/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13624899]

What political system allows for people of high intelligence, aristocratic character, and virtue to rise to the very top and keep the cretins at the bottom.

[Anonymous No.13625130]

None has yet been devised because aristocratic, virtuous, intelligent people at the top like having their declasse, ignoble, cretinous children and friends at the top too

[Anonymous No.13625366]

>>13624899
Based film anon. Also none, for exactly the reasons already stated, namely that smart/virtuous people don't produce children of the same caliber. Unless you believe it possible to train these children and make them intelligent and worthy, then nothing serves to preserve your elite. If you took children away from their parents you might accomplish what you want however.

[Anonymous No.13625380]

Capitalism with a high inheritance tax.

[Anonymous No.13625383]

>>13624899
this movie stressed me out. Regular Lovers is incredible though

[Anonymous No.13625712]

>>13624899
Feudalism, religious absolutistic monarchy.

[Anonymous No.13625750]

political systems will never favor the great. they will create false definitions of greatness to uphold their own order.

systems are for the weak, the great do not rise by them but in spite of them.

[Anonymous No.13626391]

>>13625366
Unironically education of the offspring but, most importantly, co-optation: the elite chooses some of its new members
Every healthy system gradually re-generates himself by the well regulated input of new resources

[Anonymous No.13626410]

>>13625380
That would highly disrupt the continuity and favor the egoist
But if you’re the elite and your son, albeit being a cretin, will manage to live a respectable life with few responsibilities (e. g. bureaucrat, low-ranking military officer, monk, nun, priest), you will start caring for the greater good and choosing your successors according to their capacities and personal qualities

[Anonymous No.13626431]

>>13625712
Absolutism is a late and unstable phase in the history of the Catholic monarchies. Middle Ages were mostly mixed government, though obviously different from what we have today.

[Anonymous No.13626452]

>>13625380
>tfw my son will not inherit my multi-million empire
>let’s see, I could appoint him to the best paying position in my corporation, so we can milk the cow while I’m still alive
>die
>my business goes bankrupt because of incompetent leadership and lack of liquidity used for inheritance taxes
>all employees end unemployed
>profit?

[Anonymous No.13627965]

>>13626452
The son can be a shareholder and not a member of the board and the company will still survive under strong leadership.

What now.

[Anonymous No.13627970]

>>13624899
None, as long as one can provide for ones offspring and as long as the system allows corruption your dream is futile.

[Anonymous No.13628109]

>>13626410
>>13626452
It's very simple.
You want true meritocracy? Keep setting the starting line back to zero. But of course humans are too protective of their children for them to ever accept the correct answer. Just because you were great doesn't mean you're beyond your ape biases of loving your children. And even if you were the best it doesn't mean your children will be. It certainly doesn't mean your children's children will be. Sure, part of it is genes. How do you know someone in the peasantry didn't get better ones by then though?

[Anonymous No.13628138]

>>13624899
Loans can only be in family name not individually

[Anonymous No.13628245]

>>13627965
That’s my actual point
Having financial security keeps stupid people from doing stupid things
If the son didn’t inherit anything the father would know that his company will die along with him anyway

[Anonymous No.13628249]

>>13624899
Very obviously fascism, don’t know what you and the rest of this thread is smoking.

[Anonymous No.13628261]

>>13628109
And when people die who manages their assets? Do you want every company go pharaoh-like? Who gets the shares to control them when the owner dies?

[Anonymous No.13628277]

>>13628249
Fascism economics reduces to sucking State or Church cock, intelligence and virtue my ass
Think about modern day China but everyone believing propaganda only ironically
I can speak from my family’s experience

[Anonymous No.13628346]

>>13628277
Economics has nothing to do with the topic and there isn’t even such a thing as fascist “economics”. Economics isn’t integral to the ideology like with communism. You can have a socialist democratic republicanism, or a socialist America, or you can have have a national socialist America, which would indeed qualify as fascism—or you could have capitalist America, but fascist. It sounds like you don’t know what fascism is or what the difference is between types of political ideologies and economic theories.
Fascism is the avenue for eugenics, which is the answer to OP’s question.

[Anonymous No.13628399]

>>13628346
Fascism was more about autarchy and corporativism in economics and increasing population than actual eugenics
Only eugenic laws were implemented in 1938 to follow Germany, hated by the people and not complied easily
>b-but fascism was not only in Italy
Wanna talk about Jewish Francisco Franco the Just between Nations and how he implemented eugenics?

[Anonymous No.13628430]

>>13628261
The stocks will be sold on the market to liquidate the assets and literally nothing will change. The board will still be incentived to turn up maximal profits by stock holders.
Also no one person owns a corporation. That's not how this works.

[Anonymous No.13628465]

>>13628399
I don’t know why this is so hard for you, I’m not referring to anything specifically in history.
Eugenics is the answer to OP’s question. Fascism is the only practical ideology that would facilitate eugenics. The answer is therefore fascism.

[Anonymous No.13628494]

>>13628465
Eugenics doesn't keep the lower beings down though. It keeps them not existing.

[Anonymous No.13628517]

>>13626452
>I could appoint him to the best paying position in my corporation, so we can milk the cow while I’m still alive
Not true capitalism.

[Anonymous No.13628527]

>>13628494
Ok dude, same thing.

[Anonymous No.13628606]

>>13628527
Nah. You still need to seperate the wheat from the chaff after they're born as well. Raising the average just creates a new class of lessers and superiors. We need to go beyond mere eugenics to give OP what he wants.