Meritocracy means that the most capable should rule — and that the most capable should make it to the top regardless of their social background. The first claim seems reasonable to many, the latter obviously fair. The world is complex, and in a variety of areas, from courtrooms to airplane cockpits, expertise seems not just desirable but necessary. And if we really want to find the best talent, then surely we should make sure everyone gets an equal chance to prove their worth?

Seeking to bring the cream to the top, many well-meaning liberals preach the gospel of equality of opportunity. All children should have access to good schools, health care, and safe role models, so that hidden talents can be detected and helped along. This is nothing more than the famous American dream of working hard to make it in life — though as manual labor has been downgraded, the “hard work” bit has tended to give way to a focus on “talent,” whether innate or learned.

But “meritocracy” wasn’t originally meant to be a good thing: the term was coined by sociologist Michael Young in order to criticize governments that had given up on the aim of real social equality. Revisiting his book The Rise of the Meritocracy helps us understand why “equality of opportunity” impoverishes the value of equality — and why our rights to a dignified existence shouldn’t be dependent on our supposed “talents.”