>Its like saying that you are going to base justice on "protecting good people and punishing bad people". That's exactly what our justice system is... Sometime

>Its like saying that you are going to base justice on "protecting good people and punishing bad people". That's exactly what our justice system is... Sometimes we fail at abstracting our morality to the courts but that's exactly what our goal is. >I can be swayed otherwise if I was shown what a meritocratic system would look like, but most of the times I heard that word it was as a criticism of laissez-fair capitalism that would rarely claim to be meritocratic. So your logic is "people usually use meritocracy as a knock against capitalism" and then establish your premise? "meritocracy is bad"? Doesn't make any sense. A perfectly meritocratic system doesn't exist and probably never will but systems which try to promote equality of opportunity are generally good. Our defense of "meritocracy" comes from the Rawlsian veil of ignorance. Behind it, it becomes obvious you would want to live in a society which provides a relatively equal chance for everybody and which, if you seize that chance, will reward you.