nostalgebraist:

The core feature of any sophiarchist state is that suffrage is not universal, but reduced to a pool of certifiably able applicants – importantly, this is based on some measure of governing ability, not wealth. At this time, the best available (but by no means perfect) certification of governing knowledge is the possession of a PhD in the social sciences.

I’m really really tired and can’t come up with an interesting to express the sentiment “wtf’ about this paragraph I just read on the internet but, uh, wtf

The first sentence is rewarmed republicanism. Americans always sorta meh on the republican/democratic distonction. In Europe republican’s just non-monarchist.

The way the democracy/republic distinction played out at the American founding I’d liken to our modern “liberal”/“progressive”. As in, they’ve meant various things at various times, but as used the distinction’s mostly a branding decision – to get distance from the formers’ abominable reputation for catastrophically empowering the lower orders, and implicitly promise not to make the same mistake again.

The second sentence, eh at least kinda defensible, handwave handwave liberal arts, handwave handwave cursus honorum.