Such systems are called "meritocracies," and they are accomplished by relaxing the rules. On the other hand, when equality is awarded to everyone, people become less treacherous and more civilized to one another, but they lose incentive to achieve, since there is no reward for going the extra mile.
Such systems are called "egalitarian societies," and they are accomplished by expanding the rules.
Most societies try to strike a balance between these two extremes.
Liberals believe that a completely unrestricted meritocracy is like a knife fight -- the absence of rules allows the strong to eliminate or subjugate the weak.
In economic terms, power and wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands.
We know this dynamic by the many proverbs that describe it: "It takes money to make money," "Nothing succeeds like success," and "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Liberals therefore advocate a moderated meritocracy: those with the most merit continue to earn the most money or power, but a percentage of it is redistributed back to the middle and lower classes.
This is accomplished by progressive taxes, anti-poverty spending, and other forms of regulation.
Liberals do not see this as a "giveaway" to the poor -- on the contrary, they view the runaway profits of the rich (especially in the later stages of wealth accumulation) as undeserved, so redistributing them back to the workers who produced them is necessary to prevent exploitation.
A moderated meritocracy retains the best of both worlds: incentive to achieve, and a healthy talent pool from which merit is drawn.
Numerous studies confirm that these are the healthiest economies. In one of the more famous studies, economists Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini conducted a thorough statistical analysis of historical inequality and growth among modern democracies, and found that those with more equal incomes generally experience faster productive growth.
Still, liberals do not advocate going too far in the other direction, towards strict egalitarianism, after the problems experienced with it by the Soviet Union.
Rightardia would also point out that merit is not always easy to rate. Many people who are insiders or relatives may have an unfair advantage is some organizations.
People with adaptive personalties often succeed in corporations because of their ingratiating behaviour rather than because of thier performance.
A good example would be in teaching.
The teachers know who the best teachers are, but the administrators often get the teacher evaluations wrong.
Students like the easy teachers who provide As and Bs and often resent the better teachers who demand more of students.
source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/ShortFAQ.htm
© Copyright by Steve Kangas. Text from this FAQ can be quoted freely for non-commercial use only, with proper attribution.
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA
Netcraft rank: 6596 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment