Depends on your definition of meritocracy, I guess. Note that the word "meritocracy" itself was originally coined in the 1960s as a pejorative, before it came to be seen as a good thing coincidentally (not) with the rise of neoliberalism.
As the late Steve Kangas once said, an unrestricted meritocracy is like a knife fight, no rules, may the best fighter win. While a regulated meritocracy is more like a friendly sparring match with at least some basic rules. There would certainly need to be some sort of "social floor", plus other rules to prevent a genuine meritocracy from degenerating and devolving to oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, and ultimately kakistocracy (i.e. rule by the worst).
And as someone else said years ago, we haven't had a true meritocracy since Genghis Khan.
Individualism and universalism. Sounds so simple and doable and desirable. Oh, wait a sec—how exactly do those concepts jibe with meritocracy?
Depends on your definition of meritocracy, I guess. Note that the word "meritocracy" itself was originally coined in the 1960s as a pejorative, before it came to be seen as a good thing coincidentally (not) with the rise of neoliberalism.
As the late Steve Kangas once said, an unrestricted meritocracy is like a knife fight, no rules, may the best fighter win. While a regulated meritocracy is more like a friendly sparring match with at least some basic rules. There would certainly need to be some sort of "social floor", plus other rules to prevent a genuine meritocracy from degenerating and devolving to oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, and ultimately kakistocracy (i.e. rule by the worst).
And as someone else said years ago, we haven't had a true meritocracy since Genghis Khan.