Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Out of plain boredom while I sit her at 2 in the mornign trying to finish an IR essay I have due tomorrow ( I know, don't judge me!) I've come to the realizatoin tha I really, REALLY don't like democracy all that much. Why? Because to me, the average human being is an idiot, and I am likely one as well, making who has political power a popularity contest with the idiotic masses assumes that the will of a million idiots will somehow turn out an intelligent leader.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with that thought process?

Now, to me, the BEST form of government in an idea world would be a benevolent dictatorship. One leader, who make decisions for the greater good of all, without any biases. Of course, in this world that's not going to happen any time soon. In this world, I continue to view the best form of government as meritocracy, government by those who are able. What does it matter if the people love you if you can't do the job? And will the people really hate you if you keep them fed, entertained and content?

I doubt it.

So what does everyone else think? Do you think that democracy is truly the greatest form of government, or do you think that we can do better?

Discuss.

Also, in before Churchill quote.

On a more serious note, its not that democracy is the best, or the worst, its that it functions well in societies that have had the historical experiences that enable democracy to succeed. The Chinese permutation of communism, or whatever they want to call it, has worked phenomenally well for them. Would it work well in most western countries, more than likely not. But China has experienced outstanding growth and progress (though there's obviously still much to be desired), but for them, it works.

Of course we can do better, but until we evolve into beings of pure thought that can manipulate the very universe itself, whatever government we'll have in the future will be flawed in one way or another, because human beings - the cells that comprise the organism that is government - are inherently flawed.

Democracy just is.

Man I can see this thread opening up a whole load of "debate".

First off I suppose much would depend on what one would consider "Best",a society in which one was free to lounge about unhindered by "The Man"?..or uber efficient where everyone knew "their role"?..somewhere in between perhaps?...

A benevolent dictatorship may have it's upsides...but it's still a dictatorship...then again,the "freedom" of "democracy" can often times seem like one chaotic mess.

Democracy is flawed.

As we have now, in the US, is the flaw. Democracy grinds to a screeching halt and the entire system begins to bitch about everything when the Two opposite factions have equal say. Basically, Democracy is a fail-safe ridden mess with nutjobs everywhere that throw themselves at the gears of the system because one single idea of the opposition is wrong, and they must take their unbreakable hammer and swing it at an unbreakable rock until they either give up or they all get fired after their terms.

But that's me, the crazy Buddhist Idealist Commie.

ChrisWWII wrote:Now, to me, the BEST form of government in an idea world would be a benevolent dictatorship. One leader, who make decisions for the greater good of all, without any biases. Of course, in this world that's not going to happen any time soon. In this world, I continue to view the best form of government as meritocracy, government by those who are able. What does it matter if the people love you if you can't do the job? And will the people really hate you if you keep them fed, entertained and content?

From Reinhold Niebuhr's simply wonderful The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness;

"Humanity's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but humanity's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. In all non-democratic political theories the state or the rules is invested with uncontrolled power for the sake of achieving order and unity in the community. But the pessimism which prompts and justifies this policy is not consistent, for it is not applied, as it should be, to the ruler. If humans are inclined to deal unjustly with others, the possession of power aggravates this inclination. That is why irresponsible and uncontrolled power is the greatest source of injustice.

The democratic techniques of a free society place checks upon the power of the ruler and administrator and thus prevent it from becoming vexatious. The perils of uncontrolled power are perennial reminders of the virtues of a democratic society; particularly if a society should become inclined to impatience with the dangers of freedom and should be tempted to choose the advantages of coerced unity at the price of freedom.

The consistent optimism of our liberal culture has prevented modern democratic societies both from gauging the perils of freedom accurately and from appreciating democracy fully as the only alternative to injustice and oppression. When this optimism is not qualified to accord with the real and complex facts of human nature and history, there is always a danger that sentimentality will give way to despair and that a too consistent optimism will alternate with a too consistent pessimism."

So what does everyone else think? Do you think that democracy is truly the greatest form of government, or do you think that we can do better?

Discuss.

Representative democracy, with a constitution that gives full protection to fundamental rights, is the best system. It's allowed us to create nations of incredible wealth and capabilities, that were entirely unthinkable under any other form of government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:On a more serious note, its not that democracy is the best, or the worst, its that it functions well in societies that have had the historical experiences that enable democracy to succeed. The Chinese permutation of communism, or whatever they want to call it, has worked phenomenally well for them. Would it work well in most western countries, more than likely not. But China has experienced outstanding growth and progress (though there's obviously still much to be desired), but for them, it works.

Does China's system work for them, though? They're as inefficient, wasteful and corrupt as anyone, and far more than any developed, democratic country.

They've had considerable economic success, but their entire means of competition comes from cheap labour, which is only achievable when you keep living standards very low. This is by no means a measure of success.

Moreover, the growth of their economy is almost entirely in resources consumed, not efficiency. More labour taken from the country and put into factories in the city, more resources imported for their manufacturing. More factories. This does wonders for growing GDP in country that has been primarily subsistance agriculture... but what happens when everyone is working in factories, where then does the growth come from?

In the West we've gone through all of that, and now we're looking towards efficiency for any possible growth. We've found open, free societies are best capable of producing the new ideas that will drive future growth. What happens when China can't reach that point, will their system be able to start creating ideas of their own?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:Democracy is flawed.

As we have now, in the US, is the flaw. Democracy grinds to a screeching halt and the entire system begins to bitch about everything when the Two opposite factions have equal say.

You're seeing two factions come to differ so much on basic ideological points that they are no longer capable of reaching a compromised middle ground. This isn't good in any system, but consider how these problems tend to get resolved in non-democratic systems.

As Niebuhr says above, I think people in politically stable democratic countries tend to lose track of how good they have it in their democracies, and they develop a kind of optimism where they think alternative systems will be as stable... but at the same time they develop a kind of pessimism where they see only the bad parts of their own government. This leads them to the false conclusion that another form of government will replace the worts parts of democracy, the political in-fighting and the inefficiency, and keep the best parts, the stability and the freedom.

The plain fact is that the worst parts won't get better, they'll likely get worse, and that you'll lose the best parts.

I once had a proffessor who talked about ideal governments should address needs and allow for an evolution of sorts

in a time of turmoil, with a small population, when resources are scarce and the overriding mindset is to secure basic needs like food shelter and clothing, protect yourself from enemies etc... a basic government where one guy is the leader will work and work well. matriarchal/patriarchal communities are proto-governments where decisions are meted out by the eldest.

when the basic needs are addressed, the human being then 'evolves" and now has other needs to fill. expansion. infrastructure. agriculture. the government has to adapt because otherwise revolt will happen. The eldest may not be able to address the new needs so people now look towards the most capable. Monarchies and the like evolved from here.

now that most folks dont have to worry about shelter and food or wild animals and cannibals outside of the city walls, we have more time to educate ourselves, create and again 'evolve'. the community is no longer more important as the focus now shifts to the individual. Individuals have a need to be heard and to contribute and a democracy or equivalent government fits that need. But of course if a great threat arises some democracies willingly let that freedom go to allow a capable leader to get them out of the crisis (rome comes to mind, presidential emergency powers are created for such an occasion as well)

the tricky part is getting stuck in the mindset that democracy is superior to all other styles of government. We think that this small island country will benefit from the gift of democracy when really all they want is to survive

its an overly simplistic view and a long hand way of saying "whatever serves the needs at the time" is the best type of government

I think all the ideas on the spectrum are viable and can work.

It's just someone has abused all of them and people hated them.

Phillosopher Hannah Arendt

How come that ancient civilisations always came and dissapeared?

To understand why this happens we have to make a difference between Politics and the politic.
The politic is our social atmosphere, its how we interact with each other. While Politics is something that builds further
on the politic.

To give an example: Ancient greece: Citizins lived in polis with eachother. They conversed with each other and so forth.
But every day they went to the Agora. (Center square in the middle of the polis( =city)) Where they would discuss what ever
happend in the the social atmosphere. Should we go to war, ....

So politics have there foundations in the politic. But ofcourse the politic changes. This time we're talking about this, the next time about this.
This is why civilisations have failed throughout the centuries. Because they were rigid. They didn't listen to the politics. But instead made one thruth
shine out most. And ignored the other thruths.

So one thruth, but people change their minds often.....This would eventually lead to discomfort, and people would revolt, toppeling the civilisation. And placing a new idea in its place.
Wich at that time felt the most right.

Thats why Democracy is the best choice. It doesn't has one truth, every few years the truth of the society, chances based on what happens in the politcs.
The only danger to democracy is when we once again draw a truth and make it the sole thruth. (Example: NSDAP in germany)

Hope this made sense. First time explaining a philosopher in English.

sillyboy wrote:Hope this made sense. First time explaining a philosopher in English.

It not only made sense, it was very good. Thanks for posting that.

Government types are, ultimately, only viable in a situational sense. Certain conditions produce effective democracies, and others produce effective authoritarian states; often time the distinction isn't all that clear (places like Singapore, or Mexico).

I have to agree with sebster.


Rep. Democracy is vastly superior than any direct democracy. You can see that in California or Switzerland.

A benevolent dictator may look tempting, but the first problem is: Where do you get those? Even the few of them in history were products of a system of monarchies that had an output of 99% crazy, lazy or even evil at least stupid dictators.

And If anyone says China fares well, you dont see the siutation as it is. 60% of the Chinese have to live wiht less than $5 a day, and that aint much in China either (it costs $15 to feed a small family in Bejjing a day with simple meals). Not to speak of the murderes of the system, corruption, health problems.

You want a second child? Not in China, all your life belongs to us.

I did acknowledge that a benevolent dictatorship is impossible in this world for the very reasons you just outlined. It's impossible to find someone selfless and perfect enough to do the job.

My preferred form of government is meritocracy, as opposed to represenetative democracy, but that opens up its own can of worms as well, and my mind is not currently in the state where I can write a thesis defending my position.

Chris- got Heinlein on the brain?

http://www.kentaurus.com/troopers.htm

Dark Scipio wrote:
And If anyone says China fares well, you dont see the siutation as it is. 60% of the Chinese have to live wiht less than $5 a day, and that aint much in China either (it costs $15 to feed a small family in Bejjing a day with simple meals). Not to speak of the murderes of the system, corruption, health problems.

Beijing is an expensive city to live in compared to the rest of China so that doesnt help much. I will tell ya that in certain places it can take less than a dollar to have a family of four eat a meal. Heck I can do that where I am and I live in the capital.

my point here is that you may see the situation but may not have the experience to put it in the proper context.

All hail Multivac!

ChrisWWII wrote:Out of plain boredom while I sit her at 2 in the mornign trying to finish an IR essay I have due tomorrow ( I know, don't judge me!) I've come to the realizatoin tha I really, REALLY don't like democracy all that much. Why? Because to me, the average human being is an idiot, and I am likely one as well, making who has political power a popularity contest with the idiotic masses assumes that the will of a million idiots will somehow turn out an intelligent leader.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with that thought process?

Now, to me, the BEST form of government in an idea world would be a benevolent dictatorship. One leader, who make decisions for the greater good of all, without any biases. Of course, in this world that's not going to happen any time soon. In this world, I continue to view the best form of government as meritocracy, government by those who are able. What does it matter if the people love you if you can't do the job? And will the people really hate you if you keep them fed, entertained and content?

I doubt it.

So what does everyone else think? Do you think that democracy is truly the greatest form of government, or do you think that we can do better?

Discuss.

Your question is one that the ancient Greeks and 19th centurry English agonised over.

The dilemma

The ancient Greeks got the philosophy spot on first time.

A monarchy is the superior form of government:
A true monarchy is 'one man ruling for the benefit of all' the flipside is the reality may well be 'one man ruling for himself'

Then we move to an oligarchy:
A few ruling for the benefit of all or the more frequent flipside of 'the few ruling for the benefit of themselves'

Democracy is the least harmful form of government.
This is because the ideal of democracy is 'each man ruling for the benefit of all' the reality is 'each man ruling for the benefit of himself'.

Note that the more people you share power with the greater the change that the system will be corrupted, the benign dictator or philosopher king can exist and has been recorded in history, an enlightened democracy is much more difficult.

On Democracy

Though that this means real democracy, the US is not a true democracy. A democracy has no government per se but everything is decided by popular mandate. An elected government is a representative democracy normally existing as a republic (or constitutional monarchy). The kicker is that democracy begins to fall apart one the electorate rises over about 1000 members.

Now with modern information infrastructure a true democracy on a large scale is possible but fraught with difficulties due to the widening ability for such a ballot to be interfered with.

An 'Age of Reason' solution

Late in the age of reason, particularly the mid-late 19th century there was a strong movement in the UK to create an educated electorate and omit the ability to vote by right alone. The movement was ultimately defeated mostly on the principle that the educated could be corrupted no less readily than the uneducated and that the proletariat would not stand for the emergent caste system that would be implied. This was due to twin lessons learned. The UK had as comparatively large educated elite due to high quality middle class education, so it could have had a workable sizable educated electorate. The educated classes had a classical eduction and were well versed particularly in roman history. The lessons of Gracchi and Marius were not beyond them, how the Roman republic fell due to growing exploitation of the system by demagogues, they understood how reserving the vote for the educated would head off demagoguery.
Government of the time agreed (and likely still does) but used land-ownership based electoral registry to eliminate the uneducated classes from the electoral role rather than an educational threshold for full citizenship.

It could be argued this would not have worked anyway as a direct disenfranchisement of the lower classes would have fueled the new and growing anarchist and communist movements and class divisions would have been cemented. The Uk's biggest asset of the time was the inclusion of a strong if not total measure of social mobility, someone born working class might not live or die as one. This again comes from the Roman principle that 'civility' is something to aspire to. This plus the strong inherent class based culture, particularly between the rural gentry and rural freeholder working class by which the two classes would get on culturally and see more in common with each other than with the urban man.

The US went a different direction. Utilising the vast open space and an unfettered economy there are two paths to democratic 'freedom' the first is to disappear west and make your own destiny, the second, to make money. Lucre is a great equaliser and a tool of social darwinism combined. A good 'rags to riches' story helped inspire because it could happen to you too. This combined with the ability to sink into a very large resource pan and be yourself without touching sides.
To a great extent this remains, but the demagoguery that eventually destroyed the Roman republic can already be seen in the US, its headed off mostly because there is still growing room left and will be for some time. However taken on a regional basis the US has been a very poor example of democracy, were the states all independent nations many would collapse societally other would exist only as reflections of South Africa old or new, with the problem inherent to both.

The danger

Simply put the most effective means of establishing a dictatorship is not with tanks or guns but with a combination of democracy and ignorance.

China is not faring well by our standards of living, which is obviously true. However, the point is, would a democracy have emerged naturally and not devolved into a dictatorship or one party 'democracy'? One could argue the ROC, but, well...no. The PRC may not be an ideal government, but as has been pointed out, neither is American democracy, or Canadian constitutional monarchy, or any other western democratic government. They're arguably better than the Chinese system, but that argument presents flaws in and of itself. You have to define success, is it in economic might? Welfare of the people? Military strength? International political clout? Sure, the average Chinese is still a backwater farmer making a living on subsistence farming, but the fact remains that China has experienced significant economic growth, which does trickle down to the masses, albeit more slowly than we, western societies, would expect.

Orlanth's post is excellent. Its all flawed in the end, and its impossible to compare governments in different cultures. Would a democracy be effective in the Middle-East? We'll check on this thread 10 years from now after looking at Iraq and make that call.

China is considered a statistical aberrance, it is not. china is communism as it should have been.

Marx's big strategic mistake was riling against capitalism, capitalism can flourish in any society, and did so under the soviet Union, in its own form. However the communist propaganda machine targeted capitalists where it should have limited its target to free political expression and unwanted (to communist elite) social classes.

Had the Soviet Union learned that lesson they could have kept an economy, even kept a figurehead Tzar, or not. Either way the Soviet Union would have worked, as it happened it was doomed since Lenin. Had it not been it would have eclipsed all known powers long ago, possibly evn before the Great Patriotic War, just as China is destined to do.

Capitalist-communism is NOT an oxymoron, it just sounds like one to a Marxist. Its 'evil', thoroughly so in my opinion, but its also mighty.

So wait, if China is communism at its best, doe that mean that ideologically speaking communism supports an even greater difference between the poor and elite than capitalism does?

Because that doesn't sound right to me.

It's probably worth noting that democracies have really only developed or prospered in relatively secure nations.

Not every nation has a culture that's willing to risk secuirty for the liberal freedoms.

Melissia wrote:So wait, if China is communism at its best, doe that mean that ideologically speaking communism supports an even greater difference between the poor and elite than capitalism does?

Because that doesn't sound right to me.

When has right and totalitarianism come together.

What matters is that it works, not that it is morally consistent. Besides a neo-communist can argue that under the new communism any able person can succeed on merit alone. This is potentially true but in reality highly unlikely as neo-communism relies on having an abundent supply of people from the socialist state labour force to drive a high tech, high capacity and yet ultracompetetive market. Its the ability for communism to provide the induisrtruial benefits of both first and third world infrastructure that makes them so powerful.
We should beware, China has the answer, but what a dark and insipid answer it is. If anything Chinese communism is closest to feudalism, we have a new capitalist-communist elite as 'lords' and a socialist community as 'peasantry' who work hard due to the lack of social provision with any standard of living and do as they are told due to the thinly veiled Maoism at the heart of the internal security policy.

Melissia wrote:So wait, if China is communism at its best, doe that mean that ideologically speaking communism supports an even greater difference between the poor and elite than capitalism does?

Because that doesn't sound right to me.

Agreed, although it oculd be argued that in a sense, it is doing its best to eliminate classes by creatin only two, the ruling elite and the working class....but that doesn't hold much water for me.

Mannahnin wrote:Chris- got Heinlein on the brain?

Having never read his work, I can't say that I have! But, his ideas didn't seem too horrible....especially the whole tying together of rights and responsibility, that you can't have rights without having responsibility.

Blacksails wrote:China is not faring well by our standards of living, which is obviously true. However, the point is, would a democracy have emerged naturally and not devolved into a dictatorship or one party 'democracy'? One could argue the ROC, but, well...no. The PRC may not be an ideal government, but as has been pointed out, neither is American democracy, or Canadian constitutional monarchy, or any other western democratic government.

The idea that the failings of any developed country could be measureable to the failings of the Chinese system is pretty out there.

They're arguably better than the Chinese system, but that argument presents flaws in and of itself. You have to define success, is it in economic might? Welfare of the people? Military strength? International political clout?

China loses on all those measures. When you consider its place as the most populous nation in the world it should have been dominating the globe for a long time. It hasn't, and this is in part due to the failings of a state planned economy and non-democratic government.

Sure, the average Chinese is still a backwater farmer making a living on subsistence farming, but the fact remains that China has experienced significant economic growth, which does trickle down to the masses, albeit more slowly than we, western societies, would expect.

As I said earlier in this thead;
"They've had considerable economic success, but their entire means of competition comes from cheap labour, which is only achievable when you keep living standards very low. This is by no means a measure of success.

Moreover, the growth of their economy is almost entirely in resources consumed, not efficiency. More labour taken from the country and put into factories in the city, more resources imported for their manufacturing. More factories. This does wonders for growing GDP in country that has been primarily subsistance agriculture... but what happens when everyone is working in factories, where then does the growth come from?

In the West we've gone through all of that, and now we're looking towards efficiency for any possible growth. We've found open, free societies are best capable of producing the new ideas that will drive future growth. What happens when China can't reach that point, will their system be able to start creating ideas of their own?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:My preferred form of government is meritocracy, as opposed to represenetative democracy, but that opens up its own can of worms as well, and my mind is not currently in the state where I can write a thesis defending my position.

But the issue then is how you decide who merits each position in your government. Do you have a panel of experts decide who warrants selection - if so then how is this different to oligarchy, and therefore exposed to the nepotism and corruption inherent in that form? Do you leave it open to selection by the majority, if so how is that different to representative democracy?

It seems to me that we're all basically the puppets of propagandists, and have the illusion of choice.

I don't really mind that, actually.

China's example is "State Capitalism", but just try to do anything without their asking.

Democracy in it's purest form is just mob rule, who ever has the biggest and best organized mob wins. This is exactly what the Founders of the US wanted to get away from as it allows demagougery and simplistic messages to win out of proper principles. Hence why we were established as a Republic of united states. Ever since the 17th Amendment was passed our states have had no real representation in DC and the Senate has served as a another form of the House of Representatives, which is exactly what they shouldn't have been.

The rights of the individual are paramount, the government should be there to guarantee the rights of said individuals and nothing more.

sebster wrote:

They're arguably better than the Chinese system, but that argument presents flaws in and of itself. You have to define success, is it in economic might? Welfare of the people? Military strength? International political clout?

China loses on all those measures. When you consider its place as the most populous nation in the world it should have been dominating the globe for a long time. It hasn't, and this is in part due to the failings of a state planned economy and non-democratic government.

Short term thinking I am afraid. China was fethed over by Maoism because Maoism is based on Marxism. When they abandoned Maoism for the capitalist-communist state they began to claw back impressively quickly. This year they overtook Japan to be the second biggest economy in the world. They will overtake the US by about 2030, possibly a lot sooner.

China doesn't appear powerful because China doesn't like to throw its weight around. Their leaders follow their ancestral philosophy closely after decades of trying to destroy it in favour of a little red book. They are consumate social analysts and part of that analysis is that their rivals are better off asleep than riled, especially the USA; which is especially panicky when its illusions of untouchability are shaken. The Cuban missile crisis being a good example of that.

@ Sebster. Will you move to the US? We need more people like you here! You sound more American than most Americans.

sebster wrote:
But the issue then is how you decide who merits each position in your government. Do you have a panel of experts decide who warrants selection - if so then how is this different to oligarchy, and therefore exposed to the nepotism and corruption inherent in that form? Do you leave it open to selection by the majority, if so how is that different to representative democracy?

That is indeed one of the big problems with establishing a meritocracy in the first place, and a question I've spent a lot of time thinking about myself. The best asnwer I've been able to come up with is that, like the ancient Chinese, there would be civil service exams anyone who wanted to be in government would have to take. These would be standardized tests on an understanding of how the government works, and the actual system is run. If they show a high enough understanding of the mechanics of government, they are given a job doing something. Once they are in that position, they will be promoted based on merit...meaning they'd have to show some reason why they deserve more seniority.

THere are flaws in this, I know...but it's still an idea I'm thinking about.

ChrisWWII wrote:

sebster wrote:
But the issue then is how you decide who merits each position in your government. Do you have a panel of experts decide who warrants selection - if so then how is this different to oligarchy, and therefore exposed to the nepotism and corruption inherent in that form? Do you leave it open to selection by the majority, if so how is that different to representative democracy?

That is indeed one of the big problems with establishing a meritocracy in the first place, and a question I've spent a lot of time thinking about myself. The best asnwer I've been able to come up with is that, like the ancient Chinese, there would be civil service exams anyone who wanted to be in government would have to take. These would be standardized tests on an understanding of how the government works, and the actual system is run. If they show a high enough understanding of the mechanics of government, they are given a job doing something. Once they are in that position, they will be promoted based on merit...meaning they'd have to show some reason why they deserve more seniority.

THere are flaws in this, I know...but it's still an idea I'm thinking about.

And again you run into the problem of selection. Who administers the tests?

Personally, I would favor a corporate governance, where the 'product' sold by the corporation is strictly limited to votes. Every election you can 'buy' as many votes as you want. That money goes into the treasury and has to be spent for the public welfare (no 'rolling over' funds).

Add in a Supreme Court that is appointed at creation, with each Justice selecting his or her replacement (to be approved by the remaining justices), and you've got a pretty decent system, IMO.

Yes, I understand this means that this will result in the "golden rule" - whoever has the gold makes the rules - but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

Besides, if it doesn't work, you can always have a revolution. Which is the nice thing about government.

unless you can come up with a scientifically reliable scorecard for characteristics like creativity, innovation and passion then theres no way youre going to get a functional meritocracy

the Chinese scholars who had to pass an exam to get a place in the government generally suffered from stagnant ideas and irrational dogma. the revolutionary thinkers were the exception. Dynasties fell because they couldnt get past themselves

another concern for meritocracy is in order for it to be scientific and irrefutable you will have to measure thelimits of a human being. How stupid can someone be and what is the limit that the human brain can be pushed?

only with determining those limits can you come up with an objective and reliable scorecard.

say you decide on a limit, what happens when someone exceeds that? and again?

youre going to be denying perfectly functional and valuable people the chance to contribute just because they dont hit a bracket.