[Both] Meritocracy

Capitalists.

1. If an entrepreneur is successful, in an anarcho-capitalist society, and genuine/important for the growth in this world (community/regional/continental/global), doesn't that entrepreneur deserve additional support, besides earnings, to grow in size and/or increase the range, for the benefits that humanity desperately needs without more delay; or diversify to satisfy even more? Given that this is anarcho-capitalism, wouldn't there be any problems in private financing the entrepreneur even if it's against competitive principles to help/favorize some, and condemn others, as in statist entities this'd be called "subsidization"[?]; with the sole exception that it isn't made by a central authority?

2. If an entrepreneur is successful, in a minarcho-capitalist or moderate statist society, and genuine/important for the growth of the country's economical influence and overall well-being of the countrymen & foreigners, doesn't that entrepreneur deserve additional support (subsidization) to grow and increase its say in global economic matters? It has proven that it succeeded where others failed [miserably], and now thousands/hundreds of thousands depend on this entrepreneur, both domestically & globally. Moreover, the foreign competition will not be so forgiving or friendly, and might reduce to machiavellian tactics to subversively control and/or bankrupt the enterprise, either because of poses a greater economical threat (quality, prices, supply-demand) or just to fulfill sadistic fantasies to spite that entrepreneur & the country of origin. Doesn't that entrepreneur deserve to be backed up, since it proved success by own merits already? Does the failed competition deserve to be pitied in the first place by not rewarding those who deserve to be rewarded? What ever happened to "Beggars/Losers can't be choosers", even when not applying the rules?

Socialists.

1. If an enterprise, in an Aragon style anarcho-syndicalist society, is faulty & unreliable, would it not be economically wise to not help nor adopt the elements that made the enterprise a dead end in the first place? Why help it & those which controlled & managed it be of any use to others that are thriving? Wouldn't it be best to isolate them, even at the price of condemning them or resuming to violent clashes to avoid economic regression? Aren't those, which managed through & produced what was expected of them, more deserving of rewards rather than expect for them to cope with failure from the rest?

2. If an enterprise, in a socialist or hardline statist society, is an economical black hole, where resources are poured in & with little or no results than expected in return, wouldn't it be beneficial to realocate said resources (materials, manpower, payment...) somewhere else? Wouldn't it be better to not spite the productive enterprises and let the parasitic ones die, even at the cost of the people involved? Moreover, why to also keep functional enterprises, pouring resources over resources to keep it alive, only to simply produce and/or offer services that nobody wants? Those involved in these type of enterprises will be affected, albeit not parasitic, but aren't economically unwise, for the range it offers, to still let it exist? What ever happened to "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" AND "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Thrice is enemy action/a habitat/malevolence"?