I didn't want to return to this topic, but I want to make something crystal clear.
I do believe that a good portion of what people achieve is the result of inherited capabilities of all kinds. So, not genetic determinism, but certainly scales weighted by genetics. That's evolutionary genetics at work. For me, it's a fact.
Do I think it's fair? No, I absolutely don't, but life is never, ever fair. Do I wish it were different? Yes, I absolutely do. Facts are sometimes extremely unpalatable.
I'll point to one example with which I'm deeply familiar: the judicial system. One reason I got out of criminal law is because it became increasingly clear to me that while certain people clearly had to be incarcerated for the good of the community as a whole, their propensity to crime had a great deal to do with factors beyond their control, including low IQ, mental health disorders of one kind or another, and horrific rearing situations. All you have to do to realize that is to look at statistics on prison populations. The number of high intelligence, well adjusted people without mental health issues is a small percentage of that population, and usually to be found in the prisons mostly for white collar criminals. As for the inmates in the "hard core" prisons, which house the vast majority of inmates, it's a completely different story, and, to make the situation even more horrific, for them and for society as a whole, I didn't and don't see any way to "rehabilitate" them. I have little hope that any of them can be rehabilitated.
What, however, is the solution, in terms of economic and political systems? What system will create the greatest good for the greatest number?
To me, it's beyond clear that given human nature, which is again "baked" into our dna, imo, capable people will not perform optimally if there is not a commensurate reward for their efforts. If they get paid X for their hard work, but a lazy or just not as capable person gets paid the same X, they'll slack off. Total production will go down.
Therefore, from my perspective, a capitalist system produces the most goods and services overall. Just look at the most "strict" Marxist/Socialist countries, like the old Soviet Union, the old Eastern Bloc countries, Cuba, Venezuela, to mention just a few. They just didn't and don't work economically, and everyone suffers economically.
What, however, to do about the portion of the population which just "isn't" capable, for cognitive, mental health reasons etc. If anyone thinks I'm a social Darwinian who believes, well, let them just sink, you don't know me. I think it's tragic. Of course I don't want anyone to starve or die for lack of medical attention. Out of sheer compassion for our fellow human beings, there has to be a "safety net" to protect them. It can't, however, be so equalizing that the producers stop producing, because then there is nothing, or at least far less, for everyone to share.
What is the solution, however? I can tell you that this country has spent trillions trying to raise our "underclass" out of poverty, and trying to increase their performance cognitively. It just DOESN'T work. That's the reality that the far leftist wing of people in this country just won't or can't accept. It's not a plot to keep these people down. It's not racial discrimination anymore, or lack of opportunity for people growing up poor white in rural Appalachia. It's genetics.
In the Europe of the past, with its more homogeneous populations, providing a higher standard of living for the bottom percentage of the population, in effect gifting it to them, was doable without destroying the economy because there were just fewer of them. From what I can see, with the growth of that "less capable" part of the population in these countries, attitudes are changing. It's natural, and, human nature again. It doesn't take a math genius to realize that these social welfare programs are starting to overstrain the system. You can't spend more money on social services when less money is coming in because the number of producers is going down.
The extraordinary thing to me is that, given the size of our underclass, much larger than that in any European country, we've been able to do as much as we have. However the media may portray things, there is a "safety net" in the U.S., even if the benefits of the social service programs is not as good as in Europe. No one with the intelligence and mental health to apply for social services will starve, or lack housing, or even lack medical care, because, in the latter case, they either go on Medicaid or go to emergency rooms which are not allowed to turn them away. It's the "working poor" who have to be taken care of in terms of medical care.
What really worries me is that given a very near future when machines will take away virtually not only most manual labor, but computers will take away most lower level white collar work, the proportion of the population which isn't "capable" enough to function optimally in society will be ever smaller.
I can't see a long term solution other than genetic engineering, which would in effect be the disproportionately allocated high IQ people figuring out a way to even the playing field genetically for low IQ impaired people.
One other point: I believe Marxism is inherently anti-democratic and fascistic, as well as completely wrong about economics. I know of no strictly socialist country which ever had either a thriving economy or a society which respected human rights. I don't trust people who espouse Marxist ideology, and I don't want them in control of my country. I've heard what they plan from their own mouths as far back as the late 70s. That's when they don't know there are recording devices around, of course. Nor can I stomach the "WOKE" mentality which is part of the package.
Now, I really am out.
