This really resonates with me for reasons I find difficult to articulate. Meritocracy seems to be similar to democracy in that it's better than the alternative

This really resonates with me for reasons I find difficult to articulate. Meritocracy seems to be similar to democracy in that it's better than the alternative (nepotism), but seemingly falls short of the mark. A person who happens to be adept at mathematics, by whatever means (perhaps they've been taught well, perhaps they have innate talent, perhaps they had good nutrition as a child) will generally end up with a higher earning potential, and so generally will end up with a more comfortable life. A better life, for lack of more accurate terminology. To me, that seems like a peculiar form of social darwinism. People do not control these traits to a huge extent. I... rather, we at HN, are better than some of our peers at mathematics, at algorithmic problem solving. No doubt about it. You can probably find someone in your life that you'll always be better than, in that particular field. We will be richer than some people purely by virtue of history, by virtue of events no longer within our individual control (if they ever were). Human capital. I struggle to reconcile that with wanting to reward people for the value they add to society. This is one of the reasons I've been swayed towards supporting universal basic income. I just can't see that it's right for people to be thrown on the scrap heap simply because they happened to be born with the wrong talents, the wrong preferences, or simply an inferior toolset. It seems to me that it's just the logical progression from helping those with a disability. It might be a necessary evil for the talented to earn more. I don't believe it's necessary for those less fortunate to struggle to meet basic requirements like shelter.