The Illusive Panacea of Meritocracy

Ever wonder why certain people hate Socialism? Probably not. Ever wonder why certain people hate capitalism? Probably not. Have you ever heard the complaint that those systems are unfair? Of course. Okay, so none of this is earth shattering, but there is a common thread that creates disdain? It is the idea of "deserving."

Since the time we were five years old our parents, teachers, storybooks, literary pieces, the movies we watched and our interactions with friends in the school yard all centered around "getting what one deserved." Why do we form lines? It's not because it is the best system for each person individually regardless of their place in the line, but it compliments a system of agreed upon fairness. We believe that first come, first served is fair. That those who are first shall be served first because their timeliness shall be rewarded. They deserve it.

We just as easily could have created a system where the tallest person in line shall always go first. The problem is that if someone is really short they could be waiting for a really long time. They could theoretically be helped after people that arrived much later than them but made the line before they were helped. That just wouldn't be fair would it? The tall people didn't do anything to deserve to be helped first. In fact a system like that would become hard to enforce as short people would be likely to opt out of lines all together and base who is served next on other criteria such as violence, intimidation or "cutsies."

In fact, allowing someone to benefit for something they had no control over would be deemed in the same family as dumb luck. That sure isn't a flattering statement. Luck is receiving something by chance, something one doesn't deserve. Undeserved achievement is so unflattering that one of its recipients may say "better lucky than good," or even more austencious "people create their own luck" to deflect the resulting stigma.

So we have been taught esoteric concepts such as karma, what goes around comes around and someday we all get what we deserve. Is it true? In socialism, their is a tremendous tendency for "free riderism," where individuals can get something they do not deserve. This absolutely burns many who feel like they are getting exactly what they deserve and nothing more. How dare someone get something they don't deserve? In fact, many people are so concerned with who deserves what, that they really don't care if they are getting more than they deserve so long as no one else is. That wouldn't be fair.

In capitalism, often times people condition wealth or monetary success with how deserving the person who possess it. Self made millionaires are far higher regarded than those who inherited money. Those with inherited wealth must "do something" to make a name for themselves or else they are seen as a waste. Smart people stay poor and dumb people rich all the time. While this is not a correlation that we see to be common, it is also not an isolated incident. We all sleep better when the good ones, who deserve it, have good things happen to them. Too bad that this system isn't as correlated as we expect?

Many of the wealthy are born wealthy. They are literally starting the game ahead in the score. Some get lucky and some unlucky. At times, good "deserving" people lose wealth, jobs and stature. At times, people of poor quality gain wealth and prosperity. The reason; capitalism doesn't judge, it rewards much like the polls for an election. When a person exchanges dollars for a good, service or opportunity it is given instead of that dollar being given to another for a good, service or opportunity. It's literally voting with money. It's democracy for commerce, the winner attracts the most dollars. As such, popularity, appearance, timing, feasibility, communicability, connections, access to markets, marketing, perception and momentum are usually the factors with the most magnetic effect with dollars.

Sometimes, that recipient is also a deserving person who worked hard, showed brilliance, was ambitious and withstood great obstacles to achieve. We love these stories because like being first in line, this person used what is generally available to all to succeed- they deserved it. Sometimes, the person got very lucky and was in the right place at the right time. Not bad, but we condition their success. Sometimes, the recipient didm't earn the money used, committed none of the brain power, and achieved on the back of others. Just like the tall people and the free riders, these people are scorned. The deserved, the lucky and the undeserving all get the same result in the accumulation of societal claim checks (or currency), but we don't have the same feeling.

That is why the meritocracy looks so great. In a meritocracy everyone gets exactly what one deserves. However, who is to decide what we deserve? How do we create such a system? What criteria would we use? I guess the root of our frustrations are easy to identify, but beyond our ability to rectify. The humerous part is how something so inherent in our nature is so difficult to attain.

The When, Where and Why of Government Involvement in Commerce

When Republicans are in power, the cry of the people is that the government is denying us our freedom and interfering by playing favorites. When the Democrats are in power, the cry of the people is that the government is denying us our freedom and interfering by playing favorites.  While neither party will constructively work  along side the party in power in fear that good government will lead to the reelection of their nemesis,  American citizens drown in rhetoric and double speak from both parties about what good government looks like. Regardless of one's political affiliation, this blog attempts to engage readers with the logical, not partisan, discussion of what is necessary government involvement in commerce.

First, let us start with an irrefutable fact of the order of operations.  Government is the first step in economic activity.  Government is necessary to provide at a bare minimum: property rights, police protection, infrastructure and recognized mediums of exchange, or currency.  Yes, I am aware that many anti-establishment Locke Liberals and libertarians would argue against the last two, but in our current developed state these two are enough established to be considered necessities of commerce (i.e. roads, electricity, water, etc.)  They are essential because without any of them, commerce would subside as a matter of natural progression from its current state. 

What levels of commerce would we have if one could take property from another by force?  If there were no roads?  If the electricity was not delivered? If agreements were not binding or valid? If we had to barter with goods to make a purchase?  Certainly not an economy the size, strength and complexity as ours.  Whether it is good or bad, it's where we are at. 

So, the right question is not where government involvement should or should not be, but rather how far should government go?   In a credit based economy, like ours, the government speaks for and develops the value of the assets in our economy (i.e. the government borrows notes from the Federal Reserve, or dollars, at a rate if interest in exchange for true "dollars" that the Fed holds as collateral along with all assets held within the Country).  Oh by the way, for those of you conspiracy theorists, the same is done by many States with Motor Vehicles ( A state takes a manufacturers' "statement of origin" from the maker of the vehicle and in exchange delivers a "title," or license for use, and the ability of that vehicle to be used within that State through the process of registration.  As a result, that State then issues a Driver's License so that it has jurisdiction over the driving patterns of the user thereby controlling the licensee, or "owner," to use that " registered motor vehicle" on their publicly owned streets and highways.  But I digress.

The simple answer is that the proper role of government in commerce is the amount necessary for commerce to "work."  By work, I mean that citizens can effectively participate in the money multiplier and achieve, or reasonably believe that they can achieve, their personal goals and happiness.  This ability, or  at a minimum the belief in this ability, allows the society to function in a peaceful manner as its citizens have an outlet to achieve there desires, or work.  After all, and I recognize people who quote the Declaration of Independence as an authoritative document are annoying, the point of America is the right to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness," right.  The key is for people to have the freedom of the pursuit, that's right THE PURSUIT, of happiness.

In closing, I recognize that the Declaration of Independence is not authoritative in nature.  That said it carries persuasive authority into the intent of our Founders.  Government's role in commerce is the creation and maintenance of channels for commerce so that Citizens can access and thrive in that system.  The government is there to provide and maintain the artery, so that the heart, or private commerce, can pump blood and that blood can freely flow without blockage or interference.  The artery must be maintained though, to maintain its shape so that blood doesn't spurt every where thereby killing the body; as well as, ensuring clear passage.  Further, the artery is to be for the benefit of one's own body.  Should the artery be ruptured, by outside attack or internal disruption, its integrity must be put back in tact to ensure survival of the being.  That said, at no time shall the artery be altered outside its purpose of a conduit and shall never alter the course of which platelets cross its path.  

Now that it is defined in theory, I let you decide the application of this framework in practice.