system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: One cannot say they truly believe in a meritocracy if they don't believe in quality public education and an estate tax.

I am having a hard time understanding how there is any common ground between a belief in a meritocracy and wanting to move school choice to voucher subsidies or repealing a "death tax". 

I think there may be some argument that these are practical considerations, in that rich people can always afford a better education for their children or can flee the country when they become old to not pay their estate tax, but these do not seem to be reasons commonly used and I do not see any concerted effort to make international treaties concerning top marginal estate tax rates. I think the amount of poor children getting an education and the lack of concerted rich people flight makes this a non-issue as well.

What am I missing? I do not understand why these efforts are not laughed down from both sides of the aisle. I would have more faith in the argument if it were not just rich establishment Republicans grappling with these. However, I see libertarians making this argument as well, and I thought the fundamental value of libertarianism was maximizing the ability of people to rise on merit.
gpt
I think you need to define what you think a "meritocracy" even is in order to form a cogent response to your concerns.

At a very basic level, a meritocracy is a system of organizing society where the people most *capable* of performing a job are the ones most likely to get that job. It *does not mean* that everyone, at birth, will get an equal chance at having their full capabilities made manifest. But that seems to be an underlying premise of your question here, no?