Sweet Zombie Jeebus.
In 2014, when Biden was VP, Tucker and Susie Carlson wrote to Hunter begging him to pull some strings to get Tucker’s son into Georgetown University…ending their letter with “Tucker and I have the greatest respect and admiration for you. Always!”
Loves Hunter when he needs something, hates him with a passion now that he’s useless. Same Hunter.

Tucker’s child is now a communications director for a far right senator, a position for which he has zero experience, hired right out of college as a staff assistant at $40k (nice cushy entry job), quickly increased to $65k, 6 months later became communications director for $75k, which was quickly and quietly raised up to $130k. Not normal.
There’s no doubt at all that he was hired and advanced solely to gain favor with Tucker and the ultra Maggots. Tucker just publicly lambasted the entire office he works in because someone dared to mention he wasn’t there on his merits, he’s there because his daddy can help your campaign…he can’t even stand up for himself and needs daddy to come bully all his workmates because one said something completely true about him.

You might keep that in mind the next time Tucker gets you riled up about Hunter….Tucker went begging to Hunter, asking for special treatment for his son and groveling because he really believes it’s all who you know and who you’re related to, not ability, that should determine success. Tucker doesn’t believe in meritocracy for himself or his family. None of you do.

Oh FFS. Seriously?

It's 1000x more common for people to believe the words "liberalism" and "socialism" to be seen in a derogatory light by Americans, even though the overwhelming majority of people subscribe to classical liberal ideas, such as freedom of speech, religion, and basic human rights, or in *some* socialist ideas, like a basic safety net in some way shape or form. I mean, hell, because of Glenn Beck and Fox News, there's even a move to make "Progressive", as in the "Progressive Movement" a dirty word. You know, the movement that, while it did overstep its bounds, also helped to institute meritocracy within government, cleaned up corruption, began conservation efforts, and ensured for the first time widely basic safety with food, buildings, etc.

Just stop. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you come to work and say a prayer. Trump Supporters get beaten up?! Yeah, it's almost like they're black in the South, or they're Muslims somewhere in the US. Oh poor white Christians! They've never had it so hard!

Absolutely ridiculous.

Just stop. Nobody is buying your BS.

Have I mentioned how much I like reading pieces by Thomas Frank?

He had a piece in the Guardian two days ago about the Podesta emails and it's just brilliant. Excerpt:

This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should “come from the industry itself”. And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another’s careers, constantly.

Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the “Global CEO Advisory Firm” that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.

But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it’s all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren’t part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don’t have John Podesta’s email address – you’re out.

I think perhaps we have more of a semantic disagreement here than a conceptual one.

That's fine, "meaning is use" as Wittgenstein would say.

I do take some contention with the idea that rule by intellectual elite would be necessarily "depressing". I'd happily take something like that over the kind of chucklefucks we get now. (as I said before, just trading one kind of political elite for another)

& the kind of meritocracy I'm talking about can be very broad. Any citizen could earn their votes within each branch of governance (and if they were very accomplished, most/all of them). It's just a matter of limiting the influence of mindlessly held opinions, which undermine the whole idea of "democracy" as you are defining it.

I don't think the existing examples of stable quasi meritocratic governments occurred by luck. Those places (Norway, Denmark and such) have considerably better educated populations and a greater cultural emphasis on intellectual elites.

As for the AI thing, I suspect we won't have a great deal of choice in the matter anyway.

I for one welcome our new robot overlords!

Much Love.

There are systems other than democracy which have the kind of cheques and a balances you are referring to.

Just that not all of them place that power indiscriminately in the hands of the demos. e.g. a Meritocratic system expects its voters to earn their votes by demonstrating competence in a given field (those qualified in healthcare can vote to choose administrators of health etc.)

Democracy as we know it is a deeply unsophisticated way of attending to the problems you describe. There are alternatives that may well prove better, were we to actually try them.

It's pretty clear actual unlimited democracy doesn't work as no country in the modern world uses it. So it appears it's only the recourse to peaceful regime change that's important here, not necessarily the means by which it is achieved.

But even then, that blow off valve is usually defined in pretty narrow parameters and the political landscape carefully maintained by societies elites. Were it not, the aforementioned repeal of the death penalty and such would likely have doomed the ruling regime to be replaced by something more representative of the demos's backwards attitudes.

Hell I could even conceive of ways to just apply enough of that same veneer of democratic accountability to Sophocracy, technocracy and Noocracy, without resorting to a full blown meritocracy or oligarchy. One need only define the parameters that limit the demos in a way which demands leadership candidates have requisite qualities/qualifications.

It really could be very similar to what we have now, but with the parameters shifted to define a different sort of viable candidate.

It's already a hybrid of elite and demos, just redefine the elite and let the demos keep the blow off valve within the new parameters.

And then one day in the future perhaps, leaders will not always have to be emotionally flawed humans?

This one, without a doubt, is the most interesting piece I read this month:

http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2016_Summer_Andrews.php

What's it about, you ask? Meritocracy. Instead of explaining the specifics, let me offer this quote:

"Our new multiracial, gender-neutral meritocracy has figured out a way to make itself hereditary."

Yes, it is an article in opposition to meritocracy. There are not nearly enough of those, and this one is particularly interesting, I say.

I know it's Colbert's shtick and I never really got into it, but still...

"I have friends who live and work in London. They said "don't worry,we're very sensible people."

What's sensible for people in London might not be sensible for people in Salford. Or Boston. Or Wolverhampton. London, or the South-East in general, is as representative of the UK as the East/West Coast is of the US.

The hinterland has been drained at the expense of the center, on both a global and a national scale. If you live and work in the City of London, things might look quite ok, and whatever issues there are only need some reforms to no longer be an issue. But if your factory, the factory that provided jobs for the people in your home town, closed down ten, twenty years ago and now the best you can get is zero-hour contracts, then no, things are not ok.

People up top keep telling you that the economy is growing, that everyone's gonna be better off, that it's ok for multinational corporations and rich individuals to optimise their taxes, while they cut your welfare. Banks get a bailout, you get to pay the bedroom tax.

So no, your sensible friends, if they exist, live in a different universe than many of their countrymen. That's the disconnect we've been talking about.

-----
"The British economy is tanking. The pound has plunged to its lowest level since 1985... The Dow lost 611 points."

Again, so what? If the economy is growing and it has no effect on you, why should you give a jar of cold piss about the value of the pound or the stock exchange? Arguably, a drop in the exchange rate of the pound makes it easier for you to export your goods and raises the prices for imports, thereby encouraging you to produce the shit yourself. The UK does have a sovereign currency, unlike the Spanish, the Greeks, the Portuguese or the Italians who have to suffer internal devaluations, because Wolfgang Schäuble says so.

"Equity losses over $2 trillion"

Why should that matter? QE has pushed up stock prices beyond any resonable level, so what meaning do these book values hold? Not to mention that a lot of people made a shitload of money by shorting these stocks, including George Soros against Deutsche.

"There'll be no more money"

QE never trickled down anyway, makes no difference. Corbyn's people call their version "QE for the People" and "Green QE" for a reason: the previous version was only meant to prop up banks and stock values.

--------------

On a more general note, the hatred, the racism, the xenophobia... in most cases, it's a pressure valve. You leash out against someone else, you need someone to blame. The narrative is that we're living in a meritocracy, which makes it your fault that you didn't inherit an investment portfolio. So you start blaming yourself. You're a fuck-up. You worked hard and not only didn't climb the ladder, you actually went down. There's depression for ya. Guess what happens if someone, a person of perceived authority, then comes along and tells you it's not your fault, it's the fault of the immigrants. That narrative is very appealing if history is any indication. Even the supposedly most prosperous country in the EU, Germany, has the very same issue in the eastern parts, where there is no hope for a meaningful job.

People need work, meaningful work. Wanna guess how many of those "xenophobes" would be out in the street protesting against immigrants if they had a meaningful job with decent pay? Not to many would be my guess.

So the likes of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are providing the narrative. But the lack of social cohesion is a result of market fundamentalism, of Thatcherism, of Third Way social-democrats leaving the lower half of the income distribution to the wolves. You can't exclude large swaths of the population from the benefits of increased productivity, etc. Social dividend, they called it. It's what keeps the torches and pitchforks locked away in the barn.

The whole idea is meritocracy - so far only video posts (and starred comments) have been the metric used for establishing this merit, but it sounds like a valid concern/idea to base it on other factors as well, such as high comment engagement, general good behavior etc. it's just hard to automate.

*promote (got me by 5 min)

When a man doesn’t love a woman very very much
He signs away his paternal rights and jizzes in a cup
Then with lots of money and scientific genius
Hormones, pain and of course, um… Jesus

The process begins the way god intended
With a transvaginal ultrasound
With a wand longer than a ukulele
When it comes out of my body, it makes this sound (pop)

I give myself daily intradermal injections
An acute blood thinner and estrogen concurrence
Cryopreservation through hormonal activation
And none of it’s covered by insurance

Then I’m knocked out and you’re removed
And combined with a stranger’s come
And as the saying goes
You win some, you lose some/you dispose of the defective ones in a hazardous waste bin

And then you’re frozen until I’m certain
It’s time to unthaw you into a person
Then you’ll expire or you’ll make the grade
And that, my darling, that’s how babies are made
(It’s so easy and natural)

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t say a word
Mama’s gonna freeze you til she gets rich

And when that day finally arrives
You’ll be constructed in a petri dish
With sperm donor 8w6-3
The silent partner of our family

So hush little egg baby don’t be sad
Just because I never fucked your dad

VERSE 2:
I know there are orphans everywhere
But I’m going to pretend that isn’t real
Don’t look at me like that just cause I admit it
You had kids and you knew the deal

Yeah I feel guilty about overpopulation
And ruining the environment for forever
But Osama Bin Laden had 20 kids
So fuck you or whatever

Sadly procreation is not a meritocracy
And we need to prevent a real life Idiocracy
Though it may be the ultimate form of narcissism
It’s also a way to re-reverse reverse Darwinism

Gonna mute the sound of that ticking clock
I just need the sperm now I don’t need the cock
My ovaries are like hey girl I’m over here
And I’m all like shhhh

I want all the stuff I don’t need a bucket list
It doesn’t make me greedy it just makes me feminist
Now I’m thinking back through all the guys I’ve dated
If they heard this song they’d fucking hate it

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t you cry
You’ll have the best genes mommy can buy

I don’t want to wait until I get in dire straights
My friends say if I want kids I should go out on some dates
But these working bitches don’t have time to leave it to the fates
The world deserves more Riki’s and the world deserves more Kate’s

So hush little egg baby dad’s are overrated
He did what mattered when he masturbated

BRIDGE:
Hush little egg baby just hold firm
Mama’s gonna buy you designer sperm

And if that sperm gives you random traits
Mama’s gonna test your dna

And if your dna doesn’t make things clear
Mama’s gonna just have to live in fear

And if that fear turns into guilt
Mama’s gonna hold onto what we built

And if I hold too tight as to suffocate
I’ll buy you lots of things to overcompensate

And if that overcompensation’s too transparent
I’ll pretend it’s somehow better with no male parent

And if you say but mom who’s my dad
I’ll say I don’t know and it’s just too bad

And if that badness forms a hole in your heart
I’ll want to make it up to you but won’t know where to start

I’ll probably start by saying it’s just you and me
And there’s no such thing as a normal family

So fuck being normal and let’s do this shit
Momma’s gonna freeze you til she… gets…. rich

It was decided years ago those are far too easily abused, but hey this is a meritocracy. If the constituency stands united with a single voice, perhaps the site admins would reconsider the issue. Maybe start a poll.

Nailed it dude!

The only angle I feel hasn't really come up so far is the idea that private enterprise and public governance could easily be regarded as two manifestations of the same "real" social dynamic: Establishment/challenger (or master/slave if you want to get fully Hegelian about it)

Like, why do we even develop governmental systems in the 1st place?

I have yet to conceive a better answer than: "to curb the destructive excesses of private wealth/power."

Why would we champion personal freedom? I would say: "to curb the destructive excesses of public wealth/power".

Or something to that effect at the very least. The idea of a society with either absolute personal, or absolute collective sovereignty seems hellish to me. And probably unworkable to boot!

There seems to me a tendency in the history of societies for these two types of power to dance either side of equilibrium as the real power struggle unfolds i.e. between reigning establishment and challenger power groups/paradigms.

Right now the establishment is both economic and governmental. The corruption is mutually supporting. Corporations buy and control governments, governments facilitate corporations ruling the market and continuing to be able to buy them.

The circle jerk @blankfist IMHO is between government and private dynasty and moreover I strongly believe that in a vacuum, one will always create the other.

Pure collectivism will naturally breed an individualist challenger and visa versa.

People are at their best I think when balancing self interest and altruism. Too much of either tends to hurt others around you and diminish ones capacity to grow and adapt. (being nice is no good if you lack the will and capacity to get shit done)

It seems natural that the ideal way of organising society would always balance collective state power, with private personal power.

Libertarianism (even the superior non anarchist version) defangs the state too much IMHO. Some collectivist projects such as education, scientific research and exploration I think tend to be better served by public direction. But more importantly I expect the state to referee the market, just as I expect public transparency to referee the state.

Total crowbar separation between the three: public officials cannot legally own or control private wealth and cannot live above standard of their poorest citizens. Private citizens cannot inherit wealth legally, only earn and create it. The state cannot legally hold any secret or perform any function of government outside public view unless it is to prepare sensitive legal proceedings (which must then be disclosed in full when actioned).

In the age of global communications this kind of transparency may for the first time be a workable solution (it's already near impossible to keep a lid on most political scandals and this is very early days). There is also the possibility of a steadily de-monetised market as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing production models start to become more advanced and practical than traditional market dynamics. e.g. kickstarter style collective investment in place of classical entrepreneurial investment.

The benefits and dangers of both capitalism and socialism here would be trending towards diffusion amongst the populace.

And then there's the whole Meritocracy vs Democracy thing, but that's really getting into another topic and I've probably already gone on too long now.

Much love

Oh, and Silicon Valley will probably be closer to a meritocracy once it does away with IP laws.

> "dividing large jurisdictions into many smaller jurisdictions would be a drain on commerce"

I don't think this is necessarily so. Both ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy prospered due to multiplicity of competing city-states. The more the competition between states, the more they will have to lower taxes and make the environment business-friendly. It creates a meritocracy as those states that fail to attract "clients," citizens and businesses will not survive. Small states make it very easy to do business with them, as in for example, Singapore, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Bahamas, etc. Small jurisdictions adapt their laws to make it easy to do business with them from abroad. Only big ones, like the US, make it a hassle to deal with from outside the country.

A free market society is as close to a meritocracy as you can get.

In a free market you can only really do well by providing goods and services that others want.

A common legal framework comes from commonality of culture, not from state control. And cultures adapt to each other for purposes of commerce.

Let commerce operate freely and people will find a way to adapt legal protections for successful and peaceful commerce. A small jurisdiction that "rips off" foreign business partners will find itself very quickly with no business partners and.being small, have a hard time surviving. Out of self preservation they will want to be trustworthy for others to want to do commerce with them.

And what you just said was relevant to anything other than your own narrow preconceived notions of what is or is not a worthwhile use of someone's time and property?

What I was doing was taking your initial argument and demonstrating the absurdity at it's core by extrapolating it's logical consequences. This is what one does when one has been taught to argue at a level beyond pre-school debating classes. I haven't just "read some Chomsky" I have spent my entire academic career studying Philosophy and linguistics/rhetoric.

Chomsky and I actually disagree on many things & frankly the fact you would choose him and not say Jacques Fresco, Jean Jacques Rousseau or Slavoj Zizek etc. with whom my beliefs have a much greater affinity suggest that you yourself have a paper thin grounding in the political and philosophical subjects you are trying to pull me up on. (and to be clear I don't fully agree with any of those people either, my political philosophy is based upon my own conclusions built up over years of study and consideration)


So lets be clear, generating $7000 of income is to you a pointless activity? (a point you have consistently refused to acknowledge as it undermines your entire argument). What about trying to entertain people? Are all attempts at comedy fruitless because they didn't make YOU laugh?

"Immature", "funny" and "necessary" are all highly subjective concepts.

Clearly YOU didn't find it funny, others (about 7 fucking million in fact!) did.

Clearly YOU thought the video creator lacked maturity, plenty of people would regard his sense of timing, context and dare I say it low level satire as indicative of a potentially very mature and cognicent individual. (not saying he is but the evidence supports either notion)

But most of all NOTHING in the universe is demonstrably necessary, not even the universe itself. The very concept of necessity or usefulness is entirely subjective in it's nature. We as humans invented it, nature has no such qualms, it simply exists and continues to do so (unless you wan't to bring God into this at which point my eyes will likely glaze over).

This did start as your observation regarding the "pointless" destruction of a phone, an observation I was suggesting had it's basis in little more than your own narrow preconceptions about what is and is not a laudable use of ones time and resources.

The point about other evils in the world was an (unsuccessful) attempt to point out the absurdity of getting your knickers in a twist about something so trivial it's almost funny. What you consider a serious problem on the global level specifically is less important than the simple fact that this dude smashing up a phone is utterly negligible by comparison to virtually anything one might care to mention. The best counter you have here far as I can see is to suggest that everything is pointless/subjective which would naturally be totally self defeating. (or to backtrack and redefine your position as one of mere distaste and aesthetic preference rather than an objective truth as you did)

Maybe your a Randist or an anarcho-capitalist or something. That's fine and while I might disagree with the premise of those positions their proponents would support my core notion just the same. i.e. getting angry and this dude smashing up his phone is by a country mile the most inconsequential and asinine point of contention in this whole discussion.


Also to be clear, I utterly reject the entire notion of the left/right wing paradigm and you're attempt to once again put my argument in a box of your own design (i.e. straw man again) is not going to work.

I'm not anti capitalist I'm anti Nepotism and Cronyism. My own ideas about how to fix the world involve both capitalist and socialist principles (along with replacing "democracy" with "meritocracy"). If you had enquired further rather than just generalising my suggestions into a straw man to support your own argument you may have had the opportunity to realise this and engage with the ideas intellectually (rather than as a reactionary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Learn to think critically instead of dressing up your own prejudices as objective facts (and attacking the arguer instead of the argument itself).

Some might consider an inability to separate subjective preconceptions from objective facts a far greater sign of immaturity. One of the reasons children are considered immature is because they cannot tell or control where their own Ego stops and other peoples begin. (though naturally this is itself a subjective notion and should probably never be defined as an objective truth either)

I don't expect you to respond like a Harvard professor but please at least engage with the content of the argument rather than painting me into a box and trying to assassinate my character. I'm sure you're probably a reasonably intelligent person and I'm always happy to back down or take back arguments if I'm presented with a well thought out reason why I might be wrong etc.

Ahh the "libertarian" shows his true colors.

For someone accusing me of a strawman, you seem to make some pretty good strawmen yourself.

Never claimed to live in a democratic utopia. Actually working pretty good as 200 years of history is showing. Sure we have problems, no one ever claimed we didn't. Far better than your utopia of a corporate totalitarian meritocracy where morality is apparently found in profit motive. Sorry, but the jury is has been out on the whole democracy vs plutocracy for some time. Sorry that you didn't get the memo.

You really have a problem with Obama personally? Then join the birther nutters and work towards convincing your congress people to impeach him. There are multitude of ways to effect change. The problem...and the beauty of that is that it requires somewhat of a consensus. not outliers filled with paranoia and hate.

hows making stupid one-note charlie submissions to VS working out for you as an agent of change eh?

Don't like your options? then you have yet ANOTHER option, there are plenty of other countries to choose from, pick one of them.

Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way. I got no time for armchair quarterbacks who would probably wet themselves if they actually had to make any tough decisions.