So, we’re living in a meritocracy
Supposedly the distribution of wealth in our society is based on the merit of individual efforts. Those who are skilled and deserving are then thought to have earned the bounty they have. The converse is that those without assets are likely to be undeserving of any monetary wealth. Contrast this with the social system a few hundred years ago. Back then the distribution of money and power was based on a religious hierarchy. A peasant would not question his poverty, and a nobleman would give no thought to his excess. It was God’s plan.
It would seem, then, that our new explanation for the wealth gap is merit. Arguably, merit is much more fickle than any deity could have been.
One small problem
If you haven’t noticed, wealth only begets more wealth. Merit isn’t so much a thing in itself as it is a rather complex interaction. Merit becomes further questionable when you take into account the complex (read, bullshit) economics that govern it.
The first groups to go out and amass currency beyond any reasonable need have set themselves ahead. Instead of considering a course of action, and then imagining how to go about sustaining it, they simply flick their wrist and the world bends. For proponents of social darwinism, this is no more than a logical extension of evolution. The only problem with such a view is that evolution occurs naturally. Social darwinism is to nature as genetic engineering is to evolution. If we’ve learned anything from genetic engineering, it could be that we ought not toy around with that we don’t fully understand. Such conservative views are a little too limiting. Thusly, we have all sorts of Ethics to allow us a chance to tinker where it won’t hurt, and stay away from areas that would be more obviously detrimental.
So if communism isn’t going to cut it, what will?
Why not make it more like a game
I love games. If I’ve found anything in life, it’s that everything is more or less an insignificant game. This is how I arrived at the idea I like to call Cyclic Meritocracy. It can’t be refuted that merit (in itself) is a useful discriminator. At the same time, its practical implementation leaves some things a little unbalanced.
So, take all the money in the world, let it run about freely on a merit basis for a given period of time, and at the end of the period use some kind of redistribution scheme to offset any imbalances brought on by the imperfection of merit’s implementation. It’s important to note that I’m not discussing material wealth when I say redistribution. One could do this, but I have it in my head that a redistribution of monetary wealth would be enough to create an interesting effect.
Many argue that capitalism’s greatest strength is its power as an incentive. The incentive is to burn hard once, and then never lift your finger again. Although not all involved in the system reach such a level of lethargy, it is the end goal. I could think of no greater motivation than to have me feet swept out from under me after having made myself nice and comfortable. In such a system, those who innately desire to succeed and propel themselves forward would take the “blow” of redistribution with grace, and with a love of challenge.
Large groups containing vast amounts of capital are inherently wasteful. When they are effecient, they consider the wrong factors (“let’s fire half of our workforce instead of actually making a sustainable product”). In a monoculture of big brands, there is an unmentioned desire for the advantages of a more diverse and dynamic economic horizon. In such a retooled system, great names would be remembered and revered for their individual contributions to the course of human evolution, and not for the hundreds of digits next to their name. People would no longer aspire to comfortable complacency as they would to meaningful achievement.
Not in a hundred years
Fair enough, but the gears are turning. Recall there was a time when no peasant would imagine that the future could hold a system where anyone was capable of vast riches.
