Blind auditions for orchestras, randomly assigning numbers prior to grading papers and the Vickrey auction are all ideas with merit that serve up merit for the most part. I'm a little more concerned with creativity, as a measure of human achievement in the long run, but merit is important as well.

At any instant in time one person is stronger, faster and more agile than another. To issue just compensation is a phantasm. It can't be done if only because people don't know their own brains. If we have to revert to justice to achieve a meritocracy I'm pretty sure we are doomed.

没有人是平等的。让我们团结起来，庆祝我们的差异，而不是花时间根据功绩来排序我们的贡献。这就是希望所在。

I was going to say something linking meritocracy with monarchy, then realized that would make nonsense. Monarchy's foundation is nothing more than the ancient divine right of kings, so a monarchy is self-sustaining, even in the shadow of the cold hard truth of its' absence of ruling power ( British royalty, for example). No, meritocracy, at bottom, is reliant upon competition, seems to me. This is one reason why capitalist economies eschew socialistic practices;why people in the United States thumbed their noses at FDR's advocacy of social security, making socialism a distasteful notion: we need to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, even though that roundly defies physics. There are no skyhooks or boom crutches. There are social democracies, but virtually no one believes that could work here. I have said it would be doomed because of diminishing returns: too many people to help and to few resources to help them. So, like it or no, competition forces us into meritocratic reality, while more prosperous nations with far fewer people can afford to supply greater aid to their populous. Our addiction to capitalism, and the power and prestige that brings, are necessary evils for maintenance of our world status and overall way of life. Addictions have their downsides. We have learned to take the good with the bad. The bootstrap symbolism is an empty metaphor. But it was not the first, nor will it be the lasr.

Scratch what I previously said about the M word. I am far more comfortable with the above remarks, other notions notwithstanding. Sorry for any typos. though. I just don't see so well now. These sorts of questions invite diverse opinions. That diversity is based in many things. Preferences, beliefs, opinions, expectations, desires and other propositional attitudes, posited by Donald Davidson. As a band-mate said, many years ago: we all have our own album to do. The content and substance of that album depends on the experience and background of the artist. There is no one size which fits all. Philosophy has proven this for centuries. Every time someone thinks he/she has it sussed, someone else steps up to challenge the status quo. This is why philosophy is an imperfect science. If it were perfect, it would be boring. Tedious. Uninteresting...I don't think meritocracy is a problem. Not, in any practical sense anyway. This assessment does not change my views on socialism. Because, as previously asserted, socialism has limited utility. It simply cannot work in countries with large populations, for the reason(s) previously advanced.

I’m sorry, perhaps I’m just a little slower than most. But your so-called “solutions” seem trivial and specifically, as far as your second solution, an empty formalism.

许多年前，美国最高法院的一位法官说，法律应该只做它能做的事情。首先，你的第一个解决方案不是解决方案。这是因为它已经是精英主义理想的一部分。此外，正如蒂姆·史密斯(Tim Smith)所提到的，明显不相关的因素通常会通过合理的程序尽可能地剔除，比如“盲试”，或者像裙带关系和贿赂这样的非法因素。我注意到联邦政府对名人通过作弊让自己的孩子进入名牌大学的起诉。所以，好吧，这不是一个解决方案，这就是理想的精英制度应该发挥的作用!

Second, so-called justice tempered linking is incoherent except as an empty formalism. I.e. “...mechanisms of reward for performance, while never perfectly in accord with what just deserts would be, could still be made more or less just.” Sorry, but it sounds to me like either you threw in the towel or just announced that we ought to try to make rewards more just. Okay, how? Don’t you owe us some details?

We’re not your original issues;

1. “Given that meritocracy as traditionally defined is practically impossible, is there any point at all to appealing to meritocracy as a social ideal?

2. “...if the answer is no, then there is the further psychological question of why so many people find the ideal so appealing, given its impossibility.”

Appears like you threw non-solutions at #1 and ignored #2.

好。在此之前，我并没有看到太多关于精英制度的问题，我认为，以我的原教旨主义方式，这个想法有明显的缺陷，我不是这个问题的专家。不知道有没有人是或者自称是。但是，无论是对是错，马蒂都为我们提供了思考的素材。对我来说，关于优点的利弊的观点总是空洞的。关于法律只做它能做的事的评论令人心酸——尤其是在当前动荡的时代。我们可以考虑的另一个优点是对优点的认可是否满足了人们对权利的期望?有一些令人不安的迹象表明，事实就是如此:美国联邦医疗保险(Medicare)广告的喧嚣声不绝于耳，其中一名退役的NFL四分卫奋力争取这项福利。多年来我一直知道医疗保险的局限性。任何人，在一定的年龄，如果他们有平均的智力，至少同样意识到这些限制。 Propositional attitudes are just that. Expectations cannot always be met.