One of the most weird things that I experience every day is that my views are considered ‘controversial’. I find this a hilarious reflection on how mad society has become. I want maths teachers to teach maths, history teachers to teach history, literature teachers to educate children about the best writers, poets and playwrights.
I agree with you. However, you say "I want politicians to implement the democratic wishes of the people of this country, even when I don't personally agree with them". What if democratic wishes of the majority is the opposite to what you want? even though those wishes were put in their minds by manipulating of statistics, science and reality? Most vivid example is that majority of russian people want Ukraine be wiped out from the face of the Earth.
“ I want an absolute meritocracy. Hard work, dedication and talent must always be rewarded. If you are lazy, don't apply yourself or aren't contributing, you don't deserve to be rewarded as much as people who work their arse off.”
“Absolute meritocracy” would actually mean a 100% inheritance tax and giving equal opportunities with policy like the abolition of private schooling and free higher education. But clearly these aren’t policies you would support. So tell me, how can we ever have an “absolute meritocracy” while some start the race at the half way line, and millions barely even get out of the gates.
I also agree with you. Our decades of 'stability' and the good life are gone for now. We're entering unknown territory, as most of our leaders are not suited for the job, and too many of the general public are listening to the sound bites and those who scream the loudest. I'm grateful that blogs, substacks and YouTube are available for an alternative source of views.
"Russia is not a democracy. If it were, this wouldn't be happening." (Konstantin Kisin)
This statement begs the question; 'Then why is it happening in West?'
And the implication is that 'the West' is no longer, in any meaningful sense, a democracy.
Which begs the next question: 'Why not, if we can still vote for our leaders?'
The answer, I believe, lies in the nature of our technologies which have been shaped by an untrammelled materialist world view. And I think Iain McGilchrist's thesis might come in here. That the left hemisphere of the human brain has revolutionized the world in its own image.
I agree with most of what you say. However, meritocracy is great if everyone has equal opportunity. Child born in an Appalachian shack does not have the same opportunity as one born to a wealthy family. It’s like running a 100-yard race against an opponent who is starting 50 yards ahead. You can both run as fast as you can on your physical “merit,” but the person starting 50 yards ahead will win.
well drafted, a black and white draft which could never survive the today's tainted society. An excellent starting point if North America could re-wind its clock to the 17th century... .
"The foremost challenge to the above is the sensational lust for wealth and power". We must review history to confirm this statement.
Alas, it is a starting point which our forefathers drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights to define and tune the Rules of America to evolve.
America was greatly influenced by the England's government structure of it's Laws and Procedures to use as a basis to draft our government's structure.
And with it came Colonialism less a Monarchy which was indeed most rare at the time.
Service the peoples' best interest is the common Goal.. not the few at the expense of the many.
Jefferson and other's felt that a country should consider altering its' rules and direction to adjust to the times to ensure the peoples continual alignment to the whole American way of life.
Seems like some folks don’t understand Equality of Opportunity is different than Equality of Outcomes. Also appears people believe people in poverty cannot rise above their station, which we know is complete B.S.
The "radical moderate" manifesto's call for an "absolute meritocracy" is inconsistent with its call for equality, as meritocracy implies that some are inherently better and deserve more rewards, while equality means treating everyone the same.
It also calls for minimal government intervention, yet true meritocracy would require significant government intervention to ensure fair distribution of resources and fair evaluation of individuals.
This manifesto is a hodgepodge of contradictory ideas.
The Radical Moderate's Manifesto
I agree with you. However, you say "I want politicians to implement the democratic wishes of the people of this country, even when I don't personally agree with them". What if democratic wishes of the majority is the opposite to what you want? even though those wishes were put in their minds by manipulating of statistics, science and reality? Most vivid example is that majority of russian people want Ukraine be wiped out from the face of the Earth.
Exactly!!!
Brilliant. Thank you
“ I want an absolute meritocracy. Hard work, dedication and talent must always be rewarded. If you are lazy, don't apply yourself or aren't contributing, you don't deserve to be rewarded as much as people who work their arse off.”
“Absolute meritocracy” would actually mean a 100% inheritance tax and giving equal opportunities with policy like the abolition of private schooling and free higher education. But clearly these aren’t policies you would support. So tell me, how can we ever have an “absolute meritocracy” while some start the race at the half way line, and millions barely even get out of the gates.
I also agree with you. Our decades of 'stability' and the good life are gone for now. We're entering unknown territory, as most of our leaders are not suited for the job, and too many of the general public are listening to the sound bites and those who scream the loudest. I'm grateful that blogs, substacks and YouTube are available for an alternative source of views.
Stunning! Brilliant! Spectacular!
Thank you, Konstantine.
"Russia is not a democracy. If it were, this wouldn't be happening." (Konstantin Kisin)
This statement begs the question; 'Then why is it happening in West?'
And the implication is that 'the West' is no longer, in any meaningful sense, a democracy.
Which begs the next question: 'Why not, if we can still vote for our leaders?'
The answer, I believe, lies in the nature of our technologies which have been shaped by an untrammelled materialist world view. And I think Iain McGilchrist's thesis might come in here. That the left hemisphere of the human brain has revolutionized the world in its own image.
In a nutshell.
Agree but think we need to be off planet to achieve
Oh, if only a political party would make that their manifesto!
I agree with most of what you say. However, meritocracy is great if everyone has equal opportunity. Child born in an Appalachian shack does not have the same opportunity as one born to a wealthy family. It’s like running a 100-yard race against an opponent who is starting 50 yards ahead. You can both run as fast as you can on your physical “merit,” but the person starting 50 yards ahead will win.
well drafted, a black and white draft which could never survive the today's tainted society. An excellent starting point if North America could re-wind its clock to the 17th century... .
"The foremost challenge to the above is the sensational lust for wealth and power". We must review history to confirm this statement.
Alas, it is a starting point which our forefathers drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights to define and tune the Rules of America to evolve.
America was greatly influenced by the England's government structure of it's Laws and Procedures to use as a basis to draft our government's structure.
And with it came Colonialism less a Monarchy which was indeed most rare at the time.
Service the peoples' best interest is the common Goal.. not the few at the expense of the many.
Jefferson and other's felt that a country should consider altering its' rules and direction to adjust to the times to ensure the peoples continual alignment to the whole American way of life.
End
Seems like some folks don’t understand Equality of Opportunity is different than Equality of Outcomes. Also appears people believe people in poverty cannot rise above their station, which we know is complete B.S.
Totally agree with your wants & concerns.
The commitment to the last paragraph is the reason you can't have any of the rest.
The "radical moderate" manifesto's call for an "absolute meritocracy" is inconsistent with its call for equality, as meritocracy implies that some are inherently better and deserve more rewards, while equality means treating everyone the same.
It also calls for minimal government intervention, yet true meritocracy would require significant government intervention to ensure fair distribution of resources and fair evaluation of individuals.
This manifesto is a hodgepodge of contradictory ideas.