this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
84 points (92.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43856 readers
1976 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is the definition I am using:

a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What do you mean by doesn't last long? Also if the society was a complete meritocracy what accountability would the people have?

[–] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well, human judgement is not perfect, and eventually a snake would be able to climb the ranks and corrupt the whole system.

This is why democracy is the only system that can allow for “constant revolution” and if the current system is broken or corrupt, it’s the only way that allows for a consistent peaceful transfer of power. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as Churchill once said “ Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

And for when the people in charge decide they’re not going to hand over their power despite being elected out, we have rules about it not being allowed to clear out people’s weapons.

Basically we do our best to ensure there are no circumstances where those in charge get to ignore those they’re ruling over. It’s a way of solving the agency problem given humans’ tendency to ignore the rules when they want to.

Another way to put it is that a politician might decide “oh this system of democracy isn’t going to keep me in power, so I’ll just step outside of it to the world of anything goes” and then an armed populace can say “nope, we’ve got moves there too, and they’re way worse for you than getting voted out”.

It makes the attractiveness of that step outside the system go way down.