Politicians have no public interest leadership skills whatsoever, because they don't care about you, they don't act in your interest at all. Politicians don't care about improving the world, they care about themselves, their families and their friends. The main skill of career politicians is an endearing smile and a well-timed handshake. We are talking about a two-faced, money- and power-obsessed bunch who collude with the super-rich to keep the population as dependent as possible for as long as possible. They have proven over and over again that they have neither the will nor the ability to represent the will of the ordinary people. Instead, they only and exclusively implement the ambitions of their own elite. This is not merit, it is a mental nightmare.
A person who can demonstrate merit is able to demonstrate that they are using their knowledge to benefit the wider masses of people. They have the talent, the right expertise and years of experience to actually solve social problems. Do these are the characteristics that make you think of a politician? Do the politicians who influence your life have a respect for civil and human rights? Do your politicians implement the general will of the population?
Our democracy has utterly failed to put worthy leaders at the helm of the country. Most of the time, we are dealing with corrupt lawyers who do not have a single useful skill. They couldn't solve social problems even if they wanted to (let alone they don't even want to). They disregard public interest and instead live their lives for the sake of draining public money and in the pursuit of glory. These people have no place in public life. Down the sinkhole with them. Let those worthy of the job come forward!
If you don't know how to fly a plane, would you get in the cockpit with a hundred passengers behind you? You wouldn't, you're a responsible, good person. Wouldn't you? Before you take responsibility, you should learn the pilot's trade from the best instructors, because you probably don't want to be on the front page of the newspapers for causing a tragedy!
In a meritocracy, everyone has an equal chance of getting the best education available, and it's free. You train yourself constantly, do things of public interest commensurate with your abilities, and when the time comes, you participate responsibly in the day-to-day decision-making, depending on the merits you bring to the table. Want to vote on a particular issue? If your knowledge, skills or experience allow it, you can do so, and even play a political role. Just as you wouldn't fly a plane without the necessary piloting skills. Why should people who have no idea what they are voting on vote? Meritocracy makes sure that responsible thinking precedes decision-making. That is the only and only way to run a country in a forward-looking way.
It is important to note that the criteria are not the brainchildren of a self-appointed elite, but are based on consensus.
Human history is closely linked to progress, technological and social development. As we have harnessed our intelligence and creativity, gifted ourselves with meaningful inventions, all aspects of human life have evolved. Why shouldn't the organization of society evolve? Why should it stagnate at one point and remain so until the end of time?
Democracy is ripe to move on. Meritocracy takes what it has learned from democracy and adds something better. We can learn from the successes and failures of democracy and use that knowledge to introduce a better way of organizing society. Just as a similar process preceded the emergence of democracy. Whichever country implements the management methods of the next generations will raise the whole human race to a higher level. Stand up for progress!
The fact is that the vast majority of the ideas presented on our site were not invented by us, but have been put together as a coherent picture thanks to our work. The need to strive for meritocracy has been around since antiquity, but technology and public thinking have not allowed it to be implemented. Today, the technology is available, but public thinking is still not sufficiently developed.
The problems of democracy are really simple. If we look at them more closely and, above all, rationally, it is not so difficult to find solutions. If you have a system that is malfunctioning and the problems are well enough defined, then it is not necessarily patching and fixing is the answer, but replacement.
If we discard entrenched dogma, we can easily see that meritocracy is the natural and logical successor to democracy. Many people think that the basic principle of democracy is good, but only the implementation is flawed. Unfortunately, this is not true, because the problem lies in the principle.
If we have 1 000 farmers who know how to plough and sow and 1 engineer who knows how to build bridges, and our task is to build a bridge, who do we entrust with the planning? Quantity does not improve the result, but quality does, in other words, the key word here is to enforce expertise.
The solutions we offer are not dogmatic, they are constantly evolving and we want to involve as many receptive people as possible.
One of the most serious defects of democracy is that it has given way to libertinage under the enthusiastic banner of free-market capitalism to support profit-making. This has created a wealth gap in the world that is incomprehensible to human reason. About a dozen people have as much wealth concentrated in their hands as 3.5 billion others. This is simply anti-human and must be stopped at all costs. In case you have not noticed, the immeasurable damage to the environment is also linked to this.
The solution has two basic elements:
- Returning unfettered capitalism to the concept of true free market, where innovation, perseverance, expertise and human merit in general prevail, rather than smooth-talking, lying, lobbying, corruption and the like. In a running race, the winner is not the one who kicks the other, but the one who runs faster.
- Collusion between politicians and the super-rich must be prevented as effectively as possible by the strict force of law.
To sum up, the whole economic system requires public-interest brakes to be put on. This is in the common interest of all of us. The meritocrats' priorities are: Environment, People, Profit
In all other cases, our civilization will be destroyed in a short time.
The rule of hierarchical organizations, i.e. political parties, which are parasites on public money. Democracy used to be about pluralistic clashes of opinion and similar, nowadays sadly idealistic, concepts, but now, it is about a fierce struggle between power and financial interest groups for control of public funds. No one really cares about your opinion here any more, the election has been degraded to the most effective enforcement of this ambition. If you think this is only a local problem, you're wrong. The whole world is already infected with this political epidemic.
The straightforward answer is that we simply do not have the power to vote for them directly. In practice, every 4 years you are offered a "generous" opportunity to decide who you pay taxes and interest to and who drains the public purse. List voting is also designed to prevent the leaders of the party-democrats from having to compete in real life, so they can get anyone on the list into parliament. Even people you wouldn't want to be there in the first place.
If we want to change this, we need to move to a system of direct voting.
Without it, our votes will disappear down a big black hole and nothing will change. Politicians can continue to fish troubled waters unhindered. Time and time again, democracy results in a governing body elected on the principle of the lowest common multiple that is both incompetent or only tangentially competent and corrupt. The latter is completely independent of sides, so all politicians are involved in some way.
How could people who are competent and corrupt be able to improve, say, public education? If the educated and philanthropic do not finally take the initiative, the uninformed, the misguided or the greedy will leave the exercise of power to a destructively counterproductive government. The misled voters feed evil governments, and evil governments produce more misled voters. You might call it a Dumb-o-cracy. A death spiral from which there is no escape.
Why are politicians not elected on the same principles as air traffic controllers? Politicians are responsible for an entire nation, and yet we do not have the tools to keep the agitators and the incompetent out of power. Where is the conditionality? Where is the accountability system? Nowhere. Even immunity is only good these days for getting away with every white-collar crime that exists. Politicians are virtually unrestrained in doing what they are not embarrassed about and they are not embarrassed whatsoever.
Until we elect the right person for the right job, we will not be able to solve any problem. Meritocracy is about getting the right person for every job, in fact our best people. They are the people who want to and can solve the key problems that everyone is so keen to see solved.
The concept of liquid democracy does not change fundamental paradigms beyond the indirectization of the voting process. We find this insufficient for truly effective social organization. At the same time, we explicitly reject the principle of delegating votes in a liquid democracy, as this would open the door to serious abuses.
Let me ask you back.
What is the purpose of democracy? Can we even define it?
We have tried to put it in one sentence:
The aim of democracy is to promote the public interest as effectively as possible on the basis of consensus.
Can democracy do this? Based on decades of experience, we can safely say no. It is precisely this that has prompted us to look for other solutions.
Democracy in practice has long departed from its philosophical definition.
So the goals are not really different, the will to improve is the same, but the means are different.
The important thing to understand about modern meritocracy is that there is no power elite. We don't expect everyone to be meritocratic, we don't want a meritocratic government, we don't want every media to trumpet it, because the way the system works is that the average person would feel the positive effects of it first hand. At the same time, the one thing we want is for the three main blocs (left, center, right) to be equally represented, because this would finally put an end to the 4-year practice of theft of change. Not to mention particracy.
And what guarantees all this? That the real decision is made by the part of the population that meets the criteria, using portable communication equipment. Even if someone wanted to abuse power in this system, they cannot, because their hands are tied at numerous points. It is a self-regulating system.
Neither and both at the same time. Nonsense? Not really. When we are supposed to be left-wing in our current definition, we are left-wing, when we are supposed to be right-wing, we are right-wing. This is meritocratic middle ground in practice. It's just enough to look critically at both sides and soberly assess the problems and issues that arise. In fact, the whole right/left divide is good for nothing more than antagonizing the voters. The citizen is not fundamentally right or left, but a human being with human values. These should be the basis for the organization of future public life, and this would quickly revitalize a political life that is already quite degraded.
In a democracy, media propaganda can be a very dangerous weapon, because it can instil in uninformed people a very strong opinion about something they have no idea about. At the same time, if the voters are made up of well-informed people, propaganda has no chance of interfering in politics. In a meritocracy, the brainwashing machine of the media is completely overridden by the collective effect of competence and information.
Research shows that people living in the shadow of poverty are less creative, less committed and have a noticeably weaker output. You can have people working as slaves to pay their bills month after month, but you can also have healthy workers who are enthusiastic, creative and striving for perfection. People who want to make a mark in the world. Which attitude do you think makes for a better functioning economy? The most productive people in our society are not afraid of poverty, so they don't fall for the myth that poverty increases productivity. Slaves do menial, soulless work. No employer should be allowed to use slave labor or child labor.
Most of us are motivated by developing our skills based on our talents, being creative and adding something to the world. The real sin is that the talents of millions of ordinary people are being lost in hopeless drudgery without the chance to put their skills to good use.
Consumerism is a by-product of a consumer society where marketing departments spend millions of dollars to encourage mindless buying. Consumerism is in fact a serious abuse of the benefits of technology, similar to drug abuse. When technology is misused, it dehumanizes and burns out everyone. For example, the best software engineers in the world pour their energy into silly little games specializing in microtransactional rip-offs. This is a most atrocious waste of talent and a disgrace to humanity. Meritocracy is changing the system of economic incentives so that engineers work to improve the world, not to further exploit bored internet hustlers. Meritocracy is a cure for consumerism, as it directs technologies towards real social problems. What would happen if all the bomb-making military scientists started working ingeniously to prevent environmental destruction? Meritocracy would pave the way for that to happen. If technologies are used intelligently, humanity will be on the road to prosperity. It points the way to the liberation of the human soul. Because without spiritual development there will be no real social development.
The typical super-rich have no interest in doing anything for the public good, and they couldn't even if they wanted to, because they don't know anything. Most super-rich people have one skill: to make more money for themselves. If they actually cared about society, they wouldn't be accumulating wealth. They wouldn't pay politicians to vote for laws that are against the public interest on their behalf. Assuming that one of the super-rich changes his or her attitude to the world when they are old and starts giving. Sadly, even in that case, he or she will not have the skills needed to improve society.
Bill Gates has spent his whole life trying to destroy companies smaller than his own before they become big enough to rival Microsoft. Now he pretends to give back to the public with great grace from the vast spoils. But can we believe him? Wouldn't it be better if the best minds in medicine, engineering, economics, sociology or psychology decided for William Henry Gates III? Why has Bill Gates managed to achieve such power? Was it because he was greedier than his competitors? Was it because he pumped money relentlessly into his bank account? Not just because. He colluded with the governments in power.
Public opinion is shaped by paid journalists and professional liars. The charming manners wrapped up in demagogic promises are perfectly sufficient to seduce whole masses of people with all kinds of political slogans. This leads to an emotional vote instead of a rational vote, which tends to produce a result that is very much against the public interest.
The collective IQ can plummet as soon as the Dear Leader tells the masses what they want to hear. This is no way to make responsible decisions.
The "wisdom of masses" is a big humbug. Democracy has proved that the wisdom of masses puts wolves in suits on our backs who know nothing but bluffing.
If we replace the votes of 1 000 people with the votes of 2 000 people, the result will be exactly the same, that is to say, not an ounce better. On the other hand, the opinion of 1 competent person will change the result in a positive direction.
There is no such thing as a free market. The markets are under total control, to be precise under the control of various cartels. You simply cannot pretend that the market is free. Let's use the terms 'rigged', 'enslaved', 'held hostage'. Today's markets are geared to ripping off suckers. How many billions do you think have been stolen from pensioners so far through market manipulation? The myth of the free market is dominated by the agents of the multinationals, the cartels, the interest groups and the super-rich cronyists. They do nothing but rip off the suckers. Corrupt politicians are elected with all the rhetoric of democracy, and then the same people fill the pockets of the cartels. Other cartels are born naturally since the government has no anti-trust laws. It is a total failure of supervision.
Economic experts have a concept called 'market distortion'. The word tries to describe when the market is far from free, but is rigged, dysfunctional, expropriated or simply broken. At the moment our markets could hardly be more 'distorted' than they are today. Anyone who defends the free market is delusional, because there is NO free market on Earth. Can we call it a free market when a corrupt government subsidizes certain agricultural companies with astronomical amounts of public money? Can we call it a free market when a handful of telephone companies buy up an entire infrastructure to drive up prices?
The free market could be an important element of the economy, but it only works if it is put in the hands of a competent government that prevents the creation of cartels, monopolies, interest groups, pacts, concentration of capital and insider trading based on explicit fraud. Democracy is UNQUALIFIED to deal with these.
Research has confirmed that classroom education has been outdated. Schools have not moved a step forward since the industrial revolution. New methods of learning and teaching have been discovered and demonstrated by teaching experts over time. Unfortunately, incompetent and corrupt politicians have ignored these ground-breaking methods.
The meritocratic state does not inject money into any area of concern. Instead, it seeks out and interests those with the intelligence to put the brightest in positions of control. The meritocratic motto is "Don't pour money into problems! Use your brain instead!" Experimentation, passion, creativity and the brightest people in the world together are the key to improving education. Money alone will never be enough. Society needs the experience and intelligence of the most skilled educators and researchers. The meritorious ones! Meritocracy is not content with creating the conditions, it is putting professionals in positions of responsibility so that the next generation of educational system can finally be created.
What kind of sick society thinks that destroying the Earth is good for the economy? Can you imagine how out of touch our economic leadership is? In theory, the economy is supposed to produce wealth for the Earth's inhabitants, yet our most precious treasure is clean drinking water, pristine ecosystems and unpolluted waterfronts. Destroying them will do the economy no good.
The corrupt economic advisers to the corrupt government are promoting the view that a healthy environment has no economic value. Just ask the professors of economics around. You will get the answer that in order to protect the national wealth, governments must hold those responsible for damage accountable. Those companies or individuals who cause damage to the environment (or to public goods in general) should be brought to account. If this does not happen, the economy will suffer. Why is there such a difference between government economists and real economists?
A healthy environment is a treasure trove. Improving the environment should count as an economic indicator in GDP. And damage should be deducted from GDP, so that we do not delude ourselves with misleading statistics. Destroying the environment kills our golden goose. If we want to move forward, we must stop this narrow-minded 'corporate' mentality. These companies would rather slap themselves in the face just to see a profit at the close of the quarter. The planet as a whole, wildlife, water resources and air quality all help the economy.
The question is how to define equal representation. Meritocracy makes the biggest step where democracy fails.
Is your democracy fighting for the well-being of every single person? When a decision is made in a democracy, nine times out of ten the interests of the super-rich families will prevail, to the disadvantage of all other people. This is NOT equal treatment. In the US, the multi-billionaires have a lower tax rate than their secretary. So whose interests does democracy serve? The history of democracy clearly shows that visiting the polling station every 4 years does not result in any kind of equal representation. Politicians gain power, then totally disregard the will of the people. When politicians can simply talk their way into power, there can be no question of equal representation.
Meritocracy achieves equal representation by achieving real social goals. People want to prosper, they want better health care, they want to improve education and they want to end poverty. Raising the overall standard of living above a certain level is good for society as a whole because it will automatically reduce many problems such as drug abuse, crime, depression, domestic violence, overpopulation and so on.
Meritocracy is meticulous about ensuring that qualified professionals are in the right positions, so that the leadership can actually achieve its goals. By achieving social goals, meritocracy enforces the will of the people and results in genuine equal representation.