Concerned For Our Response To Politics

[MMurphy]

The reason why the turn out rate is so low is because when you vote for a president the parties themselves have limited your choices to start.

Most decent candidates cannot run unless they have support by one of the two ruling parties they will not get on the ballot.

So that means you're down to just the elites from the two party system.

Then after those are selected, they receive money to run and if they do not have enough no one can vote on them.

So again less opportunity to get a decent candidate.

Also many states only allow you to vote the two parties in primaries.

By the time the general comes, you have no on but the same two beasts that have been pushed forward from the start.

So WHY vote?

The system is broken.

I'll support you 100% on electoral reform, but if you think for a moment that revolution would be either easier than political action... wow. No, electoral reform fails because our voters are stubborn and do not like to admit that the US Constitution does not create the greatest political system in world history. We don't like to admit that the Federal system worked in 1789, but now we need a central government that can work more effectively.

Believe me, I know that the electoral system is screwed-up, but the elections are still fair, free and frequent so there's no excuse for not voting.

 

[Dave Lucas]

I'll support you 100% on electoral reform, but if you think for a moment that revolution would be either easier than political action... wow. No, electoral reform fails because our voters are stubborn and do not like to admit that the US Constitution does not create the greatest political system in world history. We don't like to admit that the Federal system worked in 1789, but now we need a central government that can work more effectively.

Believe me, I know that the electoral system is screwed-up, but the elections are still fair, free and frequent so there's no excuse for not voting.

The electoral college is another blight. Created solely for curbing the popular vote.

The caucuses are made for the two party system to remain in power.

The whole system is terrible. Good people cannot run, only the career politicians.

When they leave office they become part of pacts that keep the powers that be in power.

Whole thing needs to be scrapped.

Need to move to a meritocracy.

 

[MMurphy]

The electoral college is another blight. Created solely for curbing the popular vote.

The caucuses are made for the two party system to remain in power.

The whole system is terrible. Good people cannot run, only the career politicians.

When they leave office they become part of pacts that keep the powers that be in power.

Whole thing needs to be scrapped.

Need to move to a meritocracy.

Even worse than that, the electoral college was implemented to perpetuate slavery!

 

[KingJ]

See... First and foremost.. Our leaders have sworn to defend our "Nation" against enemies - foreign and domestic....

When we support violent revolution - we become an "Enemy" of the civil authorities.... At this point, they are required to destroy us....
And don't fool yourself about being active in large "Protest" movements.... You get put on watch lists... because they know that at some point - Protests turn violent....

Now... On "Anti-Immorality Rallies".... see... being AGAINST immorality is not the same thing as being FOR Christ.... Remember the "Success" of Temperance and it's associated Constitutional amendment.... That was a complete catastrophe - and it gave Churches a bad black eye and ruined the lives of many good people - they made their stand holding firm on the Traditions of Men, associating Legalism with Virtue, rather than focusing on the Gospel of Jesus....

See... That's why the Gospel and Message of Christ is so unique.... Our enemy is NOT the civil authorities and we need to remember this....

Its a very difficult subject this. On one hand I agree with you!!! On the other I don't. We need to love all and lead them with love...but at the same time not bend over too much.

 

[KingJ]

How can you start a revolution when the NFL season is just starting? I mean, get real. Where are your priorities?

 

[Alang]

Im concerned too OP. Iraq is currently pretty much extinct of every Christian thanks to ISIS. They just burned an 1800 year old Church in the city of Mosul. The last Christians have left Mosul, after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) gave them a choice between conversion to Islam, ruinous taxation, exile, or death. They're hiding in mountains now but ISIS finding a lot of them and beheading them .... even the Children..... I wonder when America will be in this situation... =/

 

[naomanos]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~Declaration of Independence

 

[JohnC]

Im concerned too OP. Iraq is currently pretty much extinct of every Christian thanks to ISIS. ..... I wonder when America will be in this situation... =/

Unfortunately, most of the American Church is absent....

I decided to donate some money to help the Iraqi Christians displaced by Isis.... Thought my church would be interested in taking up an offering to augment the money I am donating.... Or even announcing it so others could donate if they wanted....

Nope, not interested.... We don't really do that sort of thing....

This broke my heart.... It's straight out of James 2....
It's no good to just tell them - Depart in peace. Be warmed and be fed...

 

[Dave Lucas]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~Declaration of Independence

I doubt we would see a revolution as the present system uses the same tactics Rome did.

Bread and circuses.

 

[Dave Lucas]

Unfortunately, most of the American Church is absent....

I decided to donate some money to help the Iraqi Christians displaced by Isis.... Thought my church would be interested in taking up an offering to augment the money I am donating.... Or even announcing it so others could donate if they wanted....

Nope, not interested.... We don't really do that sort of thing....

This broke my heart.... It's straight out of James 2....
It's no good to just tell them - Depart in peace. Be warmed and be fed...

Most American churches would send money to foreign nations but will leave their own citizens to rot.

 

[naomanos]

I doubt we would see a revolution as the present system uses the same tactics Rome did.

Bread and circuses.

I agree with you, but as someone who receives government assistance in the form of foodstamps, my daughter's medicaid and my wife's medicare and medicaid (remember I am my wife's full-time caregiver), I'm not sure I would want a revolution to occur.

I only posted what I did to show that it is written that we do have the power to overthrow the government based on the criteria set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Alang]

Unfortunately, most of the American Church is absent....

I decided to donate some money to help the Iraqi Christians displaced by Isis.... Thought my church would be interested in taking up an offering to augment the money I am donating.... Or even announcing it so others could donate if they wanted....

Nope, not interested.... We don't really do that sort of thing....

This broke my heart.... It's straight out of James 2....
It's no good to just tell them - Depart in peace. Be warmed and be fed...

Thats sad my church is Greek orthodox and we donate to Syria all the time ...I wonder why they say "they dont do that sort of thing" at least your heart is in the right place.

 

[Great Fiction]

I must agree that your caveat to eschew violence comes from a place of scriptural wisdom, yet may I ask; “What criterion must exist to justify a revolution, or is all revolutionary activity unjust?”
Can there be a moral and just premise for a society to defend itself from a despotic hellion in power, or should society remain passive to complete destruction? Yet also, what of secular society versus the Body of Christ, are ethical requirements the same, and what rules will differentiate, if any?

So... 2 separate questions... I will leave the question of the moral responsibility for Secular revolution out of the discussion.... I have no desire to plow that ground here....
So... The responsibility for the Christian who is obedient to God..... Our SCRIPTURAL responsibility....
We have THE RESPONSIBILITY to defend our Inheritance..... Our God Given Inheritance.....
So... 2 questions....
Where is our inheritance?
What specifically does "Defending our Inheritance" consist of to a Christian....

I sense a loving spirit in your answers, yet may I be allowed to persist harmlessly to antagonize for clarification? You mention our blessed eternal inheritance, then offering me two questions instead of two answers. For clarification are you saying then that defending our spiritual inheritance abandons all possibility of a physical revolution?

If so what ethics from scripture defend that position?

If its tolerated what ethics support it and under what conditions if any?

I can agree with you that defending our “eternal inheritance” moves us all to proper focus in scripture where our missions move to spiritual aggression against demonic wickedness; for in contrast the arbitrary violence of men in the natural will embrace the very evil we are commissioned in scripture to repel using love.

Yet we also live in this natural world and “ethics” is of dire importance when despotism permeates to slaughter the innocent. If “ethics” from scripture matter then actions matter. If actions matter, then to specificity the Christian is strategic to promote “ethical action” as it is his or her Christian duty. Thus if you condemn “a natural revolution in all cases” but without clarification, and then avoid defining what is "good specific action” based on “ethical rules,” then how must one differentiate “good or evil action" coming from scripture when evil despotism shreds the innocent to pieces?

Thus can you break down “grounds” or better yet “ethics” from scripture that will support when or if a revolution in the natural is warranted “morally” when despotism is shredding the innocent with vicious violence to the body?

What is the “ethical” position in scripture for self-defense or is there one? Are the rules the same for society as for the individual, and then also to threaded specificity, are the rules the same for the individual Christian and Body of Christ at large?
Are not ethical rules of engagement complex from scripture and can it be that application is most critical?

The Ethical question applies to Defense of your Inheritance.... Israel was granted an Inheritance - and Israel was responsible before God for claiming and holding that inheritance... There were Conditions - Military obedience, Civil obedience, and Spiritual obedience...
We are also responsible for claiming and holding OUR inheritance... There are conditions here as well....

Are you saying then that there is no “self defense in the natural?”

Also are you saying then there is never a case for "physical violence to defend the innocent from a violent despotic mad-man in the natural?"

What silent activism and acquiescence are you referring to?

Let me state here that both "Political" sides of the coin have blood on their hands.....
I will generalize it to "Silent activism" both Civil, and within the Church whose main modus operandi is to fan the fires of envy, greed, hatred, and division to accomplish it's goals - which may or may not be "Cloaked" in biblical issues..... I bet you and I could both come up with long lists that cover both "Conservative" and "Liberal" viewpoints.....
I will generalize "Silent Acquiescence" as Christians that "Give in" because they "Feel bad", become deceived that they cannot do anything, or are just lulled into complacency..... Once again, we can come up with long lists that cover the political spectrum....

I am assuming that the two sides you mention are “Liberalism” and “Conservatism” based on the two "viewpoints you listed."

Can we agree that “Liberalism” falls to two “primary philosophical categories,” which are Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism?
(There are many smaller deviations but will argue that all versions fall into these two)

Can we also agree that “Social Liberalism” is a philosophy where “Individual Liberty is managed into place by government”, and that “Classical Liberalism” is a philosophy where “Individual Liberty is protected by restricting government from taking it ethically coming from Natural Rights Theory?”

Thus what kind of “Liberalism” are you referring to as one of the two sides?

Also again, can we agree that Conservatism falls to six primary “dispositions,” which are: Social Religious Conservatism, Social Moral Conservatism, Social Cultural/Traditional Conservatism, Social Neo-Conservatism, Paleo/Constitutional Conservatism, and Fiscal Conservatism.
(Again smaller deviations persist yet can these be primary)

There is also “personal conservatism” which persists absent of government intervention.

Thus what kind of “Conservatism” are you referring to as one of the two sides?

Is it possible that secular society is not “bound contractually” to refrain from common self defense, but the Christian is “bound contractually” as the property of our master to suffer persecution in variance with obedience for strategic gains in the spirit? For our demonstration of love in the natural is a just and violent victory against devils in the spirit that first moved to despotic violence against us all.

I would say here.. Mostly yes.... But.....
The thing here that really changed my thinking was.....
What was Jesus' response and command to his followers pertaining to the Organized, Officially Sanctioned Religious Institutional Leadership.....
What was Jesus' response and command to his followers pertaining to the Official Civil Leadership....
Notice how the "Church" leadership would have us turn that around 180 degrees.....

Jesus rebuked the Sanctioned Religious Institutional Leadership, calling them snakes and a brood of vipers, He challenged them publicly that they possibly would not escape hell. They also “were the civil government” which was the sanctioned Sanhedrin delegated into power by Rome. The Sadducee's and the Pharisees managed the law (lawyers), they arrested, they taxed, and they incarcerated any who defied theocratic law.

 

[Great Fiction]

The electoral college is another blight. Created solely for curbing the popular vote.

The caucuses are made for the two party system to remain in power.

The whole system is terrible. Good people cannot run, only the career politicians.

When they leave office they become part of pacts that keep the powers that be in power.

Whole thing needs to be scrapped.

Need to move to a meritocracy.

Though I can agree with your position of antagonism on many fronts regarding unjust intervention regarding the electorate process, how do you "ethically" justify a "meritocracy?"

For a meritocracy is a form of communism, or rigid socialism for a hybrid social-aristocracy. For one must ask "who will allocate prizes for the talented or those who work the hardest?" For one must ask again "who will punish the untalented or those who work the least?" I should say, "a different set of brutes that legislate privilege like they do today."

For if an "ethical" free-market economy is prevalent then those who are talented and work harder will indeed "merit" their own success, and no despotic brute in power will immorally allocate it to them at the violent expense of someone else.

 

[Great Fiction]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~Declaration of Independence

I think that your post here moves to critical thinking. In the time that Paul wrote Romans thirteen, the Roman constitution provided no right to the people to chasten its own government. In the U.S. it is "lawful" to defend the constitution and the Bill of Rights which is currently being trampled from two sides.

Thus to Paul's mandate to obey "ruling authority of "good government" - Do we obey the "supreme law of the land", the "ethical Bill of Rights" or those who would pass lower law to defile it unto despotism?

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Can it be that "we are burdened lawfully" to bravely chasten despotism in government? Yet the real question is "how?" What ethics from scripture support "how" we as Christians are to stand up to despotism? I should say, never through "arbitrary violence" and in contrast, then demonstrate loving persuasion for ethical sobriety saturated in prayer. Yet can it be also that we as Christians are to "bravely stand up to despots" to defend the innocent?"

 

[Dave Lucas]

For a meritocracy is a form of communism, or rigid socialism for a hybrid social-aristocracy.

Are you sure you understand the terms meritocracy and communism?

 

[Great Fiction]

Are you sure you understand the terms meritocracy and communism?

Yes I do, I have studied many variants of Socialism and Communism a great deal, yet I speak not about the ownership of production regarding the comparison, but instead the immoral Utopian ideology of “socialistic managment of merit or value,” that would require in common immeasurable compulsory oversight coming from the confines of legal-plunder, manufactured by the State.

Quote:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx

In the Communistic model “merit or value” also plays a role with “State-managed rewards and punishments” but in Communism its in order to make things “fair.” Can we agree that a Meritocracy requires the “State to manage what is “merited” in the same way that Communism will require the “State to manage what is fair?” Both have a master which will always mature to be the tyrannical State.

However I do view Communism more severe.

Though many proponents of a Meritocracy will defend that assignment of reward is managed in vertical fields of advancement instead of conventional methods, I simply argue, “by what authority?” For if merit is allocated to the talented and hardworking vertically in a specific field, then by what authority then allocates the vertical authorization to do so? Then if no elite group is tolerated in rebuttal and a majoritive referendum is deemed to manage? Then again I say, who qualifies the referendum, using what rules, who manages it fair, and again by what authority? Again the ladder spokes move upward until the Socialistic Aristocracy is discovered. Shall raw democracies fail always, for majoritarianism slaughters the foundations of natural rights theory, and always dissipates the lawful protection of the individual agent.

Can we agree that a meritocracy system also may seek to destroy the parenting influence over their own children, any religious influences to the young, and in variance will dabble in the ideas of a super-human race using eugenics by some in the movement. But the common ground is the abandonment of “sound ethics” which I contend will always usher in the violent tyrannically State given enough time.

I enjoy greatly the discussion of ethics if your willing?

How do you “ethically” justify a Meritocracy?

 

[Dave Lucas]

Can we agree that a Meritocracy requires the “State to manage what is “merited” in the same way that Communism will require the “State to manage what is fair?” Both have a master which will always mature to be the tyrannical State.

If we follow ONLY the Napoleonic and Chinese models of Meritocracy, sure. But are they the only models?

How does a autocratic version of a meritocracy liken itself to a communist model?

The idea of communism is that a small central government is formed to bring about a transition from the aristocratic model, UNTIL local governments (a city-state model) are ceded control and that small central government is dissolved.

That has NEVER happened in the history of the world. The central government remained in power and negated it as communist regime.

A meritocracy can be the basis of a republic. Where demonstrated abilities of people are chosen for service.
Elections based upon the skill sets of people, not hoe much money they have or who they know.

Can we agree that a meritocracy system also may seek to destroy the parenting influence over their own children, any religious influences to the young, and in variance will dabble in the ideas of a super-human race using eugenics by some in the movement. But the common ground is the abandonment of “sound ethics” which I contend will always usher in the violent tyrannically State given enough time.

I enjoy greatly the discussion of ethics if your willing?

How do you “ethically” justify a Meritocracy?

How does a meritocracy, a system where the best and brightest should serve the people, would be contrary to parenting influences which worldwide traditionally seek for their children to BE the best and brightest?

I think you're seeing meritocratic reform though a very very tiny field of vision.

 

[Great Fiction]

If we follow ONLY the Napoleonic and Chinese models of Meritocracy, sure. But are they the only models?

The premise of despotic intervention remains consistent in every form of meritocratic ideology that I have seen; for it is after all a “rigid set of ideas” that would reside on-top of the immoral foundation of Socialism. For Socialism is required to first “take” what is then “rewarded.”

How does a autocratic version of a meritocracy liken itself to a communist model?

The commonality resides in the illegitimate authority to thrash the natural rights of the individual. Individual liberty is crushed by the lawfully advantaged few who are “not restricted” from crushing the individual agent since the “ethics” of Natural Rights Theory are abandoned.

The idea of communism is that a small central government is formed to bring about a transition from the aristocratic model, UNTIL local governments (a city-state model) are ceded control and that small central government is dissolved.

That has NEVER happened in the history of the world. The central government remained in power and negated it as communist regime.

Can it be that it is not by accident that Marxian transitional government has never achieved utopia because Marxian philosophy is highly flawed? For Marx would deem that the tyrannical totalitarian State in the spirit of Hegel then transfigures into Utopian-Stateless utilitarian-bliss within smaller fair-societies. I contend that Marx would also believe with this logic that large quantities of deadly infection to the human body will also transfigure to perfect health.

Marx fails to understand that despotism which is that infection to society will never transfigure to liberty. As infection kills all bodies who believe that its a remedy for good health, just as history will successfully continue to deliver examples of despotic Communism void of individual economic independence due to its predication upon violence.

Naturally speaking, the remedy in any country for positive transition are freer markets, less economic regulation, increasing limits on government, and any adoption of ethics that protect the individual agent. For these kinds of increasing changes will choke out socialism, and corporatism that would impoverish us all.

Can we agree also that the body of Christ waging war in the spirit, but also adopting no violence in the law, makes this possible?

A meritocracy can be the basis of a republic. Where demonstrated abilities of people are chosen for service.
Elections based upon the skill sets of people, not hoe much money they have or who they know.

Yet “who” will choose demonstrated abilities? Is it not your earlier comments that the electorate process is highly flawed? I commend your antagonism to these rigged outcomes in our now Socialistic system, and will boast further that all Socialism will deliver rigged outcomes faithfully till all liberty is thrashed. In a sea of great ideas Socialism will at first route the economy to many, then crush it to poverty, and finally empower brutes to despotically destroy. A process that one generation fails to empathetically experience, as they are usually caught in a single phase of that process, either reaping the first routes, suffering economic poverty, or pleading for the lives at gun-point in the end.

Shall all Socialism adopt good ideas, but will do so by abandoning all sound ethics that protect life, liberty and property of the individual; then tossing all three God-given delegations to despotic power resting in the hands of a few brutes. Shall legal-plunder be faithful to thrash society with Socialism at the helm and once it drives close enough to the proverbial cliff's edge, the few in power are faithful to cast society off it, leaving nothing in the end but an oligarchical styled system to reside upon the precipice of political leverage.

How does a meritocracy, a system where the best and brightest should serve the people, would be contrary to parenting influences which worldwide traditionally seek for their children to BE the best and brightest?

Can we agree that all Socialistic methods rest within compulsory systems that are filled with souls that have no desire to advance children, and also would absorb all power given the chance? For in a meritocracy the “few” faithfully like all other compulsory systems, will control the many while destroying all individual liberty given enough time.

However the greatest reason to reject a meritocracy is “ethics.” For it is “immoral” for one group of people to exercise “violent force” upon some people to pay for other people to be selected as the brightest and the best.

I think you're seeing meritocratic reform though a very very tiny field of vision.

I can agree with you, for the narrow field of vision I use is “ethics,” and will admit that almost all people will quickly abandon ethics for what is thought to be moral, fair or safe, yet I contend that all good things are no longer good if “arbitrary violence” is used by men to manufacture them in the confines of the law.

Dave please know that I respect your liberty to disagree and as my brother in Christ I highly enjoy your exchanges. For I feel its exchanges like these that equip us all with more knowledge.

 

[Dave Lucas]

The premise of despotic intervention remains consistent in every form of meritocratic ideology that I have seen; for it is after all a “rigid set of ideas” that would reside on-top of the immoral foundation of Socialism. For Socialism is required to first “take” what is then “rewarded.”



The commonality resides in the illegitimate authority to thrash the natural rights of the individual. Individual liberty is crushed by the lawfully advantaged few who are “not restricted” from crushing the individual agent since the “ethics” of Natural Rights Theory are abandoned.



Can it be that it is not by accident that Marxian transitional government has never achieved utopia because Marxian philosophy is highly flawed? For Marx would deem that the tyrannical totalitarian State in the spirit of Hegel then transfigures into Utopian-Stateless utilitarian-bliss within smaller fair-societies. I contend that Marx would also believe with this logic that large quantities of deadly infection to the human body will also transfigure to perfect health.

Marx fails to understand that despotism which is that infection to society will never transfigure to liberty. As infection kills all bodies who believe that its a remedy for good health, just as history will successfully continue to deliver examples of despotic Communism void of individual economic independence due to its predication upon violence.

Naturally speaking, the remedy in any country for positive transition are freer markets, less economic regulation, increasing limits on government, and any adoption of ethics that protect the individual agent. For these kinds of increasing changes will choke out socialism, and corporatism that would impoverish us all.

Can we agree also that the body of Christ waging war in the spirit, but also adopting no violence in the law, makes this possible?



Yet “who” will choose demonstrated abilities? Is it not your earlier comments that the electorate process is highly flawed? I commend your antagonism to these rigged outcomes in our now Socialistic system, and will boast further that all Socialism will deliver rigged outcomes faithfully till all liberty is thrashed. In a sea of great ideas Socialism will at first route the economy to many, then crush it to poverty, and finally empower brutes to despotically destroy. A process that one generation fails to empathetically experience, as they are usually caught in a single phase of that process, either reaping the first routes, suffering economic poverty, or pleading for the lives at gun-point in the end.

Shall all Socialism adopt good ideas, but will do so by abandoning all sound ethics that protect life, liberty and property of the individual; then tossing all three God-given delegations to despotic power resting in the hands of a few brutes. Shall legal-plunder be faithful to thrash society with Socialism at the helm and once it drives close enough to the proverbial cliff's edge, the few in power are faithful to cast society off it, leaving nothing in the end but an oligarchical styled system to reside upon the precipice of political leverage.



Can we agree that all Socialistic methods rest within compulsory systems that are filled with souls that have no desire to advance children, and also would absorb all power given the chance? For in a meritocracy the “few” faithfully like all other compulsory systems, will control the many while destroying all individual liberty given enough time.

However the greatest reason to reject a meritocracy is “ethics.” For it is “immoral” for one group of people to exercise “violent force” upon some people to pay for other people to be selected as the brightest and the best.



I can agree with you, for the narrow field of vision I use is “ethics,” and will admit that almost all people will quickly abandon ethics for what is thought to be moral, fair or safe, yet I contend that all good things are no longer good if “arbitrary violence” is used by men to manufacture them in the confines of the law.

Dave please know that I respect your liberty to disagree and as my brother in Christ I highly enjoy your exchanges. For I feel its exchanges like these that equip us all with more knowledge.

Of course Marx and Engels had a flawed idea in communism. It is an utopian ideal that can never work because of people will not want to release control of the tiny central government (this is made true by every instance so far), lazy people that do not want to help, greedy people that are self-entitled and will not share, and isolationists and elitists that cannot comprehend that we are ALL equal.

Communism and democracy are all wonderful pub discussion, but not viable with the human mind.

But getting back to the meritocracy, you asked "Yet “who” will choose demonstrated abilities?". I think your answer is in the last two words. Results driven people would be selected to put their candidacy forth. That way the people can vote on them.

It is NOT about money at that point, nor cronyism. It is purely about what the level of experience is.

The general or admiral that has years of experience in command would be ideal for any war position. There are very few at the top of that group so the pool would be small. Same with commerce, transportation, legal matters, etc. There are very few at the top of the tops of each field. Those are the ones that exhibit a valid reason to be considered.

An election is held and they are chosen. They lead the nation and we profit from their experience, not who they know or how much money they have. You will not wind up with a vapid talking head.

It would not dim at all the idea of parents raising their children as they see fit. As parents want their children to be the best and that would be rewarded based on what they do and how well they do it. It will increase the chances of children growing up and being recognised for their skills and talents. Far often in the US, people's skills go untapped when they could be of great benefit. Society will seek to create generations that as The King said are teleios, perfect in completeness. All will be inspired by these people to better themselves because it will be a trickle down to daily life and business.

The bold and skilled will be rewarded and the lazy and timid marginalised or made to improve themselves through social ques. We will have less people gaming the system and not contributing. And ethically, we will be better off because it is all based on service, honour and dedication.

I do not see a downside to a meritocratic republic. Sure beats the current oligarchies we have now. They are wasteful and ineffective.