@fasces:
See, this is why I HATE party/wing identification--it's sloppy, it's a red herring of an issue, and as I vote for the issues themselves and not for a little "D" or "R" on someone's lapel, it's extraneous and irrelevant to my position.
I said that I TENDED to be left-of-center...there are some issues I'm probably squarely left on, squarely right on others, and some wehre I'm perfectly pragmatic or undecided and in the center.
As for Education and Eltism...I just GAVE my account of that...so...did you not read that, or are you questioning if it's leftist? If it's the latter, I don't really CARE if it's leftiost, to be honest, I'd see that as "elft," and maybe you wouldn't, again, political affiliation can be different from person to person adn sloppy--hence, again, my DISDAIN for it--and if it's the former and you didn't read my bit on that...well, read my bit on Elitisti Educati0on via Merit-based progression before you say I ahven't adressed that issue.
I've said that ANY government or ideology has flaws, and so Elitism is no different; to paraphrase James Madison, if we were perfect angels or devils, we wouldn't NEED goverment, instead, we're in the middle and imperfect, and so any solution we devise on a governmental basis is going to be imperfect--even one that I endorse, ie, an Elitist meritocracy.
The only "power" one has as being Elite is power over that field, again,as I've said; for example, the better teacher I am via Merit, the more pay I deserve and more influence I deserve to hodl in board meetings and in voting, and if there is an issue on the ballot concerning educational reform that SOLELY involves teachers--and that's an unlikely scenario, but this is a strict hypothetical--then I would be able, were I a teacher, to vote on that issue, whereas others would not, as they would not be "qualified" to vote on a "teachers' only" issue for the same reason I explained that my non-driving self would be ineligible to vote on driving laws.
I WILL say that I believe that via Elitism and an Advancement via Merit, those who are generally best in their respective fields would TEND to end up controlling said fields, and from thee, we would TEND to vote amongst such people for office, as such people who are at the head of their field are likely to have the resources to run for office and would also seem to TEND to be beter suited to rule, if they already are the heads of their field.
*NOTICE AND TAKE HEED OF THAT WORD "TEND.*
This does NOT earn that their are restrictions on who can and cannot run for office.
Under my Elitism, a janitor could run against a senator for President of the United States.
Now, Elitism would tend to tell us that between a janitor and an already-proven senator who's been part of our government already and knows how things work, MERIT would seem to shout "VOTE FOR THE SENATOR!" However, while it may draw inspiration from him, this is NOT Plato's Republic, and you're free to vote for the janitor, freedom of choice is allowed for government elections.
(Now, for governmental APPOINTMENTS, that's different--while an election is the nation choosing freely who it wants to run the State, government appointments MUST run via Merit, as these are service positions and, as a result, those best qualified to serve MUST be chosen in my view, rather than, say, choosing someone strictly because they are a Democrat or a Republican or because they donated $500,000 to a senator's War Chest for the last election. HERE Meritocracy must prevail over the Spoils System.)
The upper, middle, and lower classes all rule TOGETHER.
Plato EMPHASIZES THIS STRONGLY, that while the Rulers are the "highest" class, it takes the full cooperation and coodination between the Rulers, Guardians, and Workers to make the State work.
Would MOST of the people in power TEND to be rich/upper-class?
Yes...but that's not much different than it is now, and I would argue that, with the exception of blue-bloods and daddy-son relationships (see: Bush family and, to prove I ahve no bias one way or the other here, the Kennedy family) those who are rich are generally men of merit, that is, they have worked to create their enterprise, and so deserve their wealth as a result of their efforts.,
Is that always the truth?
No.
Would I like to see those born into a "Worker" class rise into the "Rulers" class?
ABSOLUTELY; Plato emphasizes this as well, that birth shall have no bearing on whether someone is a Ruler, Guardian, or Worker (now, I'm not going to HIDE their fathers and mothers from them and tell them instead that they sprang from the Earth "born" to rule or "born" to be a worker, as Plato wants, but nevertheless, yes, I want the advancement of the Working class upwards ALWAYS, the advancement of the Guardian clas upward ALWAYS, and, yes, the Ruling class to trend upward AWLAYS.)
Meritocracy and Elitism seeks to push no one down.
On a Meritocracy, the only direction I am concerned with is UP.
12-hour high stakes WTA gunboat?
. Shoot me a PM if you want in. If you meet my moderately rigorous requirements (you've got some skill and don't make a habit of resigning games) I will send you the password. Thanks.
)
)
)
