But the scale of the magic wand's power haven't been described yet, so i assume that it would insta-kill everyone that the holder pointed at in an op you-turn-to-dust-in-1-second manner . A question comes to mind whether when, for example, the wand was waved in a fan-shaped manner, and thus rapidly pointed at several people. Will they also be insta-killed? Would metal and the likes hinder the wand's ability to kill? If not, then it's probably possible to randomly waving at an airplane/helicopter until you hit the jackpot (aka, the pilot). And, will the wand pass metal-detector scanner? Maybe the wand was made entirely from wood? how big is the wand? harry potter's big? would it fit a jacket's inner pocket? I imagine a scenario like a world leader summit, then suddenly our dearest dictactor would jump to the table and take the wand out from their blazer's pocket, waving it all around while saying "so long, ******!" and laughing evily. Hey, i think i've seen a movie with that scene Oh, i like this scenario. This actually brings into question regarding the "advisors/ministers" that would surround the chosen dictactor. Would it be mandatory for these people to be selected from the highest ranks of test-takers? Or the dictator could select whoever? Regarding the matter of "dumbing the whole population except the leader" theory in regards to securing the #1's position. Even if it's not a planned situation, inequality of education between cities/provinces/states have always been a classic problem. And that leads to another question: how big is this hypotetical country? as big as the US? The bigger the country, usually means bigger inequality. And another question! Will the test-takers remember the test that they took, even if it's just in parts? If it's a yes, then i think that it's possible for certain group of people to compile the already asked questions and form something like a curriculum after a few decades. And if this happens, it's more likely that this so-called "curricullum" would only circulated in certain circles, further widening the chance of a planned succesion within certain groups of people. And lastly, we know that the highest-scoring examinee were given the dictactorship. But what's the thing that could make them truly rule and other people obey? will there be..a divine gift? What's to prevent the dictator be a "dictator" in name only? Sorry, but this scenario is just so much fun!
There’s no such thing! Democracy is every citizen gets one vote on POLICY. Citizens directly vote on issues. No “democratic” country in the world uses that system. We have republics, where citizens vote on elected officials who vote on policy. Democracy died with ancient Athens, and due to the population of modern countries, it’s impractical to implement...except maybe Lichtenstein... According to American history, the smartest presidents have made the worst decisions...Wilson, smart by anyone’s standards, created the League of Nations, which failed to stop WW2, and legalized lead additives to gasoline. A democracy is not a meritocracy...look at the US...how did we end up with TRUMP?!?! Democracy is a Glib-o-mancy...the best liars win. Take comfort in the fact that Hillary won the popular vote in 2016. America isn’t brain dead, we just have a really strange election process, involving the electoral college...
I’m glad that you’re finding the scenario fun! I think for me, I approached the scenario thinking about how you would make things if you were the Patron God of this country (e.g. Athena the goddess of knowledge) who made the Divine Orb to begin with. Consequently, it’s only possible to control how the orb functions — but not how humans decide to form their government and interpret their laws. I think this is much more interesting question, since it relates back to statecraft and how to put together a foundation of a nation irrespective of the fact that in the future there might be bad people (e.g. Hamilton’s Federalist papers). For the wand — honestly it was basically inspired by the Elder Wand in Harry Potter. I didn’t think too carefully about the details, but I thought that if this is a country ruled by “divine right”, it was necessary to have a symbol of divine right. A powerful wand that only the rightful ruler can wield is a very explicit and direct symbol of power. I was even imagining that the wand would teleport to the rightful owner (a la the Gryffindor sword) as soon as the test results are known. The bigger question is — if you were the goddess — would you make the wand more powerful/less powerful? A different artifact? What gift would you give to your ruler to signify their power? On ministers — for me, no comment on who they must choose! It’s outside of the affairs of the orb. To me, I think it’s better to be able to choose from non-test takers too. For the perspective of an inhabitant of that country, taking the test is a very dangerous thing since it paints a target sign on your head if you score well. Naturally, I would expect that plenty of smart and capable people who value their life would not take the test. Inequality is a major problem. However, a true meritocracy does not have affirmative action or provincial quotas. People who objectively score the best, objectively score the best — even if they all come from a single city in the entire country. To me, how to correct inequality is also outside of the domain of the “meritocracy orb”. As for the test contents, if I were the goddess of knowledge and meritocracy, I would absolutely make sure that the test is fair and impossible to cheat on. Consequently, I would prefer to administer the test simultaneously to everyone in the country at the same time (to avoid question sharing/cheating), and I would design the test in a way such that there are no clear patterns. Since it is a test on “All Knowledge” — there is a lot of room in subject matter. One way to administer the test to everybody is to go to everyone in a dream and mentally teleport them into a dimensional white room with no distractions — as well as time slowed since it’s a very long test — and give them up to two weeks in the mental pocket dimension to complete a weeklong test (or more than enough time to sleep or recover whatever if their IRL conditions were bad before the test). It’s natural that people who took the test once before would be at an advantage — and that’s normal. I think one thing that people neglected in the comments of this thread is what a ruler would do after a 10-year term. I personally think it’s very risky to take the test again, because I think the probability to being the smartest person in the country for two decades in a row is quite low. ...And if you’re anything less than first place, you could potentially end up dead. Attempting to kill all your potential competitors, at least IMO, is like shooting yourself in the foot for your next 10-year term (if you win), because you need smart and capable people in your country if you want to avoid being steamrolled by foreign countries. Furthermore, it’s impossible to know if there was a new child genius who popped up in the countryside somewhere that you’re just unaware about. There’s just too many variables. In my personal opinion, the reasonable thing to do as the ruler is to not do anything so publicly hated that you would be immediately beheaded by your inevitable successor. Popular opinion is still important. It’s important to look past ten years. I think if it were me, I would probably retire and publicly announce that I’ll never take the test again — and just be a tutor for anyone who comes to me.
I don't want to type alot right now so I won't say much, but I was just reading about this two or three days ago and came across something interesting about the word meritocracy itself. Apparently it was first used in a book. I'm just going to copy paste what Wikipedia says about it. Here: Spoiler Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" is relatively new. It was used pejoratively by British politician and sociologist Michael Dunlop Young in his 1958 satirical essay[13][14][15][16] The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else, being the combination of the root of Latin origin "merit" (from "mereō" meaning "earn") and the Ancient Greek suffix "-cracy" (meaning "power", "rule").[17] (The purely Greek word is axiocracy (αξιοκρατία), from axios (αξιος, worthy) + "-cracy" (-κρατία, power).) In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group. The essay, written in the first person by a fictional historical narrator in 2034, interweaves history from the politics of pre- and post-war Britain with those of fictional future events in the short (1960 onward) and long term (2020 onward).[18] The essay was based upon the tendency of the then-current governments, in their striving toward intelligence, to ignore shortcomings and upon the failure of education systems to utilize correctly the gifted and talented members within their societies.[19] Young's fictional narrator explains that, on the one hand, the greatest contributor to society is not the "stolid mass" or majority, but the "creative minority" or members of the "restless elite".[20] On the other hand, he claims that there are casualties of progress whose influence is underestimated and that, from such stolid adherence to natural science and intelligence, arises arrogance and complacency.[20] This problem is encapsulated in the phrase "Every selection of one is a rejection of many".[20] It was also used by Hannah Arendt in her essay "Crisis in Education",[21] which was written in 1958 and refers to the use of meritocracy in the English educational system. She too uses the term pejoratively. It was not until 1972 that Daniel Bell used the term positively.[22
1) I think there should be a better equipment for judging. For one, it's a mul-cho test, there's a possibility that someone good at answering test isn't good at leading people, reading signs of times, etc etc. What if it was an advance nation simulator of sort? (random thought) 2) I would like to live in a monarchy more if there's something uniquely good at the rulers and nobles act according to the good of the people. But we all know that's likely to happen, so I'll choose meritocracy. At least you have more control over things. 3) This would still depend on the current ruler and the foreign relation policies the ruler likes. Considering it's a dictator level authority, he/sho could build or destroy bridges as he like. Less clamoring by people who wants benifits from other countries.