4 ms·
Really appreciate the reply and I realize just now it reminds me of the points made by Michael Young in "Down with meritocracy": https://www.theguardian.com/po
by js2 4y ago
Really appreciate the reply and I realize just now it reminds me of the points made by Michael Young in "Down with meritocracy":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
It's short enough that I'm not going to try to except any of it here.
- ch4s3 4y agoI'm familiar with Young's book and "Down with meritocracy", but I'm not making a meritocratic argument. Specifically I noted that "hey believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor", which is decidedly an acknowledgment that there is an element of luck in amassing a great fortune that comes with some sort of obligation. Carnegie and his contemporaries would have viewed this through a religious lens. I'm making two points in general, it is not a policy failure to allow the market incentivize big bets on innovation and that the gilded age culture of philanthropy gave us lasting institutions that in many ways outshine the accomplishments of the progressive era government. I'm making something of a consequentialist claim here, merit is orthogonal.
- js2 4y agoI realized you weren't making a meritocratic argument and I should have been clearer. Young (I think) laments the loss of Noblesse oblige and I think blames that loss on meritocracy, and I was reminded of his argument when you wrote "they [the wealthy] believed their good fortune obligated them to help society and the poor."
- ch4s3 4y agoAhh! Well, it's an interesting argument and notion, though I'm not totally sure how to feel about it. I think the loss of a more generalized sense of civic engagement is very real and lamentable.