Tut tut tut. As usual, offering cut-and-paste jobs instead of
anything that resembles an original thought, and reading
selectively to support a fallacious and inane point to prove that
you're a PAP lap dog. Why am I not surprised? 
Very well, mushroom, if you once again have to be taught how to
read, I'll do you yet another favour:
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Elitism, privilege, authority and control by vested interests are
focused on by Marxists and other socialists. Elitism and authority
are inherent in any human organisation. The idea of a society of
equals is a dream world, existing only in the minds and writings of
those with little or no understanding of human nature and human
history: a dream world of drabness, monotony, stagnation, poverty,
non-fulfilment and non-achievement. Marxists and socialists
themselves are highly elitist in their belief that they know,
better than the people themselves, what is good for the people.
They flourish in that most elitist of institutions, the
university.
Elitism, authority and privilege exist, but in the western
democratic order there are a number of countervailing
factors:
the merit
principle,
the concept of individual
responsibility,
the control of public power by constitutional and legal
safeguards,
moral values
and
the existence of a considerable
degree of upward (and downward) social
mobility
.
These may seem insignificant. Yet their significance becomes
apparent when compared to other systems (past and existing). If
they are less effective now than they were some time ago, the
reason is the growth of government, the influence of the
progressivists and counter-productive reform.
Elitism today is a dirty word. It is undeniable that some forms of
elitism are wholly reprehensible. Privilege and position
derived from factors such as birthright, patronage or dictatorial
political power are often examples of retrogressive forms of
elitism. Such elitism excludes the able, the persevering and the
deserving. It rewards not talent and effort, but power and
connections. It creates a parasitic elite which stifles progress.
In fact the beneficiaries of such a system do not deserve the name
elite.
But there are other more important forms of elitism which are
indispensable to human progress. A society which does not reward
effort and talent cannot progress. A progressive society needs to allocate tasks
and responsibilities to those who are most competent to undertake
them. It is also unavoidable that the performance
of tasks and the discharge of responsibilities requires
commensurate powers. But it is important to ensure that public
positions are accessible to the most competent through fair and
free competition and that powers are coupled with responsibility.
To operate a system of productive elitism, it is necessary to have freedom to compete
and the right to be judged on merit alone. Freedom
and the merit principle operate to allocate tasks according to
capability. The capable would not seek position without just
reward. Therefore, just reward is an indispensable element in
maximising the benefits to society.
Elitism in one form or another is unavoidable. The choice is
between productive, merit based elitism and retrogressive elitism.
Communist nations which set out to destroy all privileges have only
succeeded in establishing the most entrenched forms of bureaucratic
hierarchy. They have created impregnable bastions
of elitism based not on merit or competition but on political
power. In democratic societies there are attempts to prevent
elitism, particularly in public institutions. Managers are being
replaced by committees and Presidents and Chairmen are being
replaced by "convenors". Nevertheless, in their actual functioning
these bodies become stratified into a pecking order with some being
"more equal than others". Decisions are taken - but when things go
wrong no one claims responsibility. Alternatively,
they become ineffective and useless forums; nett burdens on the
institutions they are supposed to serve.
Elitism which rewards endeavour, and which places the most gifted
in positions of responsibility, is the hallmark of a progressive
polity. But elitism in this sense cannot be maintained without
legal and moral sanctions. It
requires guarantees of freedom and checks upon power to ensure that
authority is not abused. In short, it can only operate within an
institutional framework which promotes freedom and inhibits
corruption.
In a market order a certain form of elitism is unavoidable. A
person whose abilities, skills or other qualities are in demand is
likely to be more respected and more economically powerful. This,
in itself, is not an evil as those who desire his service freely
concede that position. It is the only way in which an impersonal
market can operate to the benefit of all. The qualities that are
respected may be very diverse, eg, skill, diligence, effort,
honesty or even possession of capital wealth. People who possess such qualities provide
services for economic gains or less tangible social gains such as
reputation. The important factor is that in a
market order elitism is unlikely to last unless the elite pays its
price by some service desired by others. In a non market order
(such as feudalism, socialism or fascism) elitism will persist
where there is no such mutual benefit.
Responsible and merit based elitism is desirable in public
institutions, subject to one important qualification. That is,
the power of
public institutions should be limited. Today, officials who
constitute the bureaucratic elite are gaining powers to control the
lives of citizens to an alarming extent, reminiscent of the powers
of the feudal barons. The first task is to define and limit the
power of government. The second is to choose the right people to
exercise the powers.
(http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap13.htm)
Put the red parts together, and bucks to your aunt's cherry
Singaporeans will start thinking not only of this sad and sorry Wee
affair, but of peanuts, public service imcompetence and a one-party
government.
You, of course, are a prime product of such a cesspit - don't
bother trumpeting to everyone that you're at Oxford when you can't
even read the above passage for its full message. God only knows
how you got yourself a sugar daddy if it really was a merit-based
system.
