The problem with a socialist state such as the one in Canada isn't hitorically unique. The same problems cropped up in China during the administrative state scholar era and in Rome when the empire became an administrative state. When every profession is tied to the state administrators and the social status of the administrators is directly tied to the political class the professional class will become corrupted by politics. Even if you tried to make such a system meritocratic you would fail. In China it failed because it turned out being a Confucius scholar didn't prevent administrators from being corrupted and it was a poor competency test. The same kinds of problems destroyed the Soviet Union. Communist party loyalty was the only way to gain social status in the Soviet Union and competency was a secondary consideration.

Although there are good reasons not to use the Marxist term capitalist it is convenient here. Even in a "capitalist" society such as the US the same kind of corruption takes place. You don't here the term crony capitalism much these days but it is a useful idea. It turns out that a capitalist system is just as subject to corruption as a socialist system for the same reasons. Once politics and finance become intricately linked because of regulation merit becomes secondary to networking in social advancement. Networking in this case means the ability to form relationships with politicians and bureaucrats and other CEOs. Sometimes directly and sometimes through lobbyists. Any time who you know is more important than competency meritocracy dies.

The question then is what is the alternative to the administrate state to regulate a complex society? I wish I had a good answer but there isn't one. The only answer is for the whole of society at every level to demand that hierarchies be ones of competence. That meritocracy rules in every situation. The key is understanding that productivity be the criteria by which merit is determined. Unfortunately humans are instinctually programmed to disregard productivity because instincts were forged in the easy and unstable natural environment where productivity does not exist. Fitness in that environment is determined by grooming and networking. The same social skills that are most valued today. In addition to this flaw in human instincts there is the fairness problem. Where there is no productivity there is no means to determine what fair distribution of resource is. We are programmed to see fairness as equal distribution slightly modified by grooming and networking ability. The additional problem flows from this basis. When grooming and networking determine social status the small advantage those skills give come under the "Mathew Principle". Like the game monopoly what starts out as a small advantage will general lead to the concentration of everything is a single player. It is the way societies work. For example in Sweden where you have the most "feminist" of social engineering the small difference in proclivities between males and females is magnified at the societal level. The push for sexual equality in Sweden didn't lead to a even distribution of males and females in all professions but ended up reflecting proclivities. Women are heavily concentrated in people jobs such as nursing and men in jobs about things such as engineering. The same process has worked itself out in Western societies to where almost all important positions are now occupied by groomers not doers. It is not a new phenomenon per se as you can see it happened in the peace time millitary before WWII.

The only thing that seems to correct for our uncivilized instincts is a severe crisis. Incompetent groomers fall to the wayside and competent doers take their place.

The additional irony is that intelligence is a necessary but insufficient criteria for merit. Because of our genetic nature open creative people are not necessarily the most conscientious. Because of complexity intelligence plays a key role in social advancement in our societies. Unfortunately we know that the highly intelligent are often low in conscientiousness. High intelligence like low intelligence is related to mutations. In a highly successful society mutation loads will concentrate in the upper and lower classes in the absence of selection. They show up as autistic like traits or neuroticism as well as other mental defects. Therefor conscientiousness has to be a key component of position in the hierarchy. Again unfortunately conscientiousnes is concentrated in the "conservative" elements of society. While those most like to move up the social ladder are the groomers, networkers, and creative types genetically low in conscientiousness.

If you want to know why a society lead by groomers and networkers hate Jordan Peterson there you go. They are not stupid. They know their social status is unjustified in terms of the needs of civilization. They just don't care because of genetics.

Disgusting behavior on the part of the “college.” They should be dismantled.

I object in the strongest terms, and hope everyone will stand with me in support of Dr Peterson.