Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Cabbage]

No coyness. I agreed with you. We had a war in this country because Americans felt so strongly on the issue. It was our bloodiest war, and one of the most important ones. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future. "The best way to predict your future is to create it" ~ Abraham Lincoln

There is much to be learned from the past.

Do you feel there is something that should be done today, to address those perceived inequalities? What would those things be and how would you go about implementing them? Lets talk about solutions.

I never intended this to be a discussion about race, which you brought up, and I don't think I can add anything to how other posters responded to your question.

I get the impression you never understood the point of the quote I originally posted, which I'll repeat here:

James Flynn’s book How To Defend Humane Ideals contains the most succinct explanation I’ve seen for why the idea of a “meritocracy” is incoherent and impossible. Flynn’s argument is: “(1) Allocating rewards irrespective of merit is a prerequisite for meritocracy, otherwise environments cannot be equalized (2) allocating rewards according to merit is a prerequisite for meritocracy, otherwise people cannot be stratified by wealth and status (3) therefore a class-stratified meritocracy is impossible.” In other words: in a meritocracy, status, wealth, and privilege are given to those who have “earned” their position through merit, meaning that everyone had an “equal opportunity” even if they did not reach an equal outcome. But if status, wealth, and privilege are unequally distributed, people can never have equal opportunities, meaning that rewards will never be assigned on the basis of merit. There can be no such thing as a “meritocracy” in which there are inequalities in power, wealth, and status across classes, because people’s environments will be unequal, therefore they will not start with equal resources and the resulting unequal outcomes will not reflect differences in individual merit. This argument is so simple and obvious that it feels pedantic to explain it. But there is still widespread acceptance of the idea that “wealth/status inequality is okay as long as there is equal opportunity,” even though it is conceptually incoherent in a very basic way.

The fact that some (but not others) are born into poverty, regardless of race, prohibits the very idea of true meritocracy. An individual such as Trump, for example, born into wealth, does not receive his celebrity status (and questionable wealth) based on merit but on inheritance. A person born into poverty has a much larger hurdle to overcome to make a living than a person born into just regular means. Merit alone is never the single issue.

True meritocracy is a myth, an impossibility.

Do you disagree with the quote?

 

[Polaris]

What are your views on the current system and how would you change it?




Gerrymandering is a problem for both parties. I think there should be stricter regulations on where the districts are located, and requirements about living in them in order to represent it. Public school does not send away people for race or ethnicity reasons, neither do voting facilities.

How does voter ID laws impact black voters any differently than other ethnic groups?

I'm not sure how these suggestions might make things different. However, I do appreciate you sharing your views on a topic a lot of people won't touch.

Gerrymandering is a problem for both parties the way domestic violence is a problem for both sexes.

 

[thaiboxerken]

True meritocracy is a myth, an impossibility.

Do you disagree with the quote?

It is a Republican lie. They tell the poor that anyone can become wealthy like they did, that they worked hard to get where they are. The reality is that, overwhelmingly,the poor stay poor, and the wealthy stay wealthy. It's how they justify their hatred of the poor.

 

[River]

I never intended this to be a discussion about race, which you brought up, and I don't think I can add anything to how other posters responded to your question.

I get the impression you never understood the point of the quote I originally posted, which I'll repeat here:



The fact that some (but not others) are born into poverty, regardless of race, prohibits the very idea of true meritocracy. An individual such as Trump, for example, born into wealth, does not receive his celebrity status (and questionable wealth) based on merit but on inheritance. A person born into poverty has a much larger hurdle to overcome to make a living than a person born into just regular means. Merit alone is never the single issue.

True meritocracy is a myth, an impossibility.

Do you disagree with the quote?

We definitely disagree on the concept of merit based society. To be specific, a colorblind, sex blind meritocracy. One based on solely on ones performance. (and providing for those that are disabled) All those able to, should support themselves.

For instance: we could revise our welfare systems so that people work for that income doing simple tasks that would not be more than 20 hours a week leaving time for them to job hunt.

Also, we could remove sex and race from job applications so that the application/experience gets the job.

No one is denied opportunity based on anything but someone could do the job better. These are ideals, and in a practical world there are always going to be some people more successful than others, or some more talented than others, some in a better starting position due to economic and or social advantages.

I personally could care less what someones ethnicity is when I hire someone. Why should it be a factor? I think it should be removed from applications. I just want an employee that does the job the best that I can find for that task. Period. Everything else is fluff.

We must also always keep in mind, that equality of opportunity will never mean equality of outcome. (many variables at play) Race or ethnicity is not a factor in that equation. Economic and social advantages are prevalent in all ethnic groups. Not just one, or some.

In other words, skin color or ethnicity, or sex is not the deciding factor for someones success or drive, or ability to overcome poverty.

We have both agreed some ethnic minority groups do have a larger percentage of people in poverty, (than the majority) while some ethnic groups represent the highest average income over the majority. Does ethnicity alone factor into this? I have to say no. But the two things that always do, are economic and social advantages.

 

[River]

It is a Republican lie. They tell the poor that anyone can become wealthy like they did, that they worked hard to get where they are. The reality is that, overwhelmingly,the poor stay poor, and the wealthy stay wealthy. It's how they justify their hatred of the poor.

I lived in a neighborhood that most would want to avoid as a child. I'm no longer poor. I got out, others can too. You work for it. If you have the drive to do so, you will succeed. #tenacity You will also overcome all of those obstacles that stand in your way. My story is not unique in any way. You get ahead in life by working hard, and working smart. (especially if you start with nothing)

 

[Cabbage]

We definitely disagree on the concept of merit based society.

I don't think we do. The disagreement lies in our different opinions on whether such a society is even possible.

 

[Lambchops]

We definitely disagree on the concept of merit based society. To be specific, a colorblind, sex blind meritocracy. One based on solely on ones performance. (and providing for those that are disabled) All those able to, should support themselves.

For instance: we could revise our welfare systems so that people work for that income doing simple tasks that would not be more than 20 hours a week leaving time for them to job hunt.

Also, we could remove sex and race from job applications so that the application/experience gets the job.

No one is denied opportunity based on anything but someone could do the job better. These are ideals, and in a practical world there are always going to be some people more successful than others, or some more talented than others, some in a better starting position due to economic and or social advantages.

I personally could care less what someones ethnicity is when I hire someone. Why should it be a factor? I think it should be removed from applications. I just want an employee that does the job the best that I can find for that task. Period. Everything else is fluff.

We must also always keep in mind, that equality of opportunity will never mean equality of outcome. (many variables at play) Race or ethnicity is not a factor in that equation. Economic and social advantages are prevalent in all ethnic groups. Not just one, or some.

In other words, skin color or ethnicity, or sex is not the deciding factor for someones success or drive, or ability to overcome poverty.

We have both agreed some ethnic minority groups do have a larger percentage of people in poverty, (than the majority) while some ethnic groups represent the highest average income over the majority. Does ethnicity alone factor into this? I have to say no. But the two things that always do, are economic and social advantages.

That's an impressive amount of word-salad to not answer a simple yes or no question.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I lived in a neighborhood that most would want to avoid as a child. I'm no longer poor. I got out, others can too. You work for it. If you have the drive to do so, you will succeed. #tenacity You will also overcome all of those obstacles that stand in your way. My story is not unique in any way. You get ahead in life by working hard, and working smart. (especially if you start with nothing)

so are you or are you not for a 100% inheritance tax to assure that merit, not parental wealth, is the determinant for success?

 

[thaiboxerken]

so are you or are you not for a 100% inheritance tax to assure that merit, not parental wealth, is the determinant for success?

Ha ha. Conservatives really don't want that, they just pay lip service to the idea of meritocracy. They love aristocracy, and they strive to be a part of it if they aren't already in it.

 

[Eddie Dane]

A 100% inheritance tax is a really bad idea IMHO.

One of the people's strongest drives is to provide for their children.

If I couldn't leave money to my kids, I'd basically revert to living as I did in my late teens; watching movies, smoking weed and practising martial arts for fun.

Really rich people would just move their assets to a trust in the Cayman Islands. it is probably where their companies are headquartered anyway.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I agree that a 100% inheritance tax would be a bad idea - if for no other reason than the fact that it totally goes against human nature: parents would bend and break any laws if it gave them the chance to give their kids an edge.

But it is rings pretty hollow to demand a meritocratic system but totally ignore the fact that some people are born on 3rd base whereas others don't ever get to leave the bench.

 

[River]

so are you or are you not for a 100% inheritance tax to assure that merit, not parental wealth, is the determinant for success?

I would never, and I mean never support that.

No, I don't believe in giving away what you've earned in taxes after you pass. Give it to your family. If you don't build up a lot of assets, so be it. If you want to suggest some way of "evening" things out so that you feel everyone has an equal starting point from this point in time, go for it. I'll never support giving away what I've spent my life earning in taxes to support others that did not earn a lot. Ridiculous.

There are always going to be those that want to be supported through life, and do nothing. Those that work hard and have good skills managing money will be just fine. Those that don't should take note and learn.

(unless disabled -- we should support them)

People can gift anyone they want with things they purchased or earned. Taking that away from relatives is dumb.

 

[River]

Ha ha. Conservatives really don't want that, they just pay lip service to the idea of meritocracy. They love aristocracy, and they strive to be a part of it if they aren't already in it.

It took merit to build those assets. Socialists want to give it to everyone. Conservatives and libertarians want to give it to whom they chose. I think we know who is entitled to decide where their assets go.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I would never, and I mean never support that.

No, I don't believe in giving away what you've earned in taxes after you pass. Give it to your family. If you don't build up a lot of assets, so be it. If you want to suggest some way of "evening" things out so that you feel everyone has an equal starting point from this point in time, go for it. I'll never support giving away what I've spent my life earning in taxes to support others that did not earn a lot. Ridiculous.

There are always going to be those that want to be supported through life, and do nothing. Those that work hard and have good skills managing money will be just fine. Those that don't should take note and learn.

(unless disabled -- we should support them)

People can gift anyone they want with things they purchased or earned. Taking that away from relatives is dumb.

If that is your view, then you are not really in favor of a merit-based society.

 

[River]

I don't think we do. The disagreement lies in our different opinions on whether such a society is even possible.

Maybe so. Whether or not it's possible will never be known. It's an ideal more than reality. However, our current system is not so bad.

What improvements would you like to see?

 

[River]

If that is your view, then you are not really in favor of a merit-based society.

False. Meritocracies do not give away their assets to the government. Sorry.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

False. Meritocracies do not give away their assets to the government. Sorry.

For the question of Merit, it doesn't matter who gets the money as long as it isn't your offspring: have the rich burn all their money on their own funeral pyre for all I care.

But until every child has the same access to nutrition and education, saying that some are more deserving than others of success makes no sense.

 

[River]

For the question of Merit, it doesn't matter who gets the money as long as it isn't your offspring: have the rich burn all their money on their own funeral pyre for all I care.

But until every child has the same access to nutrition and education, saying that some are more deserving than others of success makes no sense.

Here, lets take that to the next step. Lets make sure every single person gets all the nutrition and education they could ever absorb. (not just children) Lets make sure that every single person has a home, and a picket fence, and access to a nice sports car. Lets make sure that the bank account of every single person is at least 250k. Lets make sure that they all have free medical, and free dentists and all of the assets the rich have. Everyone.

Sound cool? If not why not?

(and no, im not actually suggesting that)

 

[River]

For the question of Merit, it doesn't matter who gets the money as long as it isn't your offspring: have the rich burn all their money on their own funeral pyre for all I care.

But until every child has the same access to nutrition and education, saying that some are more deserving than others of success makes no sense.

Right, because helping your actual children, is dumb. You only have to take care of them while youre alive. After you die, pffft to the wolves with them!! Depending on the government to supplement them with everything they need is great. Got it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Here, lets take that to the next step. Lets make sure every single person gets all the nutrition and education they could ever absorb. (not just children) Lets make sure that every single person has a home, and a picket fence, and access to a nice sports car. Lets make sure that the bank account of every single person is at least 250k. Lets make sure that they all have free medical, and free dentists and all of the assets the rich have. Everyone.

Sound cool? If not why not?

(and no, im not actually suggesting that)

you were the one who thought Merit should be the only consideration.
And yet you aren't willing to create the necessary conditions for it.