Meritocracy is an ideal founded on the notion of the rugged individual. The notion that hard work alone bestows a certain prestige and authenticity to an individual is only realized among 'equals' Not all individuals have equal brain or physical function, economic or class opportunity or tribal affiliation based on race. That is not to say that those individuals so 'afflicted' cannot rise above and beyond a staring point further back in the line,...it only reflects the probability that not all will attain similar goals or aspirations when circumstances vary.

挑战在于如何从不那么愿意的人中挑选出愿意的人。在一个复杂的社会中，要衡量这么多独立变量之间的差别是不可能的，最有效的方法就是再分配!光有慈善是不够的。美国在大萧条期间和大萧条之后认识到，社会听之任之会导致整体的毁灭。因此，政府的干预，即混合经济，以及工会主义和公共教育的兴起，构成了现代社会的三大进步。优胜劣汰在早期可能行得通，但科技的飞速发展和追求经济繁荣的人口城市化改变了这一切。

我认为精英政治作为一种意识形态的目的不仅仅是让精英们觉得他们的繁荣是自己挣来的，即使98%的时间是他们继承的(通过社会阶级的广泛优势)。或许同样重要的是，它指责和羞辱那些因种族和阶级压迫机制而陷入贫困的人。对弱势群体的隐性或显性的羞辱有助于使他们不认识到使他们处于边缘的系统性障碍。

The closest I have found to a meritocracy that works is the military promotion system. Is it truly without flaws? No is my answer. However, It does allow for the least amount of favoritism. It also provides for the best chance of recognition without personal bias. I do not feel that any conditions for recognition or merit based success is without flaw. I believe that is based on human nature which will always attempt to influence any System that is put in place to allow for maximum personal achievement. A meritocracy or merit based system is still the most desirable way to acknowledge and recognize Hardworking people.

今天早上我写了一组不同的评论和评论。不知道那是怎么回事。只是注意到关于社会主义的争论是由保守派煽动起来的。这似乎与精英制度略微一致。给我。保守派试图把对社会主义的偏爱强加于自由派/进步派。他们把对手描绘成社会主义者，声称他们鼓励这种制度，进一步主张自由/进步，将斯堪的纳维亚和美国的民主和经济标准进行比较。历史事实:自20世纪30年代以来，美国已经有了社会主义的元素。它被称为社会保障。，而且不像它的名字。
Comparison to the Scandinavian model fails, on it's face. Why? Social Democracy works in Sweden because of the much smaller population. In the United States, the whole notion violates the law of diminishing returns. So, the conservative political agenda comes front and center. Disinformation and misinformation rule. And 'average' Americans trust their sources and ideology to the dissemination of, uh, 'alternative act's. Remember that one?

Thinking further about the content of this post and the remarks offered (mine and others). Maybe the entire meritocracy idea is obsolete? Let's suppose, for a moment, that the united States was smaller, or, since that would be abstraction, suppose she did not shoulder the onerous responsibility of being a world power? More of the wealth currently generated might be directed towards improving the lot of every man, woman and child. Billions now spent on defense, aerospace programs and such like, would go towards social programs, medicine, food improvement and an array of other humanitarian goals and objectives. Lennon's brotherhood of man. Just imagine. Those Scandinavians! What a clever bunch. They don't have all of that onerous responsibility. True, they do not have the power and prestige accrued by other countries. But, I doubt they lose any sleep over it.

By most accounts I have gleaned, they are happier and more well-adjusted than most other peoples of the world. They have respected longevity and are healthier than many. So, I conclude there must be something to the notion of social democracy. It is too late for that system to be relevant here, for the reason(s) formerly stated. But, economists can be creative. Perhaps there may be some variant.
Some hybrid of some sort that would be a 'fit'? Well, just thinking in cyberspace.....

今天早上收到一封电子邮件。国会议员。他谈到了他和特朗普总统在Mar Lago的一次对话。或者海湖庄园(Mar-a-Lago)，看哪个合适。这是最近的一次谈话，或者说是最近的一次谈话。我通常会立刻删除这些机器人邮件。但是，我很生气地回答说，DJT已经不是总裁了。我知道这位议员不承认规定的事实。可能还相信其他事实。电子邮件不会停止。
I know this. They are soliciting money and their originators don't care where it comes from. It makes being connected tedious. One of the downsides of free speech. That't OK. I would not want the alternative...

Rhetorical Question: when did the word socialism take on the sinister meaning, currently held by conservative America? I submit that it began with identification of the communist threat. As far back,I guess, as the 1950s. When the Russian world became the USSR, fuel was added to the fire. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Even though communism, not socialism, was the foundation of the economic and political system. Knee-jerk patriots pounced. And true conservatism was born. Now, anyone may argue this line of reasoning, But, I tend to be a pragmatist in such matters. So, I assert my proposal is at least partially true. Connect some dots; turn some knobs---see what you come up with.