Asklemmy

Sorry for the delay, I don't visit here very often. But thanks for engaging, and excuse my know-it-all tone.

I think there's a basic misunderstanding regarding meritocracy. It is not something that only occurs in the top branches of the government. It's something that should occur in every level of every organization, in every office and in every pay-grade. It's not meant to solve the question of "who is the supreme leader", because such a question is impossible. It's meant to describe how should society function.

And which will continue until “most capable” is better defined

That is sophism imho. We don't have to have the perfect definition, we just need to be closer to it than the alternatives.

The foundation of every democratic, republic, and individual choice based system today.

Popularity contests are a bad way of making choices, and it's a big reason for why modern democracies have so many problems. Also, they are very often rigged, which is how you end up with "shit sandwich" situations (or Putin).

all people under any one governing system would never agree on what is virtuous, worthy, valuable, honorable, or respectable

There will never be a 100% agreement on what is true, or what is beautiful, or what is virtuous. But if we aim there, we can get closer than if we don't.

How are resources distributed between groups?

Free market. Bid on problems. There are many possible algorithms. Right we do the worst option, in which the governing body distribute funds based on political power.

Or is this still an ownership system where you can hold on to any property indefinitely

I definitely believe in private property, if that's what you're asking. I think anyone who doesn't is either dumb or delusional. Indefinitely is a bit much, but it should last long enough to be worth the effort.

A good workhorse is rewarded with more work. A never truer statement. Merit sounds exhausting today.

The idea is that you get enough rewards (money, social capital, etc.) that you will find the work worthwhile. Also, a lot of people enjoy doing things that they are good at. Either way, there is a point when you contributed enough that you can just peace out for the rest of your life, aka retirement. This is already semi-possible even in today's broken system.

they just want the government to solve their problems or get out of their way

That's a problem by itself. Governments are very bad at solving complex problems.

all seem to think voting for anyone other than rubbish R or rubbish D is throwing their vote away

That's kind of true, because Americans refuse to implement a secondary choice. Just one little change would solve so much. (not that there aren't 1000s of other problems).

If the meritocracy is not the law, who is the law?

I don't really understand the question. The law is a bunch of rules, chosen by people in power. Ideally, those people would be competent, and create good laws. In my view, any system of law that doesn't periodically remove or refactors outdated laws is incompetent. Yes, that's basically everywhere.

You could try to enforce meritocracy in law. It would definitely help, but I don't think it would be sufficient without cultural adoption.

It's like you keep trying to find "who's on top", but in a perfect world no one is. Power should always be checked, and balanced. Monopolies should always be curtailed, both in the private and public sector. Meritocracy is just one algorithm out of many, like the free market, in order to have a better and more efficient society.

Hope that clears things up.