Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (10577)	2/1/2006 8:07:27 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541915

I don't recall the "caste system" argument appearing. TP seems so concerned with creating not just an aristocracy but a permanent one. I think that's overwrought. A caste system is the polar opposite of a meritocracy. I was laying out the full range. We are definitely not a meritocracy. And, I agree with you, we are not a caste system. We are somewhere in between. A meritocracy in spirit, but an imperfect one.

To: JohnM who wrote (10577)	2/1/2006 8:47:34 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541915

I thought Tim and TP were arguing about class systems and I read Tim to say we don't have class in the US because that's inherited and we are a meritocracy. No doubt Tim will correct me in a subsequent post. That sort of resembles what I said, but you would have to weaken the claim a lot to make it more accurate and more like what I actually said. We don't have a rigid class system, because we have a fairly large amount of opportunity, and because we are to an extent (a large extent than most other societies in history) a meritocracy. That doesn't mean the idea of class plays no role in the US or that we are a total meritocracy. Tim