Why is meritocratic more "fair" than equitable? Perhaps more precisely, why do you deem meritocratic to = fair? Someone could just as easily (and supportably) deem equitable to = fair.
Hearts!
Would you rather go to a doctor who's good at surgeries or one that's bad at surgeries? One that got into medical school because of affirmative action, or one that was discriminated against and still got in (e.g. Asian doctors in the US)? Would you rather go to a car mechanic that's amazing at juggling but bad at fixing cars, or one that's bad at juggling and good at fixing cars? See, the "definition of merit" just takes care of itself (driven by the self-interest of customers).
So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you?
Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit.
No, stealing is immoral.
> Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit.
The system itself doesn’t give anyone anything, the market is free to determine that. A doctor who helps more patients (your arbitrary definition) will face higher demand than one who doesn’t help many patients, since people are free to place the value they see fit on their personal health.
a) So is stockpiling resources that other people need. b) Who's going to stop me?
> the market is free to determine that
So we don't drag this out any further, I'm going to explain the place I'm trying to get to, as best I can: markets aren't physical laws of the universe, they're human constructs that are defined, regulated and policed by governments (I'm using a very wide definition of government here, think "governance").
If you think the market is the fairest way to allocate resources, you have to accept that people who "cheat" the market (inside traders, muggers, etc) are subject to state-sanctioned violence. That's the violence that a "free" market, and your vision of meritocracy, requires.
Owning property is not immoral. Stealing and coveting your neighbor's property are sin and very immoral.
>Who's going to stop me?
Any authority we've democratically elected to uphold that task. Probably the police, in many cases. Or me with a weapon of course, seeing as you're bigger than me in this hypothetical. In reality, you are not bigger than me.
>That's the violence that a "free" market, and your vision of meritocracy, requires.
Yes, societies require laws that are ultimately enforced through the use of physical violence and restriction of freedom if it comes to that. Mostly to stop people from doing immoral things at the cost of other people.
Insider trading is a tough nut to crack, since it could be seen as just another tool to reach a more efficient market. Envy comes very naturally to humans, and if someone makes more profits than you in the marketplace, it's very easy to call it unfair and get mad about it. Then you're looking at the definition of "fairness" - in my opinion it's fair that anyone can pursue the kind of information that will help them make better sales in the market. Deceiving or lying to other people are different topics entirely, but the term "insider trading" doesn't entail those things.
>markets aren't physical laws of the universe, they're human constructs that are defined, regulated and policed by governments
I don't really understand your point here. Yes, our society runs on top of some underlying systems that we've agreed upon. Freely trading your labor and property go all the way back to the beginning of our evolution, and for good enough reason - it's the best system we've ever come up with and used.
People use the term Communism (both upper-case and lower-case) in various ways nowadays, but Marx’s original ideal form of society was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" The ultimate goal is to create an affluent productive society that can provide all amenities for all people, so they can unleash their potentials as individuals without being enslaved by capitalists as wage workers just to survive. And socialism is only an intermediate step before realizing this ideal state, socialism wasn’t intended to be ideal even for the leftists (In this sense communism has never been tried anywhere yet).
From my knowledge of European history, this is not true.
Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production.
The difficulty is, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, to steal a phrase.
The worker's union movement working inside a capitalist system has brought more benefits for workers, than communism, which proved to kill millions wherever it is attempted.
You will need to elaborate on that.
> Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production.
Which should be temporary, right? Do you have an example where it was actually temporary? That would answer my point above.
My particular familiarity is with the German Democratic Republic. There were many true believers in communism, who in their attempt to construct a communist utopia created and contributed towards a police state.
Jordan Peterson said it shows arrogance to suggest that people just weren't doing communism right, and that if only they got the theory right, then they would usher in the utopia.
I would tend to agree.
> Which should be temporary, right? Do you have an example where it was actually temporary? That would answer my point above.
Your point was to assert that communism has never been tried.
Mine was that it has been tried, and is always unsuccessful. So the failure of temporary dictatorships is proving my point, not yours.
Don't you think that you risk missing interesting ideas if you reduce communism to temporary dictatorships?
No, I'm saying it has inherent problems that means it doesn't work, and "doesn't work" is putting it lightly, given the number of people who have suffered and died under the ideology.
> Don't you think that you risk missing interesting ideas if you reduce communism to temporary dictatorships?
No, I've already mentioned that workers unionising under a capitalist system has brought more benefits to workers than communism.
Communism has been tried. Again and again. The utopian endpoint it tires to get to is not possible. The consistent result is mass death and poverty.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...
Violence is not bad. Violence to oppress is bad. Violence to seek justice is good.
That's why the 2nd amendment exists.
> Something that is non-consensual and requires violence
War is ultimately dispute resolution between two parties, at least one of which, has decided "might makes right."
Ukrainian violence is justified and good, while Russian violence is abominable and evil.
So it's important to think past words like violence or war or 'take' and instead frame conversation around justice.
If a billionaire bribes a supreme court justice to rule that they can pollute drinking water with a chemical that causes cancer, is that violence? A billionaire should not have enough money to corrupt the fabric of society. Extreme wealth inequality is injustice, especially if they use their power to say "we'll crash the economy if you don't bail us out."
Taxing the rich and funding social programs while otherwise retaining property rights isn't communism.