Is a meritocracy the best society?

I always thought it was a nobrainer than a meritocracy was hands down the best kind of society to live in.  People who are the best at things should make it to the top.  People who are lucky enough to be born into a family or group that did well in the past should have to compete equally with everyone who wasn't.  What could be wrong with that?

Well, an intriguing blog post by Patricia Kaszynska as a guest blogger for Matthew Taylor has me thinking again. I still think it is the best model in general, but perhaps it needs a few more tweaks than I ever could have imagined.

Here are the caveats she brings up:

1.  If you are at the top because you are the best, and the people around you are also at the top because they are the best, what does that do to your attitude towards everyone else?  In plutarchies, there was usually a paternalistic attitude - they took care of the masses as an obligation for their status.  If not for the masses, there wouldn't be a plutarchy.  But in a meritocracy, perhaps they would become morally indifferent to the masses.  They get what they deserve.  We see some of that attitude among our politicians these days.

2.  What if the most talented people marry the other most talented people?  Would evolution start down two separate paths?  Would the talented get better and the untalented by stuck at the bottom?  I'm not sure, but it certainly is not impossible.

3.  Could we get a societal Peter Principle?  Talented people would get promoted until they finally hit a position that is a little past their ability and they weren't so talented any more.  Then they would stop there. 

I don't know if any of this is relevant.  But it is food for thought.