The Brazilian government seems to harbor a visceral resentment toward merit. Instead of rewarding those who produce more, innovate, or create value, it prefers to level the playing field, protect the inefficient, and punish the productive. This is not just an ethical problem—it is an economic tragedy.
In a free market, merit is rewarded. Those who offer something better, cheaper or more useful are naturally chosen by consumers. Competition rewards excellence. Interventionism, on the other hand, reverses this logic: it subsidizes the inefficient, protects the obsolete and stifles those who try to compete with quality.
The enemy of merit has a name: subsidy
Government subsidies are, in practice, forced transfers from those who are more productive to those who are less productive. Companies that would not be able to sustain themselves in a competitive environment are kept artificially alive with public money. And who pays the bill? You, the taxpayer — who, ironically, probably works much harder than the beneficiaries of this system.
Instead of favoring those who make an effort, the State favors those who have access. Politicians negotiate public resources with sectors that lobby, not with the most innovative. The result? A crony capitalism, which has nothing to do with the free market — and everything to do with privileges.
Merit is disturbing because it is a threat to the established order.
Merit is frightening because it exposes mediocrity. In a free economy, it is not enough to have political connections; you have to deliver results. That is why the State, always jealous of its control, treats merit as an enemy. It ignores it in schools, stifles it in universities and penalizes it in companies.
The statist mentality does not want excellence—it wants control. And excellence, by definition, is rebellious. It disobeys the mediocre, challenges the norm, breaks with the predictable. That is why it needs to be tamed.
When the State decides who “deserves” to win
In highly interventionist regimes, merit is replaced by political criteria. “Strategic” companies are chosen to receive benefits. Sectors are defined as “priority”. Success, instead of being a result of efficiency, begins to depend on relationships with power.
The distortion is so great that, in many cases, the best business strategy stops being to satisfy the customer and becomes pleasing the government.
The discourse of “social justice” as a disguise
To justify the war on merit, defenders of the hypertrophied State invoke “social justice.” They say that it is necessary to correct inequalities and offer “equal opportunities.” But what we see in practice are purchased opportunities, institutional privileges, and protections for organized groups — never for true competitors.
The consequence of this is not less inequality. It is more injustice. Because while some have to climb the mountain with effort, others start at the top, carried by the state helicopter.
Conclusion: merit is freedom
Protecting merit is protecting freedom. It is allowing each individual to advance through his or her own capabilities, and not through political patronage. The market recognizes this. The State — with rare exceptions — rejects it.
But history is clear: countries that respect merit prosper. Those that crush it become poorer. The choice, as always, is political. And sooner or later, you are the one who pays the bill.
📢 Read, share and resist!
When merit is punished and dependence is rewarded, freedom loses ground to state mediocrity. Do not accept regression disguised as social justice.
👉 Read now: The State against Merit
🔗 Share with those who still believe that efficiency is a virtue, not a privilege.
English 
Portuguese