Waiting4oblivion Parliament Options

[Wolfie]

The Rues as stated in the last thread:

Right, a few rules before we start this time. No flaming. No intolerance of anybody else's viewpoint. No deciding you don't like the topic, and trying to tell people what they can discuss. This goes for everybody from now on.

Other than that, enjoy your discussion

[Channler]

I'm sorry about that...my thoughts were a bit fragmented when I typed that.. hehe, guess I shouldn't try and talk on the phone and type at the same time.

I guess I speak of a Meritocracy (i think I spelled that right).

Where ones deeds, or merit, picks their place in life.

Now, I ment that to go with the whole equality thing. If someone should choose not to, contribute to society (in a positive way), then should they be as glorified, and as "equal" as those that give selflessly?

I just don't think someone that doesn't work, should be entitled to do what those who do labor should be entitled to.

[Marxist ßastard]

  Channler

I guess I speak of a Meritocracy...  Where ones deeds, or merit, picks their place in life.

The problem with a meritocracy is that eventually someone like Mahatma Ghandi shows up, and makes contributions greatly outweighing the income necessary to sustain them -- and arguably, the lack of insight caused by an elevated position would make such an individual less useful. Now, I'm not belittling the achievements of Ghandi in any way, but under a meritocracy he'd be a gigantic economic black hole, and thus the perfect poster-boy for the advantages of a distribution model concerned with need and contribution (that is, from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs) as opposed to contribution alone (as in your meritocracy concept).

But look at me, I'm babbling on like a schoolgirl on taking advantage of variances in the ratio of need to ability to increase surplus. I guess that makes me some sort of hard-right Communist.

That aside, however, the mutual problem of both our systems would be the determination of merit. What's to stop our panel of meritologists to decide that their position is of such immense value, or in the Marxist case, that their need is so great and their duties so intregal, that they need to have an income that surpasses that of the greatest scientist or philosopher? And what would stop people wise to what's going on to offer these people goods and services in exchange for ruling that their positions are likewise important? We would have the same old capitalist system, except now we have the government successfully convincing people that the distribution system is fair -- and if the Comrade Stalins and Chairman Maos of the world have taught us one single lesson, it's that such a thing can only produce problems.