I'm sort of with you with housing and education but where I'm in violent disagreement is health. Some are born with a terrible hand and there's little that they can do, on their own, to resolve those issues. It's unacceptable to lose everything for health treatments. People have options with school and housing. People can put forth effort to improve their situation. With health, you can't just get up and move somewhere else to be healthy.

> And, the truly exceptional are probably out there working their ass off right now, not reading HN.

I think this is where our differences in viewpoints really emerge. I certainly do not want to contest that there are exceptional individuals who fundamentally have a vastly more profound impact on the development of the human civilisation.

However, it seems like you want to assign special conditions and resources to those who, in your view, deserve them - and to them only. Everyone else should take a step back and not demand stuff they haven't earned.

This view is fine, but I disagree that it is realistic or even possible to establish true meritocracies as long as you stand by values of liberalism. You have to take away the individuality of people itself in order to achieve a system in which its inhabitants are content with getting what they deserve. And that is because the meaning of "deserve" is then required to be centrally controlled rather than a subjective viewpoint that is different for 7.5 billion people.

So a Chinese farmer might find they "deserve" the same quality of healthcare as Jeff Bezos simply on account of being human. Others might argue that you should have to work and contribute to "earn" your cancer treatment. Both have merit.