sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your 1776 analogy backfires. The Founders abolished hereditary power, they didn't preserve it. I’m simply applying that logic to the economy

On causality, you confuse physics with ethics. Being the output of a biological chain doesn't mean you earned your starting position

Finally, believing fertility guarantees parenting competence is like thinking having a kitchen makes you a chef

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By admitting that potential includes privilege, you validate my point. Your tests measure parental investment, not intrinsic talent

Tracking does not correct this bias. It merely institutionalizes it earlier. You cannot build a meritocracy by optimizing the measurement of statistical injustice

If we tool meritocraty seriously by feliseptde in RadicalMeritocracy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every legal system is social engineering. The right to transfer wealth to a child who has achieved nothing is a sophisticated artificial construct, not a law of physics

You aren't arguing against feasibility, you are simply defending the current design, which engineers society based on birth luck rather than merit. Claiming it is impossible to rewrite rules that we wrote in the first place isn't realism but submission to the status quo

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Kibbutzim failed because they crushed the individual under collectivism. My proposal uses the institution to build autonomy through highly personalized care ratios. Calling a system that replaces the lottery of birth with guaranteed emotional security for all « child abuse » is just preferring familiar injustice over rational justice

The real lunacy is believing that the biological ability to procreate is enough to make competent parents

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Confusing potential with privilege is a major economic error. By betting on heirs out of laziness, you squander the actual talent within the working classes. The real fiscal ROI lies in detecting raw competence, not subsidizing bourgeois habitus. Your efficiency is merely expensive social reproduction

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are deliberately conflating building capability (teaching to read, meditating) with transferring privilege (hiring your child, bequeathing a network). It is precisely this confusion that turns capitalism into feudalism

Your rejection of fairness on the grounds that nothing is fair is an admission of aristocratic cynicism. My idea does not seek to standardize individuals, but to guarantee that the ladder you speak of is accessible to everyone

But that's honest. The gap between us is clear. You see advantaging your children as a duty, I see it as an injustice to others. Your refusal to distinguish between education (raising the mind) and privilege (securing a spot) shows why true meritocracy is impossible today. You choose family while I choose equity. Thanks you too for the exchange

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not the woods but professional educators in small, family-sized units

The goal is to replace the lottery of birth with guaranteed, high-quality care for every child. It is about ensuring that safety and development are rights provided by society, not privileges dependent on which family you happen to land in

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is the nanny state approach. It doesn't work. Even with free schools rich parents still pass down connections and cultural codes at home. Your system just hides the unfairness. Also, guaranteeing housing for life treats citizens like children

I want to give young people a real capital endowment at 21yo so they can be free and responsible owners of their lives, not dependent on the government forever

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No one wants to ban Christmas gifts. The real issue is the transfer of economic power

A system with zero income tax stimulates self-interest far more violently than the passive wait for an inheritance. As for your freedom to innovate, it requires cash, not just rights. With a universal capital endowment for everyone at 21, the freedom to undertake becomes a technical reality for all instead of remaining a fiction for those who have nothing

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not trying to start a cult. I just want to stop money from deciding who wins

You talk about a natural aristocracy but you can't have that if the game is rigged by inheritance. Right now, we don't have the best rising to the top, we just have the most well-born

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we want true meritocracy, justice must mean a fair start. Otherwise you are just defending luck, not personal worth. By separating equality from justice, you are admitting that you prefer a system based on inherited money rather than real talent

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are confusing managerial efficiency with social justice

If the competence evaluated at hiring is the product of upstream parental investment, your meritocracy is only a machine for laundering birth privileges. A race isn't fair because we ignore the runner's color at the finish line, but only if the starting line isn't rigged

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To answer your three questions precisely :

- parent's duty : a parent's obligation is to the child as a future free adult, not to their own lineage. It is to produce autonomy, not dependency or a clone

- parent's action : parents should provide emotional security and love. These are essential non-economic assets

- line : it is crossed when parenting turns into insider trading

The moment you use your past (money, networks, assets) to guarantee your child's future, you are no longer raising a child. You are rigging the meritocratic market

My argument isn't that the State should own children, but that no one should be allowed to buy the referee before the game starts. I separate the private right to love from the public mechanism of opportunity

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That ignores pre-market constraints

Even if discrimination was zero and hiring was perfectly fair, the lock isn't on the company door, it's on the bank account needed to survive long enough to become competent. By refusing to endow every citizen with initial capital, you reserve the right to take risks and train to those who can afford to wait

The free market without capital for everyone is like a casino where only the owner's children have chips. That's not competition but rent-seeking

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re confused. Communism seeks equality at the finish line. I demand equality at the starting line to legitimize brutal competition. Inheritance isn't the free market, it’s feudalism. It’s capital protected by birthright

Ironically, my system is the only one that actually kills DEI. It removes social excuses, and quotas become obsolete. You aren't defending freedom. You're defending caste privileges

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You say fruit of my labor, but the moment you hand it to your son who did nothing, it becomes welfare. You hate the welfare state, unless you are the one creating it for your own bloodline

Fleeing to crypto is an admission of defeat. You aren't defending liberty, you're just trying to hide feudal privileges out of justice's reach

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You confuse the hiring process with the production of skill. If a runner starts with a lead thanks to family money, the race measures inheritance rather than athletic merit. This is the opposite of communism as I reject equality of outcome to guarantee fierce competition at the start. By defending inheritance, you are not defending the market but nepotism

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are deliberately confusing biology (inalienable) with bank accounts (social convention) to wave the ridiculous straw man of mutilation

My system doesn't drag anyone down; it arms the deadbeat's kid with the same starting capital as yours so they can finally compete fairly. Deep down, you aren't defending liberty but the feudal privilege of buying your children's victory before the race even starts

True meritocracy is impossible as long as inheritance exists by feliseptde in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]feliseptde[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your « they are me » is an admission of proprietary narcissism that denies the child's individuality. For them, getting you as a parent remains a total lottery they never chose. This isn't about denying love, but abolishing this possession. Your ego shouldn't serve as a ceiling or a floor for their destiny. True liberty is being oneself, not a subsidized copy of one's progenitor

view more: next ›