Meritocracy versus liberalism

Originally published 4 December 2015. AI polished for a better reading experience: 11 August 2026.

Many people treat meritocracy as one of the attributes of liberalism. If the government’s involvement in private matters is minimal, the only force that can drive people’s wealth, they say, is their own value — plus a little luck. In the real world, things are not like that.

Many economists like to see the economy as a jungle in which every party fights for survival. The tale of the lion and the cheetah says the lion must catch the cheetah to eat and live; both must run fast — the cheetah not to be trapped, the lion not to go hungry. It seems fair not to help either side from outside, because both are fighting for survival and we are in no position to decide whose life matters more. Carry that story into the economy and there should be no external power, such as government, choosing who survives and who does not.

Real life is a little different. Imagine a lion born especially fast. With every cheetah he catches he gains experience that makes him even better at his “job,” until he can trap almost any prey. Then he has a lion-son who is only so-so in speed and brains. Somehow the father still transfers enough experience and knowledge that the young lion becomes nearly as good — not because of his own legs or mind, but because he inherits the wealth his father created.

That is closer to how the real world works. Unlike the jungle, the story of lion and cheetah does not restart cleanly with every new generation. If someone succeeds in life, that person will usually do everything possible to help their children succeed — regardless of the children’s IQ or work ethic. That includes not only the best education money can buy, but networks and contacts that place them well from the start. Or, if the parents own a business, that business is often transferred to the children with no merit attached beyond being born in a particular place at a particular time.

Is that bad? I would not call it morally bad; it is part of human nature. It is bad for society, though, when resources are distributed by lineage rather than by merit and capacity. I know life still offers chances to change course, for better or worse, but a life is heavily shaped by its beginning. Would a serious company even look at your profile without a degree? If your parents cannot support you through university — never mind tuition fees — you may never go. Furthermore, you may end up in basic jobs with low wages, high turnover, and almost no professional development. Escape is possible, but very hard, even if you are talented.

For society’s wellbeing, truly capable people should be identified and promoted. Liberalism, valuable for other things, is not especially good at that. It assumes a fight under equal conditions, which our society does not provide. Some government involvement is needed to find la crème de la crème. Education — especially higher education — is the lever. I admire Plato’s search for excellence, and I believe we should look for that excellence too. When we talk about public education, we often mean lower-quality schooling that mainly lowers the “cost” of a graduate by increasing the number of graduates. Does that help people climb the social ladder? Only so-so.

To attract and promote the best, education has to change. The number of graduates should fall while quality rises. That need cost the government little, because resources simply move from one area to another. Inequalities of starting conditions should be reduced: state scholarships covering accommodation, meals, and basic expenses at roughly the level of a low wage should support students at state universities. Selection should be hard but transparent, with free access to the materials needed to prepare for the exams.

I believe each person should start life from a blank slate. That will not fix every injustice — inheritance, for example, might still need high taxes on wealth transfers or similar tools — but it would give genuinely able people a real chance to succeed. If we have antitrust rules for companies, why not analogous principles for citizens? Competition is good.