This comment from Ben Shapiro is incredibly simplistic and historically ignorant-- not just because it doesn't acknowledge that what he happens to think of as a "meritocracy" (a certain cleverness with words, spreadsheets, or computer programming-- which is how most of the really big fortunes are made today) is historically contingent-- as @romanhelmetguy famously pointed out in the tweet below (which was not directed at Shapiro, to be clear) But Shapiro's comment is also wrong because there are many, many downsides to pure meritocracy, and there are many important cultural and historical values that pure meritocratic thinking erases. This may be "good" for clever folks situated like Ben, but it's not good for society as a whole. Inevitably the logic of of pure meritocracy leads to open borders, globalism, extreme wealth inequality, and cultural homogenization (even if Ben might nominally claim to oppose, say, open borders) Ben seems blissfully unaware that the term "meritocracy" itself was popularized in sociologist Michael Dunlop Young's 1958 *dystopian* novel The Rise of The Meritocracy, which warned against just such a purely "meritocratic" society as proposed by Ben and ultimately ended with the overthrow of the "meritocrats" by populists. Don't get me wrong-- merit is good-- and societies that don't ultimately recognize and reward merit according to reasonably objective standards will tend to fall behind those who do. But there are many social values other than "merit" that any society should consider in making policy, and to champion some sort of bloodless "meritocracy" as the primary goal we should aiming towards shows an unfortunate degree of ethical and intellectual tunnel vision.