I do not understand why you feel you need odeon to express his opinion, if he has any, on the solution to bullying in schools. Do you require it in order to believe his assertion that you idea is broken? I mean I doubt that would be anywhere near enough for you to sway you beliefs. So all that I am left with is that you wish to publicly ridicule his ideas. I fail to see how that us useful and I also believe that odeon isn't that stupid to play into your juvenile game here.
Please feel free to point out how I'm wrong, I don't want to be left out here 
Because he has dismissed myself and Lit's solutions out of hand on a society says so argument - without presenting any solutions at all, let alone any better ones. If he does actually have some good ideas here then I would like to hear them - especially if they are actually viable.
But the point here our assertion is the best one - he just lacks any opposition. I (and I am sure Lit agrees with me here) that cowering behind none existant ideas is not a way to debate properly - if anything here Odeon is the one being juvenile here.
So let's hear it. How do you propose to implement a meritocracy? Or failing that, tell us how you think a few people can bring down society? And I want details, not sweeping statements or blaming the bottle.
By means of using what resources end up in my hands - clearly if I am to form a strategy I would have to consider what I have. But lets assume I become in charge of a government, my implementation would be by setting up a bureau of jobs to regulate the job market and reforming the educational system so no one can buy educational advantage. Ensuring I retain a fair and effective welfare state to go with it completes the package.
See, this is why you won't ever be in charge of anything, let alone a government. Nobody would elect you and nobody would follow you if you attempted a more violent path, because you're simply too far out there to be of any use. You seem to be advocating a form of socialism that, as far as I know, never worked, though, which I find amusing. One would think that you'd have read your history books. The Soviet Union was bankrupt when it fell, you do know that, right?
You haven't actually explained anything. No details, nothing on how you'd actually convince anyone to give away their personal belongings, starting from the little things at home to the larger ones at a company wishing to hire the best man for the job. Remember me suggesting you to send your computer to Somalia? I wasn't kidding.
As for the latter question, there are two methods I see. The first is rather predictably terrorism - well targeted and executed. The second is by construction of a religion/ideology which conveniently fits the goal of destroying society. Or even better a combination of the two approaches.
Again, sweeping statements full of nothing, really. You know, of course, that there are already quite large numbers of terrorists out there, trying their best to if not destroy the world, then at least annoy it a little. They've sort of managed the latter but they are nowhere near to bringing down anything.
And re constructing an ideology or religion, what makes you think that a) you could be inventive enough, considering the fact that you haven't convinced anyone here so far, and b) that your new ideology wouldn't join the ranks of scientology and others, becoming part of the society rather than something outside it?
All in all, you remind me of a Harlan Ellison short story, one with the hero trapped in a sinking boat in the middle of a river full of crocodiles, piranhas and whatnot, and with cannibals chasing him along the shores. Ellison spent pages to set up that hopeless situation, only to resolve it with one sentence (and I'm paraphrasing because it's been close to thirty years since I read that one) "he swam ashore, avoiding the crocodiles and escaping the cannibals."
Hey, Wandrew, can you remember what the story was called and where I can find it?
