[twentythree]

I love the concept of "a system where people have value independent of their productivity."

I worry that the increasing focus on a meritocracy (especially in tech) ignores the fact that it devalues anyone who for whatever reason -- lack of education, lack of natural ability, or just lack of motivation -- doesn't contribute enough to be considered important. It's probably an improvement on the system we had before, where you were valued for being part of the right community or the right family, but I hope this isn't the end goal, and that we can eventually get to a state where we consider everyone inherently valuable.

[danieltillett]

The basic problem is that meritocracy beats every other political system. The reason meritocracy took over is not because it is morally better, but because non-meritocatic societies fell by the wayside under the boot of meritocracy.

Hopefully in the post-scarcity society coming we can come up with a better approach not focused on people’s productivity.

[notacoward]

Meritocracy is not a political system. Even calling it an economic system is questionable, but at least it comes close. And yes, the difference does matter. Failure to understand the proper relationship between politics and economics is one of the chief causes of the malaise people try to escape with opiates.