Dealing with ultra-libertarian idiocy?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Isn't there some way to make a meritocratic system that incorporates some element of citizens choice? That would seem better than a hereditary monarchy.

Perhaps there ought to be some sort of minimal intelligence, education criterion for running for high office or a dual-track system that incorporates technical experts from given fields related to governmental policy, the candidates chosen from a pool of the best qualified who are then voted on by the people.

For instance, for science policy, there would be a representative committee from that field, chosen from within the discipline's community, put up for popular vote.

[Ritterin Sophia]

You mean a Democratic Meritocracy? The most difficult one I can think of is for each of the two major parties to have party members merits and somehow score them (This and gathering the merits is probably the hardest part, and I'd have no clue how to do this), the top number of them (let's say five since I like multiples of fives) are then put into the primaries where the party members vote on who should be the candidate, then when election time roles around each party has a primary candidate, theoretically based on merit. Then you'd have to do that for state, district, and city as well. Another difficulty is keeping up with each persons merits.

The simplest way is to simply do away with voting in the primary, keep nomination completely voluntary, and then instead of primaries you'd once again score merits of each candidate and then vote in the actual elections.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You mean a Democratic Meritocracy? The most difficult one I can think of is for each of the two major parties to have party members merits and somehow score them (This and gathering the merits is probably the hardest part, and I'd have no clue how to do this), the top number of them (let's say five since I like multiples of fives) are then put into the primaries where the party members vote on who should be the candidate, then when election time roles around each party has a primary candidate, theoretically based on merit. Then you'd have to do that for state, district, and city as well. Another difficulty is keeping up with each persons merits.

The simplest way is to simply do away with voting in the primary, keep nomination completely voluntary, and then instead of primaries you'd once again score merits of each candidate and then vote in the actual elections.

Something akin to that, yes. I was thinking of giving people at least some semblance of participation in the process, but at the same time manipulating the potential choices to minimize possible electorate flaws and give technical experts more say over the issues "normal" politicians usually make. No matter whom they choose, the candidates in the final pool would all be relatively intelligent and credentialed.

Ideally, I was thinking of a dual-track government that actually incorporates discipline-specific technocrats into the legislative positions instead of "normal" politicians." I don't think it's possible within our framework, though. At least not any time soon.

For instance, assume a national legislature or state legislature. The legislature would break into sub-sections/committees comprised of technical experts from discipline-domains relevant to public policy issues. They would make policy on all issues that require technical decisions in that field. Each member of the committee represents a specific technical field (e.g. Engineering, Biology, Education, Ecology, etc). Each representative candidate for the committees competes with other possible technocrats in the discipline for the position, the top competitors ultimately chosen to ascend to the higher pool the general public votes on for placement.


I am always disappointed when I watch debates in the house/senate, etc because these politicians are debating issues they often have no expertise in, while those who have expertise are seemingly ignored in the process.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with "meritocracy" in general is that nobody ever bothers defining which particular kind of "merit" we're talking about. It's just implicitly assumed that there is only one kind of merit, and that this particular merit is beneficial for society.

Even if you removed the hereditary factor from politics (as dominant as it is), you would still have to deal with the fact that the particular form of "merit" that would be rewarded in a hypothetical political meritocracy would be the ability to deceive the lowest common denominator: not exactly something that is beneficial for society.

[Adrian Laguna]

They won't recover in time to save the Whites, though. And Austria-Hungary is starting to come apart at the seams from nationalist pressures which aren't going to go away even once the peace treaty is signed.

Part of the reason for them coming apart involves losing a war, and the Hungarian's mistaken impression that Wilson's 14 Points worked in their favour. They thought they would get to keep Greater Hungary.

As for the "so what" if the Central Powers are economically flat, that's a big "so what" —it affects their ability to do anything other than concentrate on trying to recover from the financial drain of the war.

The British were in as similar situation and yet they still sent help to the Whites.

Yes, but the brutal fact of the matter is that it didn't fail on its own, and White generals were no more competent than they had been on the Eastern Front. Nothing suggests that this would have been any different had the Central Powers achieved a favourable armistice for their side.

I think it would, see below. Though even if I'm wrong (chances rated as high), they were two separate statements. A CP victory would help preserve monarchic institutions, regardless of whether communism fails or not. Communism failing would also help preserve monarchic institutions, even without a CP victory. Both at the same time would obviously help a whole lot.

Tons of rifles, artillery, and ammunition from Britain and America didn't do much to help the White cause as it was in real history,

A large portion of those supplies sat in the ports guarded by foreign troops and never used. The Austrians and Germans have the advantage of a land connection, which allows them to ship supplies by rail and distribute them more efficiently.

and as Germany and Austria-Hungary are not only facing enemies they haven't really defeated but are facing their own internal troubles, they're not really going not really going to spare the leftover arms and ammo.

What do you mean by enemies they haven't really defeated?
I don't know of any internal troubles faced by Germany that would require enough weapons for a fully mobilized army. The Austrian position would be stronger because they've won the war. The Central Powers would be unable to provide aid in the event of

Military advisers aren't going to provide that much help either, as in the end it's still up to the Whites and their leadership to win the fight against the Reds. And having White armies led by foreign generals only gives the Reds a propaganda victory while not guaranteeing battlefield success for the Whites.

Unfortunately for that example, George McClellan didn't do all that much with the information that came wrapped with the cigars. He won Antietam (1862, not 63, BTW) but he could have won the war outright had he acted.

Except the disaster at Gallipoli would not have been averted by one lucky shot. The Ottoman position was simply too strong, the British plan was ad-hoc, and the battlefield leadership of Hamilton was incompetent. Nevermind that the whole scheme was a longshot at best and based in part on some poor intelligence as to the strength of the Ottoman forces.

Sorry, I left out that the Colonel's name is Mustafa Kemal. The man liked to lead from the front and was actually hit by shrapnel at one point (IIRC). If we move that shell a few metres toward him, instead of just being hit he'd have been shredded. No Kemal, no modern Turkey as we know it. I don't think it would have made much of a difference in the Dardanelles Campaign, that wasn't my point anyway.

You can make a similar argument about one George Washington in Bradock's Defeat, who had two horses shot out from under him and his coat pierced by bullets a few times. He was literally inches away from death, but survived due to random chance, just as he may have died due to random chance.


Stas Bush, it's clear you know more than I do, there's only one I can contest.

While the Russian Civil War plays for them, the Bolsheviks plays against them. The obvious course of action is to allow the war to happen (they're forced to do that anyway, since they're not in a position to stop it) and help the Whites win once it's under way.

[Adrian Laguna]

Shit. Why can't we have the "Preview" and "Submit" buttons an inch apart? That would be really helpful.

and as Germany and Austria-Hungary are not only facing enemies they haven't really defeated but are facing their own internal troubles, they're not really going not really going to spare the leftover arms and ammo.

What do you mean by enemies they haven't really defeated?
I don't know of any internal troubles faced by Germany that would require enough weapons for a fully mobilized army. The Austrian position would be stronger because they've won the war. The Central Powers would be unable to provide aid in the event of extensive violent civil unrest. I find that happening rather unlikely.

Military advisers aren't going to provide that much help either, as in the end it's still up to the Whites and their leadership to win the fight against the Reds. And having White armies led by foreign generals only gives the Reds a propaganda victory while not guaranteeing battlefield success for the Whites.

It is true that they would not be more than advisers in the battlefield. However, they would be in a position to broker better co-operation between factions, "Play nice or you don't get guns."

Unfortunately for that example, George McClellan didn't do all that much with the information that came wrapped with the cigars. He won Antietam (1862, not 63, BTW) but he could have won the war outright had he acted.

He could have probably done more in Antietam, yes. However, the fact remains that said battle was a big turning point in the war. It inflicted losses on the Confederates they could not easily replace, and gave Lincoln enough confidence to issues his Emancipation Proclamation. The two taken together, in turn, killed any chance of Britain or France giving aid to the CSA.

[Patrick Degan]

and as Germany and Austria-Hungary are not only facing enemies they haven't really defeated but are facing their own internal troubles, they're not really going not really going to spare the leftover arms and ammo.

What do you mean by enemies they haven't really defeated?

Forcing the war to an armistice which more or less leaves the pre-war status quo intact (the best Germany and Austia-Hungary could have hoped for) and does not entail occupation of the enemy homelands or their loss of colonial territory means the enemy has not really been defeated. The war simply goes down to a cease-fire.

I don't know of any internal troubles faced by Germany that would require enough weapons for a fully mobilized army. The Austrian position would be stronger because they've won the war. The Central Powers would be unable to provide aid in the event of extensive violent civil unrest. I find that happening rather unlikely.

Germany was under increasing danger of an internal revolution because of the toll the war was taking on their society and economy; particularly toward the beginning of 1918. Around 750,000 German citizens starved to death during the war, so it's no exaggeration to say that the nation had very serious internal troubles. As for Austria-Hungary, their little ramshackle empire was starting to come apart at the seams even before Gavrillo Princip fired his little shot heard round the world. In fact, they tried negotiating for a separate peace with the allies and were willing to concede to the Fourteen Points. They then tried recasting the empire as a federal union of six nationalities, but by then it was too late to stem the tide of nationalist separation.

Military advisers aren't going to provide that much help either, as in the end it's still up to the Whites and their leadership to win the fight against the Reds. And having White armies led by foreign generals only gives the Reds a propaganda victory while not guaranteeing battlefield success for the Whites.

It is true that they would not be more than advisers in the battlefield. However, they would be in a position to broker better co-operation between factions, "Play nice or you don't get guns."

Hmm... So, they would be willing to compromise their strategy of aiding the Whites and concede tactical advantage to the Reds by attempting to play referee. Face it —the Central Powers would have been in no better position to broker anything anymore than the Allies were in real history.

Unfortunately for that example, George McClellan didn't do all that much with the information that came wrapped with the cigars. He won Antietam (1862, not 63, BTW) but he could have won the war outright had he acted.

He could have probably done more in Antietam, yes.

Yes, he could have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia and ended the war.

However, the fact remains that said battle was a big turning point in the war. It inflicted losses on the Confederates they could not easily replace, and gave Lincoln enough confidence to issues his Emancipation Proclamation. The two taken together, in turn, killed any chance of Britain or France giving aid to the CSA.

It was a significant event, but not a big turning point in the war. Even up to the invasion of Pennsylvania, the Union was still in danger of pissing away the war despite their massive material advantages. Plus, the Confederates were still able to replace their manpower going into early summer of 1863. The Union had still not really forced a decisive strategic reverse on the Confederacy post-Antietam and the Army of the Potomoc had one of its worst defeats lying ahead for them that winter —at Fredricksburg.

[K. A. Pital]

While the Russian Civil War plays for them, the Bolsheviks plays against them. The obvious course of action is to allow the war to happen (they're forced to do that anyway, since they're not in a position to stop it) and help the Whites win once it's under way.

They did. They intervened in the Civil War with Krasnov's Don brigades, as well as forming subservient nationalist governments in occupied territories of Ukraine, etc. The Whites still failed, no matter who supported them - Germans or the Entente. There's no way round this, they were poorly supported by the population, and poor war leaders as well. Their armies, contrasting with the Red Guard, commonly were plagued by moral indecence, decadent leanings, drunkedness, et cetera. When a new white commander took over some armed units, he often had to install discipline anew with obligatory shootings of officers. But that only helped for a moment. In the end, the Whites lost miserably.

So yes, I do know a little more than you do. Good commanders do not equal win - not to mention that lots of good commanders defected to the Red Guard from the Tsarist Army. And supporting the Tsar and foreing intervents was a critical failure of the Whites - they were seen as both foreing intervents and enemies of Revolution by the populace.