>They address this in the article. Meritocracy doesn't mean dropping your children in the forest and stripping all advantage from them. If there's no equalizin

>They address this in the article. Meritocracy doesn't mean dropping your children in the forest and stripping all advantage from them. If there's no equalizing basis then you can't say it's about merit. Was feudalism actually about merit? After all who's more capable of being the king than his own son? >The whole point of a meritocracy is to be the best you can. I agree but with a very strong emphasis on the "you." >Giving every advantage to your children that you can afford is the whole point of meritocracy. Just a second ago you were saying it was about advancing yourself. Now it's about advancing your bloodline, those are two different things. >It's not "fair" but it produces peak performance, like the article says There's no reason to believe it produces peak performance. Even if you're a big believer in individuals advancing themselves in efficient markets and all that what you actually want is very liquid markets. If certain jobs become chock full of rich kids because they're the only ones who can receive all the training then that's very strong evidence of inefficiency and thus big evidence that we are not receiving "peak performance."