Those who defend meritocracy maintain that it is the best means by which resources - opportunities, scholarships, positions and so forth - are allocated in society. There is, at best, an acknowledgement of the excesses - such as inequality, elitism, disconnectedness - that a meritocracy produces.

But are these social ills merely the unintended consequences of a meritocracy that works too well? In my view, that is a fallacious and unnecessary argument. On the contrary, such ills are precisely the consequences that you should expect when a meritocracy works exactly as intended.