Dr. Martin Hash Podcast

A society can focus on its most competent individuals, or its least capable members, but not both, one group must become subservient to the needs of the other. It seems obvious that aligning a society behind its most competent individuals, a meritocracy, would be ideally effective and practical, but this simple straightforward outlook on life is very controversial because there are many people who believe that a society is best defined by how it treats its least capable members: the young, the old, and the mentally impaired. Whether this belief arises from religious tenets, compassion, or envy is immaterial, the proponents of the concept will wrap themselves in a mantle of self-righteous indignation that no amount of rational debate will penetrate.

The goal of a Liberty Nation is the most-liberty-to-the most-people, but the main problem with a meritocracy is that it conflicts with that goal. If only the top 1% “deserve” success, how does that impact the opportunity of the other 99%? Worse, the idea of meritocracy has the fatal flaw of who & what determines merit. In America, the primary measurement of merit is birth: the wealth & success of your parents determine your wealth & success. This hasn't always been the case, America used to be the “land of opportunity,” but that was because when America was young, its aristocracy had not yet established perpetual control over all things. As laudable as a meritocracy sounds, it ends up delivering the most-liberty-to-whoever-gets-there-first.