Posted on 04/22/2015 12:28:23 PM PDT by rightistight
In a stunning display of not knowing what words mean, self-described feminist professor Elizabeth R. Upton has declared that a government run by people of merit who are competent and able to handle difficult situations is actually one of the worst forms of government.
Dr. Upton posted on her Twitter profile (by retweeting another college professor, Dr. Adam Kotsko) that the "Second worst utopia" is "a pure meritocracy," asking, "Do we really want to be ruled by people who believe they *deserve* to rule over us?"
Dictionary.com defines "meritocracy" as "an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth." In other words, people who are able and competent run a government or company based on their ability to do so effectively, not because of other factors, such as birth or wealth.
It also does not say that people in a meritocracy feel that "they deserve to rule over us." That's not even part of a definition of a meritocracy; indeed, a true meritocracy is one in which the most competent lead, not necessarily those who want power. Again, somehow this basic knowledge misses both Dr. Upton and Dr. Kotsko.
The professor believes that merit is not the way to go. According to her and Dr. Kotsko, a government run by competent people is the "second worst" form of "utopia," with the very worst being one that is run with a "truly competitive market."
(Excerpt) Read more at thepunditpress.com ...
I checked at the website, and the definition is quoted correctly. However, it is full of crap.
The word "elite" is the issue. If one has to be elite to be in a meritocracy, then it isn't based on ability or talent.
Merriam-Webster online puts the lie to Dictionary.com. It defines meritocracy as:
a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
I wonder what the stupid agenda of Dictionary.com is?
She ought to think our current government is one of the best.
Adam Kotsko @adamkotsko · Apr 18So because he thinks the only way to make money from the internet is to steal other peoples stuff, he's just going to go big and have the government steal every internet company. If the government doesn't want you to find it it will disappear. So Benghazi can just go down the memory hole and be erased from every map.
The only profitable online business model is to "aggregate" (i.e., steal) other people's content and collect economic rents.Adam Kotsko @adamkotsko · Apr 18
My first act as dictator will therefore be to nationalize Google et al. and make the internet a pure public utility.
If the worst form of government is that of able people, we need not worry . Politics and government attract the very worst.
Sounded bad? The first time she heard the word meritocracy, she did not know what it meant and was thus threatened with violence as she ran to the nearest safe space.
Personally, I’m partial to a govt run by a wise, benevolent dictator.
Of course, short of the coming reign of the Lord Jesus, I don’t expect my requirements to be met; so I guess I’ll take the 2nd best: a representative republic
Actually, she’s right. Government by the “competent” by “experts” invariably means government by charlatans who define themselves to be competent and expert, just like government by noblemen invariably devolved into government by folks who exhibited no nobility whatsoever.
She’s a bit late to the party. William F. Buckley, Jr. expressed the same sentiment with his remark that he would prefer being governed by the first 1000 people listed in the Boston phone book to being governed by the faculty of Harvard.
Plato wrote that the ideal model for a society would be a three tiered system. The elite would be the the smartest and the wealthiest. The middle would be the mercenaries. And the bottom would be the masses.The elite would be those that thought that they deserved to be in control, and would use kings, presidents, and clergy, and their armies to control and dominate the masses.The masses believed that the lie that they needed the elites to protect them, so accept being controlled.
Agreed.
My first thought was of Buckley’s comments when I first read this post.
Interesting how things come full circle.
And even worse than being governed by people who think they deserve to govern (ie, most leftist politicians),
those who think that they can and do know what’s best for everyone else,
because they’ll tyrannize with a clear conscience.
Students should have an academic bill of rights:
-any professor who demonstrates rampant anti-intellectual bias shall permit the student to withdraw from the class WITHOUT PENALTY to any academic standing of the student.
-student have the absolute right to record their classes.
-professors may not mandate useless textbooks in order to sell books they have a financial interest in promoting.
etc
So if the professor is so against “meritocracy”, then I’m sure she’s against “tenure”.
She’s an idiot who couldn’t get a better job than burger flipping in a real meritocracy, so she has designed some hocus-pocus theory to show that people like her are better than people who can actually do something.
I’m sure she’s pleased with the current bunch then.
More specifically, people with names like Abdullah or Al-something or other. This was not the case when AND wrote that down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.