Meritocracy: Cleansing the Smear
by G. Stolyarov II
The word "meritocracy" has often been employed as a pejorative smear against the system of capitalism, which, claimed the egalitarians, establishes the self-contradictory notion of a caste system based on merit (!), which supposedly elevates inherently "gifted" men into positions of "dominance" over the inherently "deprived of mind." Aside from the obvious mysticism of the deterministic notion of inherited intelligence (every man's knowledge and skill, just as every man's profit, are products of his own effort; he may inherit a more reactive brain just as he may inherit a greater share of raw capital, but his intelligence, the synthesis of the means and ends of thought, is attainable only through his volitional choice and self-exertion, just as presently possessed money does not automatically and inexplicably generate more of itself), the present usage of the term has effaced and smeared what has been a legitimate and benevolent effect of the capitalist system. In the realm where free trade is let alone, both in goods and ideas, the men with the amplest knowledge, most efficient industry, and most fervent motivation, are the ones who succeed in enriching themselves and rising to a position of economic power. This, the legitimate meaning of "meritocracy," is not that of a caste system, but a fully free society in which every individual can expect to advance, not by birth or by pull, but only through the effort he exerts. (The wealthy heir may be endowed with lavish wealth by his industrious ancestors under a laissez-faire system, but that does not alter the fact that he must utilize his own ingenuity in order to amplify the riches he already has.)
Meritocracy, in the sphere of government, then, would denote that organization which is most conductive to a fully free market, which prevents, to the securest extent, any intervention of the state into the economic sphere. Eternal vigilance is, as in any institution concerning the preservation of individual rights, required, and an administration of scum cannot by definition abstain from violating the integrity of a meritocracy. Thus, a meritocratic structure of government requires for the most knowledgeable, moral, and strictly delimited officials to emerge to the foremost ranks of enforcing the citizens' negative obligations.
It was thus that I had come to deliberate the matter of a system of leadership that, while imposing only protection against the initiation of force and not regulation, will nevertheless attract men of the cleanest integrity and the finest intellect to its offices. Any positional hierarchy defined by bureaucrats on standards such as social class, level of education, or even a more complex and multi-faceted approach that takes into account the near-whole extent of a given individual's fortes (which, given the scantiness and superficiality inherent in one-size-fits-all criteria, is improbable at best) is not compatible with a limited view on government merely because it leaves the men of merit themselves dependent on government officials for recognition of their deeds and introduction into a higher social group. Thus we are left to invent a liberty-based meritocracy, at which we can arrive by pinpointing the central characteristic of meritocracies as such, the rewarding of men based on virtuous, selfish choices; the more a man benefits himself, the greater voluntary benefits are conferred upon him by others. A rigidly defined system of social ladders is unessential in this regard. Quite the contrary, a man's perseverance and insight will yield him more substantial gains where there is no bureaucracy to regulate his performance and no panels and committees to whose expectations he must conform in order to receive special favors. The government must therefore remain separated from the field of economics especially, but also from any subsidiary work within the arts, the sciences, and education.
Yet that retains a dilemma within the system thus far. If all the most prodigious men select to pursue their own designs outside the heavily curtailed political field, what types of persons apply for the positions of officials? At best they are average men, frequently lacking the experience and philosophical base to maintain the proper limitations of their activities and to confine them to retaliation against the initiation of force. At worst they are power-lusters, men who seek, from lack of productive capacity, not to create wealth but to seize it from defenseless creators by means of officially sanctioned force. The fault with such a system is its inability to attract the intellectuals genuinely committed to preserving a strictly limited government.
In all political structures up to the present day, which had involved some manner of economic intervention, officials were forbidden to occupy any manner of post in scientific research, industry, or any miscellaneous money-making, competing enterprise for the fear that they would employ their governmental position as leverage to extort their rivals who would not possess such a footing. This menace could be remedied by an utter breach between government and economics and a severe system of penalties for even the attempt to promulgate legislation restricting laissez-faire capitalism. Thus, the prohibition of multiple employments would no longer be warranted and administrative offices would be opened to businessmen, scientists, engineers, artists who seek a supplementary income and simultaneously are unable to thereby influence in any coercive manner their other field of activity. The best among men would be attracted to newly available positions because it would be in their rational self-interest (without which they could not have established their tremendous financial success) to provide an optimal check to government intervention by serving as the government and hence depriving the government of the power to regulate their own enterprises. Simultaneously, those same men would be encouraged to contribute monetarily to their own administrations in order to maintain an edge over authoritarian ideological opponents, strengthen the enforcement and penalty mechanism for the sake of a deterrent effect, and lighten the tax burden on their own customers, who would subsequently be encouraged to purchase their products (as well as those of their competitors, so no unfair manipulation is performed here, merely a mutually profitable action to all participants in the marketplace) for their core price alone. After some time during which businessmen will begin to utilize the opportunity given them and recognize the benefits of contributing funds voluntarily to the infrastructure devoted to preserving their ability to function unregulated, the abolition of coercive taxation, as the final step to economic liberalization, may become a possibility.
Once government is prohibited from meddling with the economy, the dishonest politicians, lobbyists, and demagogues whom Ayn Rand had referred to as the "pull peddlers" will promptly flee the field; they will have nothing more to gain. Politics and the subsidized propagation of false ideologies being their haven, their sole means of sustenance in a reality that does not tolerate unreason and parasitism, they shall be compelled by market pressures to mend their ways or starve, with no welfare state to bail them out this time. In the meantime, the majority of men will become open to more rational voices and a competition for government posts using the same criteria as exist in business competition. A businessman offers not theft and extortion to his customers, but a service. In this case, the service is protection from the initiation of force, and voters will decide which legislators and executives are most competent in habit, thought, and organization to accomplish this task. The political arena will thus cease to be a battleground of pressure groups and become similar to an appointment for a sheriff or military officer, except by a larger constituency.
This approach shall hereby be termed "laissez-faire meritocracy," an extrapolation upon Objectivist politics and a vehicle for the implementation of lasting, unmarred free enterprise. The term is a redundancy (just as "laissez-faire capitalism" would be in a more enlightened status quo), but a necessary one to distinguish from those pseudo-meritocracies that would have bureaucrats assign privileges based on officially defined "gradations of accomplishment."
Discuss this Article (0 messages)
|
