> As for me, I think accomplishment merits only nominal award. Perhaps
> overachievers might be enititled to wear a (small) laurel wreath, but that's
> it.
What on earth makes you think that?
Yes, there are huge issues with measuring accomplishment (What is good music, for example), with comparing the purported value of various accomplishments (Climbing Everest is certainly an accomplishment. What, if anything, is its value? What is the value of inventing, say, the transistor?) with dividing the spoils (Credit to Hilary and Tsening? Or to everyone on the expedition?) and probably some I haven't thought of.
But you appear to be objecting to the basic notion that if A produces more or better than B, he or she then has more, and should have.
Am I misreading you? Are you insane?
Is this based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"
-- Sandy Harris, Nanjing, China