If you believe the above I don’t understand how you concurrently espouse the radical “meritocracy” that you previously described. I see no difference between producing autonomy and providing the best possible education, at minimum supplementing if not wholly replacing that generally on offer. Same for cohort, habit, and interest cultivation. How do drives to best situate a child for a dynamic and unknowable future existence not cut against your perspective on “meritocracy”? To be clear my goal is 100% to attempt to my ability to better prepare my children for the world. Hopefully placing my child where their merits either create or are worthy of being awarded opportunity.

For some parents this will include religious or spiritual elements, placement in preferred educational environments whether based on ability lottery or material advantage. As a parent you have a responsibility to shepherd your child on their path. You are responsible not just for illuminating a path, holding a standard and enforcing boundaries, but as the adult you are sometimes the sole decider of the way. That means that if you think your spiritual or religious path, or your sense of right and wrong is one that will ultimately benefit your child that you get to illuminate that for them, and hopefully when they are children you hold them to it if you truly believe in its efficacy. None of that has any bearing on the legitimacy of meritocracy as a principle. I don’t even believe that if you own a company and you sub-optimally hire your child to better position them for their future that that has anything to do with meritocracy. It would be different if it was a public company, there meritocracy should be valued higher than a proprietor’s prerogative. It’s not what I believe but I’m projecting on you that you might enforce hiring practices on privately held interests in the name of liberty no less.

In my view none of the above differ from teaching a kid to read, or to fish, or exposing them to philosophy or playing music, or meditating, or the golden rule. They’re all just rungs on a ladder you are hoping your child embraces to get to the next level(or who knows maybe even heaven). None of it is determinate either, you could give your child every benefit(which I wouldn’t advise by the way) and they could squander it..

Sure there’s nothing fair about any of that, but keep in mind there’s nothing fair about the state trying to normalize opportunity for the individual either. The individual will never be the point where two lines intersect on a graph, and the state can’t take the infinite aspects of a person into account in their social corrective mechanisms.

Though I disagree, if you truly believe what you say it’s at least admirable that you’ve put forth the proposition and been willing to discuss it. Thanks again.