Why do so many on Veeky Forums prefer an aristocracy over a meritocracy or any other system more based on your...

Well,its obvious that all those class systems would just dissolve with the excess wealth brought on by capitalism and industrialization.
Also, socialism tends to flatten financial hierarchies somewhat.

Yeah, and if it's clear there may be much suited people from the lower classes than the upper one for a certain task, why not take them rather than look at their birth right?

Technically an aristocracy is a meritocracy, but over time it became closely tied with birth-right. One should be able to become an aristocrat or lose their status by their ability and recognition for their services, but every now and then the currently existing aristocracy close this off and jealously guard their privileges from new blood.

The concept of anacyclosis pairs three good forms of government with three bad, the connection usually being that the good forms become decadent and eventually turn into their bad forms sparking a revolution into another stage. Aristocracy I think was a good form, but would devolve into oligarchy which is what many people think of when they say aristocracy.

>the things you can do are based on your own natural ability

you're a vessel with a unique feed, society pours knowledge and ability into you - how you turn out depends largely on how you're suited for established pedagogy

individually earned hierarchy is as stupid as aristocracy

Because user, if society was the same as the 19th century, a neet living off a trust fund like me would be considered a gentleman and socially superior to the working class, which would respect me accordingly. Nowadays instead it makes me a lucky piece of shit to be envied and despised, to the point where I have to wow people with my degrees and hide the fact that I don't work if I want to get some consideration.

everyone believes that they would be part of the ruling elite for whatever reason.

Came here to post this. The same as when idiots go to fortune tellers and they tell them they were knights or princesses in their previous life and they actually believe it, instead of accepting that if there were a previous life they would have been most probably dirty peasants.

So, you are advocating a meritocracy and not an aristocracy then?

it¡s the same shit

Eventualy, in meritocracy, the humans who got to high positions will provide their sons with better tools and care than the humans who got to low positions. So they would have an advantage over those whose fathers were in low positions, even if they are smarter (it's a game of numbers). Example: Commie Russia or most of roman leaders.

Even if it gives people mobility it wouldn't last much until it becomes a aristocracy or any other modern/futurist form of those, like Global Oligarchy or Technocracy.

Do you know how nobles got to be nobles in the first place? they fucked up people better than other people, so they eventualy become nobles and got most of the loot. Then if their sons were competent at smacking shit too they would maintain their social status, if some of them were weak they got replaced by another "big shot" and thus starting another line. This would go on if the current head didn't fuck up things until that "family" was known and accepted as rulers by some bullshit explanation
>"They have been our leaders for long time and against all odds, it only means they are choosen by god!"
>"They have been our leaders for long time and against all odds, we must not change this, they know best
>"HE HAS THE BLOOOD OF "GREAT LEADER" THEREFORE IT'S MORE COMPETENT

Thet were groomed for fucking rule the fuck you think

Aristocracy is just meritocracy at the family level. You can't like one but not the other without being a fucking hypocrite.
The position against aristocracy is not meritocracy, it's the pursuit of efficiency: the guy most likely to succeed gets the job, regardless of the reasons why.

If you look at Ancient Greece they had kings during the Bronze age / Homeric era. These kings were supplanted by aristocracies in the Greek dark ages because this group felt they could lead their cities better than one man who inherited his position. Later still democracies arose because it was clear that the greatest men could arise from the humblest beginnings, and the golden ages of each Greek city was defined by its greatest citizen who was not necessarily an aristocrat, best exemplified by the benign tyrants and leaders of democratic states. These great men had sons who nearly always turned out to be mediocre at best.
In an aristocracy many of those men would have stayed as pig farmers or been killed/exiled as upstarts despite having more ability than your average rich kid who never had to work or strive for anything in their life.

>Thet were groomed for fucking rule the fuck you think
Explain Louis XVI for me.

He failed his ancestors and no more rulling in france for that house