\n\n\nThe core feature of any sophiarchist state is that suffrage is not universal, but reduced to a pool of certifiably able applicants \u2013 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\u2019m really really tired and can\u2019t come up with an interesting to express the sentiment\u00a0\u201cwtf\u2019 about this paragraph I just read on the internet but, uh, wtf
\n
The first sentence is rewarmed republicanism. Americans always sorta meh on the republican/democratic distonction. In Europe republican\u2019s just non-monarchist.
The way the democracy/republic distinction played out at the American founding I\u2019d liken to our modern \u201cliberal\u201d/\u201cprogressive\u201d. As in, they\u2019ve meant various things at various times, but as used the distinction\u2019s mostly a branding decision \u2013 to get distance from the formers\u2019 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.
"}