantage of 7 parents who were rich doctors and harvard alumni. The place to fix inequality is upstream.
The cure for those advantages is to level the playing field.
> If you judging system by it's ideal implementation, then you should argue for Communism
Straw man. Like visiting a junkyard and concluding all cars don't move. That line of reasoning lets you conclude anything with a failed example can never work.
Given those concerns, I think it is not reasonable to just say "we need to try again and try harder" because it does a disservice to those times it was tried in the past. Maybe there is a fundamental problem there that still has to be solved?
For a meritocracy, this isn't super complicated. Who decides what has merit? How will you measure this? Are the things that you measure the right things? Given that there is a possibility for side-channel information (for example, certain groups of people having terms they "look for" and that you only know about being part of this group), how will we solve this?