>>20836178compared to what they pay, poor people receive the most out of the state (especially considering that most of government spending tends to be related to social security of some sort). that is true percentage wise too. I don't have the numbers for switzerland, but for reference US numbers will do
(source of data is the IRS, you can find the raw data on their website)
>the richest onesmy point was an "even still". there's heaps of government intervention in the education sector in the US.
>even though I could learn almost every thingThen why don't people do this and offer their services for cheaper prices than those that study in good unis? business are profit-oriented. if the only thing that changes is where you learned something, they'll go with the cheaper option, assuming you don't differ qualitatively.
>no people that grow up rich and end up unsuccessfulI know some that come from well off families that already are becoming complete failures.
also the same is true for intelligence. few people who grew up smart will end up failing at their objectives.
>[oxford definition]I personally disagree with that definition. but if you want to keep that, then no, i do not advocate for "meritocracy". I argue for giving the most competent people the jobs. whether their advantage stems from a privileged background, higher intelligence or something else, is imo irrelevant.
finally, your points still don't justify stealing.
>>20836162faggot.
