Sandel’s argument is that “meritocracy” suggests that the outcome is primarily (or solely and squarely) on the shoulders of the person and that this is never the case. (It is the remnant of the protestant foundation of America.)
Calvinist / puritan theology contains the idea that because God is omniscient and omnipotent, everything is preordained. It also emphasized the idea of the Elect. That is, because God knows everything and controls everything, that you are successful and I am not was preordained from the foundation of creation. Your success is evidence of your status among the “elect” -- God favors you. My lack of success is evidence of my status as well, as not being among the elect -- God disfavors me. This is the theological foundation of the “protestant work ethic.” You can also see it in today’s “prosperity gospel.”
What this does is to imbue in those who are more or fabulously “successful” a moral superiority because their success is evidence of their elect status.
Even Glenn’s assumption that the people who aren’t in that house on the hill are bums with their hands out who never did an honest days work in their lives and that it’s their moral failure that put them in this position kind of makes Sandel’s point.
Sandel’s point is that the fisherman, waitresses, dog walker, house cleaner, day laborers, plumbers, home health aides are all deserving of respect and should be compensated with a living wage, not disparagement and disrespect.
People vary in the talents, skills and temperment needed to navigate the institutions that determine success and status in society. A persons ambition should never outrun their level of social, intellectual and physical competence.
Get a basic education. Develop and hone a skill. Build a network of people you can rely on for help. Work hard. Save your money. Marry smart. Have children. Protect them, and teach them the way. It’s not easy, but it works. Black, white, brown or yellow, it works. If done correctly, we are never more than 1 generation from prosperity. To argue success is about luck and privilege is to misunderstand success.
The issue of "replace it with what?" is made even more difficult by human nature. People compete - evolution, you say? - about everything and they compete from a very early age. A baby who is fed and happy and recently changed may still cry simply as a way to compete for attention.
This quote from a piece I wrote may sum it up better:
The opponents of meritocracy seem to believe that – instead of being competitive – our entire existence would be better if it mimicked an eternal, no scorekeeping, “everyone’s a winner” kindergarten soccer game.
What they forget is that every one of those kids know exactly who won. They keep score in their heads.
As do we all.
The entire piece, also called, in part, The Merits of Meritocracy, can be seen here -
The losers like to say success is the result of luck. It isn't. Their best example is genetics. But genetics is not luck. It is the result of a decision. Just because that decision was not made by the subject individual doesn't make it luck. It merely makes it out of his control. Someone decided for him.
This is not a hard problem. There was a great experiment on a society without meritocracy for 75 years: The USSR. Bus drivers were paid slightly more than doctors. The ruling class was determined by graft and loyalty. How did it go?
There was great success in the late 1920s and 1930s. However, that advancement was entirely due to investment of capital and technology from the West, mostly the United States, where meritocracy allowed technology development and capital accumulation. When that was cut off, the USSR stalled. Millions of people died of starvation. Most of the technological advancements they were able to utilize since was stolen from the West. Thirty years later, Russia is still less meritocracy than kleptocracy, an inevitable outlet for the ambitious when they can't get rich through talent and hard work. Nothing original comes from them. They exist by drilling, mining, commodity agriculture, and making poor quality ammunition and weapons.
The question of merit needs to be discussed within the context of our political economy. Many people on Wall Street, or hedge funds, or white shoe law firms work very hard. Are they 'worth' their financial remuneration, on any sane level of social or economic contribution? Highly debatable. (One could extend this argument to the Kardashians, but you see my point).
My God, to invoke God to excuse a society so childishly intent on desserts it permits heart-wrenching poverty; and to invoke Job at that is disgusting. What vipers.
Glenn, what do you and John think of Thomas Chatterton-Williams and Kmele always going after Christopher Rufo & demonizing him? Are they jealous of someone stealing their thunder? Did you see Rufo on Coleman’s podcast where they discussed how Thomas, Kmele, David French, & company deliberately misrepresented the language of the state laws banning CRT. They’ve refused to correct it or apologize.
Seeing a lot of people confusing the value of merit for the worship of merit (aka meritocracy). Similarly, it’s cool to earn lots of money so you can live well, but it’s not healthy to make that your purpose in life. And having money doesn’t make you a more moral person. In fact, it might make you MORE morally culpable, because the more you have, the easier it is for you to help others while maintaining your standard of living.
There are several logical and economic flaws in Sandel's critique against using merit to reward and a reference to Adam Smith would shine a light on these errors. Market pricing arose dynamically as a result of market forces with billions of people making choices to buy and sell across many centuries. There will always be winners and losers. Who will be in charge of valuations that are ethically more imperative than what the market yields, politicians? Does the world need more Xí Jìnpíngs to make these decisions or perhaps Mao's unethical forced family dynamics that is now biting the Chinese economy? This line of thought perhaps makes for interesting reading but fails empirical tests in the real world, just as writers who pine after the ethics of socialism are faced with the inconvenient data between north & south Koreas, or east & west Germanys. I will reference just one error made by suggesting that a teacher, who can't make enough money to sustain his livelihood by teaching, becomes a drug dealer to increase his profits. The fallacy is concluding the the market is rewarding the drug dealer for his value! We need to examine the risk premium attached to selling illegal substances and breaking the law. Your future cashflow is greatly diminished by the risk of getting caught, hence the high prices of drugs on the streets. Your future cashflow as a teacher (especially if you are in the union), is highly probable. Therein lies the difference.
Is it me, or does this appear as more dumb ideas from smart people. One group is sending people to the moon while the other is huddled around a puddle eating termites off a stick.
It’s the polarity of works righteousness vs. mystery of grace. I’m with Ernie Cortes. Judge not (ultimately) that ye be not judged. Hold your judgements lightly, otherwise we become Pharisees.
The last statement regarding Job was awesome and sums it up. When were a child we used magical thinking. We believe that life is fair. This is what the Marxist or DEI folks will tell you. They want to use equity to achieve this magical dream. Look how that has worked out. Not very well. I do think it's important to be very realistic and honest about meritocracy. Some people are lucky or have advantages. What parent doesn't want to give their child any advantage possible to be successful. Getting them into Good schools. Networking with others to give their kids a better shot at a job.
The beautiful thing about America that you will not find in many other countries is the opportunity for upward mobility. Many of our citizens take this for granted. We also have numerous social strategies that help others who are less advantaged. For example, grants and scholarships. It still requires hard work to get the degree but will open doors for those who are motivated to take advantage of the opportunity.
I believe that one of the cornerstones of our great country is the Protestant work ethic. As with many civilizations, affluence can be a poison pill.
I stared out the window during algebra class, and had to go to summer school; but none of that stopped me from starting a used car dealership which earned 7M last year.
And I grew up poor. Nobody gave me money. So I don't understand this argument that the system is rigged against the giftless. I mean, I have no gifts. Like zero gifts. I can't sing, I can't write, I can't do math, I can't do jack shit.
But my idioacy didn't stop me. I just got up early every day, went to the car auction, bought a car and sold it. Any imbecile can do it.
The only rigging I see in this economy are the entry barriers to getting my business licenses and complying with tax laws; I had a harder time navigating the permit and tax requirements for my company than anything else. The IRS is always breathing down my neck for some strange reason. Every year they go through my files, and every year they say everything is okay.
I'm sorry, but I think if you look carefully the people calling for the end of meritocracy and the introduction of group quotas are the same type of left wing elite that led the bolshevik revolution. So why can't we just call them what they are Glenn? Can't we just be honest with ourselves. These people attack religion, family, tradition, culture, merit, private property: hell, I cannot even have a damn beer and watch a patriots game without worrying whether my whiteness might offend someone today, or attend catholic mass Sunday mornings without wondering if some crazy leftist will burn down my church while I'm praying to my God.
And isn't Sandel's argument a cultural argument? Hubris and ego, sitting in private boxes above the bleachers, or paying to cut lines which Michael speaks of in his book is cultural not economical right?
Sandel’s argument is that “meritocracy” suggests that the outcome is primarily (or solely and squarely) on the shoulders of the person and that this is never the case. (It is the remnant of the protestant foundation of America.)
Calvinist / puritan theology contains the idea that because God is omniscient and omnipotent, everything is preordained. It also emphasized the idea of the Elect. That is, because God knows everything and controls everything, that you are successful and I am not was preordained from the foundation of creation. Your success is evidence of your status among the “elect” -- God favors you. My lack of success is evidence of my status as well, as not being among the elect -- God disfavors me. This is the theological foundation of the “protestant work ethic.” You can also see it in today’s “prosperity gospel.”
What this does is to imbue in those who are more or fabulously “successful” a moral superiority because their success is evidence of their elect status.
Even Glenn’s assumption that the people who aren’t in that house on the hill are bums with their hands out who never did an honest days work in their lives and that it’s their moral failure that put them in this position kind of makes Sandel’s point.
Sandel’s point is that the fisherman, waitresses, dog walker, house cleaner, day laborers, plumbers, home health aides are all deserving of respect and should be compensated with a living wage, not disparagement and disrespect.
An exercise in abject incoherence by Ernesto. If ever there was an example of changing the subject in the face of a challenge, this is textbook.
Here is Chris Rufo’s recent response to people like Jordan Peterson, Kmele, & Thomas Chatterton Williams. Maybe we can get Christopher on the show.
https://youtu.be/KAVTx82gTkE
People vary in the talents, skills and temperment needed to navigate the institutions that determine success and status in society. A persons ambition should never outrun their level of social, intellectual and physical competence.
Get a basic education. Develop and hone a skill. Build a network of people you can rely on for help. Work hard. Save your money. Marry smart. Have children. Protect them, and teach them the way. It’s not easy, but it works. Black, white, brown or yellow, it works. If done correctly, we are never more than 1 generation from prosperity. To argue success is about luck and privilege is to misunderstand success.
The issue of "replace it with what?" is made even more difficult by human nature. People compete - evolution, you say? - about everything and they compete from a very early age. A baby who is fed and happy and recently changed may still cry simply as a way to compete for attention.
This quote from a piece I wrote may sum it up better:
The opponents of meritocracy seem to believe that – instead of being competitive – our entire existence would be better if it mimicked an eternal, no scorekeeping, “everyone’s a winner” kindergarten soccer game.
What they forget is that every one of those kids know exactly who won. They keep score in their heads.
As do we all.
The entire piece, also called, in part, The Merits of Meritocracy, can be seen here -
https://thomas699.substack.com/p/the-merits-of-meritocracy-the-credulousness
The losers like to say success is the result of luck. It isn't. Their best example is genetics. But genetics is not luck. It is the result of a decision. Just because that decision was not made by the subject individual doesn't make it luck. It merely makes it out of his control. Someone decided for him.
This is not a hard problem. There was a great experiment on a society without meritocracy for 75 years: The USSR. Bus drivers were paid slightly more than doctors. The ruling class was determined by graft and loyalty. How did it go?
There was great success in the late 1920s and 1930s. However, that advancement was entirely due to investment of capital and technology from the West, mostly the United States, where meritocracy allowed technology development and capital accumulation. When that was cut off, the USSR stalled. Millions of people died of starvation. Most of the technological advancements they were able to utilize since was stolen from the West. Thirty years later, Russia is still less meritocracy than kleptocracy, an inevitable outlet for the ambitious when they can't get rich through talent and hard work. Nothing original comes from them. They exist by drilling, mining, commodity agriculture, and making poor quality ammunition and weapons.
The question of merit needs to be discussed within the context of our political economy. Many people on Wall Street, or hedge funds, or white shoe law firms work very hard. Are they 'worth' their financial remuneration, on any sane level of social or economic contribution? Highly debatable. (One could extend this argument to the Kardashians, but you see my point).
My God, to invoke God to excuse a society so childishly intent on desserts it permits heart-wrenching poverty; and to invoke Job at that is disgusting. What vipers.
Question for the next episode with John:
Glenn, what do you and John think of Thomas Chatterton-Williams and Kmele always going after Christopher Rufo & demonizing him? Are they jealous of someone stealing their thunder? Did you see Rufo on Coleman’s podcast where they discussed how Thomas, Kmele, David French, & company deliberately misrepresented the language of the state laws banning CRT. They’ve refused to correct it or apologize.
Seeing a lot of people confusing the value of merit for the worship of merit (aka meritocracy). Similarly, it’s cool to earn lots of money so you can live well, but it’s not healthy to make that your purpose in life. And having money doesn’t make you a more moral person. In fact, it might make you MORE morally culpable, because the more you have, the easier it is for you to help others while maintaining your standard of living.
There are several logical and economic flaws in Sandel's critique against using merit to reward and a reference to Adam Smith would shine a light on these errors. Market pricing arose dynamically as a result of market forces with billions of people making choices to buy and sell across many centuries. There will always be winners and losers. Who will be in charge of valuations that are ethically more imperative than what the market yields, politicians? Does the world need more Xí Jìnpíngs to make these decisions or perhaps Mao's unethical forced family dynamics that is now biting the Chinese economy? This line of thought perhaps makes for interesting reading but fails empirical tests in the real world, just as writers who pine after the ethics of socialism are faced with the inconvenient data between north & south Koreas, or east & west Germanys. I will reference just one error made by suggesting that a teacher, who can't make enough money to sustain his livelihood by teaching, becomes a drug dealer to increase his profits. The fallacy is concluding the the market is rewarding the drug dealer for his value! We need to examine the risk premium attached to selling illegal substances and breaking the law. Your future cashflow is greatly diminished by the risk of getting caught, hence the high prices of drugs on the streets. Your future cashflow as a teacher (especially if you are in the union), is highly probable. Therein lies the difference.
Is it me, or does this appear as more dumb ideas from smart people. One group is sending people to the moon while the other is huddled around a puddle eating termites off a stick.
Which group shall we emulate?
It’s the polarity of works righteousness vs. mystery of grace. I’m with Ernie Cortes. Judge not (ultimately) that ye be not judged. Hold your judgements lightly, otherwise we become Pharisees.
The last statement regarding Job was awesome and sums it up. When were a child we used magical thinking. We believe that life is fair. This is what the Marxist or DEI folks will tell you. They want to use equity to achieve this magical dream. Look how that has worked out. Not very well. I do think it's important to be very realistic and honest about meritocracy. Some people are lucky or have advantages. What parent doesn't want to give their child any advantage possible to be successful. Getting them into Good schools. Networking with others to give their kids a better shot at a job.
The beautiful thing about America that you will not find in many other countries is the opportunity for upward mobility. Many of our citizens take this for granted. We also have numerous social strategies that help others who are less advantaged. For example, grants and scholarships. It still requires hard work to get the degree but will open doors for those who are motivated to take advantage of the opportunity.
I believe that one of the cornerstones of our great country is the Protestant work ethic. As with many civilizations, affluence can be a poison pill.
I stared out the window during algebra class, and had to go to summer school; but none of that stopped me from starting a used car dealership which earned 7M last year.
And I grew up poor. Nobody gave me money. So I don't understand this argument that the system is rigged against the giftless. I mean, I have no gifts. Like zero gifts. I can't sing, I can't write, I can't do math, I can't do jack shit.
But my idioacy didn't stop me. I just got up early every day, went to the car auction, bought a car and sold it. Any imbecile can do it.
The only rigging I see in this economy are the entry barriers to getting my business licenses and complying with tax laws; I had a harder time navigating the permit and tax requirements for my company than anything else. The IRS is always breathing down my neck for some strange reason. Every year they go through my files, and every year they say everything is okay.
I'm sorry, but I think if you look carefully the people calling for the end of meritocracy and the introduction of group quotas are the same type of left wing elite that led the bolshevik revolution. So why can't we just call them what they are Glenn? Can't we just be honest with ourselves. These people attack religion, family, tradition, culture, merit, private property: hell, I cannot even have a damn beer and watch a patriots game without worrying whether my whiteness might offend someone today, or attend catholic mass Sunday mornings without wondering if some crazy leftist will burn down my church while I'm praying to my God.
And isn't Sandel's argument a cultural argument? Hubris and ego, sitting in private boxes above the bleachers, or paying to cut lines which Michael speaks of in his book is cultural not economical right?
Or am I just a moron?