-
@ Majúo
2025-04-11 17:15:58Meritocracy without equality is basically a ladder with missing steps, which only the fortunate few can climb. The rest is basically left at the ground to gaze up.
Furthermore, a pure focus on meritocracy can become a weakness if it’s a zero-sum game. While talents thrive in systems that value it, without fairness, you ultimately get exploitation, resentment, or fragility.
Ergo: meritocracy needs to be balanced with equality, and equality needs to be balanced with meritocracy.
In a meritocratic system, you basically need that the fortunate and the able are compassionate towards those less fortunate and able.
If you are more on the libertarian side, you need the fortunate individuals to compete as capitalists and then be socialists within their communities and families.
If you prefer a state, then the state must encourage meritocratic contribution of everyone that is able, to the best of their ability, while balancing it with a fair welfare system that nurtures and supports those less able and fortunate.
I think this is something Germany did historically quite well, but at one point we lost the balance: we lost the culture of merit by putting too much emphasis on equality – even to a point that Germany now cares for millions of non-citizens that never contributed, when it should instead demand these individuals to contribute to the best of their ability.
If we want to have a state, then we don’t want a welfare state, and – I think – we should also not want a pure capitalistic state. We need balance and thus a social meritocracy.