I mean, yes everything has limits. I think the point is that the limit for how much merit is required for our system to run is much much lower then people would intuitively expect. Which is why its surprising when we see very clearly incompetent people thriving at the same time other very clearly competent and talented people are struggling, and wondering how that could possibly happen.
The system is too big and complex for there to be a notion such as merit. We are animals and just like all animals we must fight to survive. Some people get lucky, some get unlucky. Merit is irrelevant.
And if you try to create a merit based system, you take away the liberties of the people. Who decides what person deserves more than another? You will create a system ripe for corruption.
> And if you try to create a merit based system, you take away the liberties of the people.
How does a system that rewards people for being good at what they do 'take away liberties'?
> Who decides what person deserves more than another? You will create a system ripe for corruption.
Who decides this now? Its the people who already have more and this has resulted in our existing system being rife with corruption at this very moment.
> How does a system that rewards people for being good at what they do 'take away liberties'?
Define being good at what you do. It's not such an easy thing. IMO the best way we can do such a thing is let markets and trade define what it means to be good at what you do. If you provide value to others and your customers are willing to pay you a premium, that means you are good at what you do.
It's hard to explain my way of thinking to you in a comment on an online forum, if you are willing to look it up, the word to search is libertarian.
> Who decides this now?
The system is currently a democratic one, with a large state. The people decide who gets to control the state. The problem is, the government has so much power, it motivates greedy people to try to control it. So the rich and greedy spent their money on manipulating the democratic vote in order to get control of the government and hopefully make the money they spent back with some extra.
In my opinion, the government should be weaker in terms of its monitary power and stronger in terms of its policy power. Less taxes and more enforcement of competition rules.
Competition doesn't have to be merit based. My view on competition rules is that it should prevent winners, period. If there is a company so good that they can effectively monopolize a market based on merit alone, they should still be punished. How is that advocating for merit?
Monopolies form for other reasons than 'because they are so good', and without exception, monopolies go on to produce less-good products over time while simultaneously preventing better products from entering the market.
So in practice, rules against monopoly are fully consistent with merit-based ideals.
reply