Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to.
Also, please don't use the term 'meritocracy'. Ever. Are you referring to the idea of rubber stamping people for positions of power based on their parents ability to pay for for the most expensive university courses and degrees? No, I didn't think so.
>Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to. //
Lets suppose I believe the exact opposite. Doesn't your claim then extend beyond you and infringe on my rights.
Or better yet let us suppose that a society has a right en masse, for example for taxes to be used to aid child-rearing. That could infringe on your conception of personal rights too.
As to meritocracy - you appear to confuse the term with plutocracy. Now it's true that those from privileged families may be better able to perform certain tasks, but to refuse to allow them to perform those tasks simply because their families are rich, isn't that rather ridiculous? Meritocracy is quite the opposite, if you can perform the task to a sufficient degree is the only measure; whether you have been to an expensive university or not is irrelevant to the meritocrat.
No I am not confusing the word at all. A meritocracy is a society built on the idea that one must (quite literally) gain a 'merit' before being considered for some role. This is open to obvious abuse - the ones that get into power can decide how one can gain the merit. In the US, it has been decided that one must pay for it.
I repeat: you have completely misunderstood the definition of the word 'meritocracy'. The condition is not 'can you perform the task' but 'do you have the requisite (and very literal) merit (passed an exam, for example.)
Don't worry though - a lot of people make this mistake.
Couple of dictionary definitions for you [the first 2 on dictionary.com]:
"mer·i·toc·ra·cy
[mer-i-tok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural mer·i·toc·ra·cies.
1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth."
"meritocracy (ˌmɛrɪˈtɒkrəsɪ)
— n , pl -cies
1. rule by persons chosen not because of birth or wealth, but for their superior talents or intellect"
"With an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority, and its seal of disapproval on the many who fail to shine from the time they are relegated to the bottom streams at the age of seven or before."
> Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to.
That's a nice idea if you don't think about it closely, but it doesn't work because rights always interact and you have to decide which takes priority in which circumstance. You can't just assert that they stop somewhere before they infringe on each other and leave it at that, because that doesn't actually resolve the boundaries.
The easy answers are easy because they aren't actually answers at all.
Of course - the boundaries must be tested. And in fact they likely must change depending on circumstance. I did not imply that someone could write up some set of rights somewhere that are so perfect they do not overlap. But such boundaries do exist and should be considered.
Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to.
Also, please don't use the term 'meritocracy'. Ever. Are you referring to the idea of rubber stamping people for positions of power based on their parents ability to pay for for the most expensive university courses and degrees? No, I didn't think so.