Comments by "bj0rn" (@TheLivirus) on "" video.

Great discussion! Though they don't seem to agree on the definition of meritocracy.
34
@mohammedphilonous6856 Make sure you aren't missing the point entirely before you throw insults around. He's just saying that an academic career is financially risky, so a safety net of a wealthy family probably increases the likelihood of making that career choice.
11
@mohammedphilonous6856 No he didn't. He said that financial safety net also plays a role, besides intelligence and effort. You are fighting a strawman.
9
Swedish academic here. All my BSc engineering friends earn more than me.
8
Sandel has no objections to using merit as basis for allocation of jobs. His critique regards merit as basis for allocation of esteem, status, power, wealth, etc. A good salesman should be a salesman. But, perhaps we shouldn't assume that the salesman deserves all the wealth he is able to accrue, or that his profession makes him a better person than the man repairing his car.
8
@Luca-wm9er I disagree. The issue is that there are many definitions and that they don't agree on which one they are talking about.
7
Sandel opened the debate by explaining that having a competent surgeon is a good thing, and that this is not what he means by meritocracy.
4
@evadebruijn It's more of a scale than a true-false dichotomy. But it is ironic that while Americans tend to have strong belief in their meritocracy (wealth is deserved), their social mobility is quite bad relative to other wealthy nations. This accentuates the humiliation aspect outlined by Sandel: to hold individuals responsible for their bad fortune.
3
@YJPRiddle I think you mean market economy.
2
@_Botao_ I was trying to describe my understanding of Sandel's perspective. I'm not sure I agree with him.
2
@jarfuloflove7320 That's quite vague. The reason I'm asking is because such society is not simple to achieve in practice and leads to a number of paradoxes. Example: You are born into a world owned by others, immediately running into a conflict of your sovereignty versus their property rights. Should they have to put up with an unwanted intruder on their property? Perhaps they argue that you have to earn your existence by working for them. Say you accepted this and managed to accrue enough wealth to buy a small piece of land of your own. However, all land around it is owned by another person. This person does not want you to cross his property to get to or leave yours. Is this a free society? Can your parents violate your sovereignty, or should you be entitled to make all decisions and be fully accountable for them from age zero?
2
@jarfuloflove7320 It seems simple as long as you are not thinking about it. I could keep providing examples of how your vague principles lead to contradictions and you'd keep adding more and more rules to your list. But that would be me doing the thinking for you.
2
 @jarfuloflove7320 Define free society.
1