It's one thing to support a certain version of capitalism as one's ideal form of government/economy. The state capitalism that actually exists to some extent in the real world today is a very different thing. I'd be shocked if even Rand herself would defend it.

For one thing, among big business, it is more of a de facto socialism than capitalism. For instance, consider all the multi-billion dollar bailouts Consider the fact that -- at least in the USA -- CEOs pay less in taxes as a percentage of their income than their secretaries or the average worker. Consider the billions of dollars big business uses in campaign contributions, lobbyists and various legal and illegal forms of bribes to control the government and get more effective rights than the average person. Consider why at least in the west most CEOs, executives and wealthy people are disproportionately white and male. Why does the median black man in the United States make 2/3rds the amount of the median white man? My point is that even if the rules of a game of Monopoly are fair, it's a different story when someone cheats at the beginning of the game and starts off with all the properties. Maybe people would be more tolerant of big business and rich CEOs if they thought we had all started off with the same amount and these people got rich via a meritocracy of some sort, but that is clearly not the case only one of the many proofs is the income gap with race. Indeed, I think that sums it up quite nicely: many everyday people are emotionally hostile towards big business and wealthy executives because the United States and the global economy is so clearly not meritocratic.

Ecurb wrote:Would we be somehow better off if all the rich CEOs were the smartest, hardest working, greediest people in America, and all the poor people were lazy and stupid?

As opposed to vice versa? Yes, I think so.

The smart and hardworking would only pull themselves up and the rich lazy incompetent people would only fall out of wealth as a result of their wealthy leechyness if we lived in a meritocracy. Alas, we don't. Hence the verbal big business bashing by working class people who deserve more.

I meant the non-rich deserve more than they themselves have now, since they have significantly less than the lazy, incompetent scoundrels who are rich right now. Hence all the big business bashing.

So the theoretical debate of meritocracy versus "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" seems like a moot point because strict equality would still lead to the working class having more than they themselves have now. Nonetheless, incidentally, I don't think need can be conflated with desert as you have described, but I wouldn't understand one being lazy and thieving as needy per se at least no more than any other person.

I don't have to know why the non-rich deserve more than they have now to know that the current rich don't deserve to have more than the current non-rich. In this regard, it's a moot point. In any case, I think the "Little Red Hen" notion describes my feelings on the matter. Moreover, I think the meritocracy of a truly free market/society leads to the least poverty, most average prosperity and what as purely a matter of inter-subjective opinion most people would consider most politically and socioeconomically fair.

Ecurb wrote:The problem with the “Little Red Hen” notion of desert is that the deaf and blind kid with no arms and legs would “deserve” nothing. I’d suggest that he deserves support by virtue of his humanity (even though he does no productive work, and especially in a rich society like ours).

It seems we agree on the issue at hand, i.e. that the current poor and non-rich don't deserve less than the current rich. You have a lot of interesting points and questions about these other ideas regarding desert and so forth, so I hope you don't mind I have made a new topic with my many thoughts on that: Equality, Meritocracy and Desert