It's never a bad idea to think about how these ideas play out when taken to their logical conclusion.

Kurt Vonnegut on the subject: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

That's alright if the goal is to help the individuals, like welfare. But it's not OK if the goal is to get people to do the most extreme things, like job applicant selection looking for a "best" applicant or baseball team for a best player. A person who can be successful without needing as many boxes to stand on as others.

Don't forget that it's these "best" people who add a vastly disproportionate amount of value to the world. They're the ones who invent new technology and discover new science. We all benefit greatly from their success.

The link is down (shows a jpeg with a single white pixel), but I guess that one is the same:

http://themetapicture.com/points-of-view/

It's really more like this version of the image: http://i.imgur.com/DqKXPF3.png

The baseball game in the image wouldn't be worth if equality of outcome were the rule for baseball team tryouts. The entire game is based on fair competition under the rules pushing participants toward excellence.

Inequality of outcome is the entire reason we see baseball played at a high level. When you demand equality of outcome regardless of talent or effort, you're asking for society to stagnate. You're asking for pervasive mediocrity. You're asking for us to kill effort and motivation. No thanks.

You're beating a straw man. He said in some circumstances.

Yet he didn't list any or describe any criteria for evaluating them. The "in some circumstances" bit was just a way to weasel out of potential objections.

I thought the example was pretty obvious.