There's no such dichotomy; the other choice is, supporting the idea that humans are not all created equally, but still consider they deserve the same rights and freedoms.
And I'd rather have a mass of idiots (which I don't think most people are) ruling than an elite of people who consider themselves superior to others. At least the former are less likely to successfully torment me for my own good.
"supporting the idea that humans are not all created equally, but still consider they deserve the same rights and freedoms."
So, er, why? If you acknowledge that people aren't equally capable and endowed, what sort of sense does it make to place the same legal requirements on them?
Why should I be required to see as far as somebody else when driving? Why should I be prevented from making API requests on a public system (when I know how to do so safely) when somebody less trained or malicious would bring on down time?
It's far better simply to say that either everyone has the same capabilities, or to say that they ought be afforded benefits and restrictions that match their talents and deficiencies. Doing neither is unfair nonsensical from a societal standpoint.
As for the mass of idiots, no. I'd rather have a ruling elite, because they presumably be reasoned with--or removed in favor of a better elite. A mass of morons weighs heavily upon us, especially in the disinformation age.
It's far better simply to say that either everyone has the same capabilities, or to say that they ought be afforded benefits and restrictions that match their talents and deficiencies. Doing neither is unfair nonsensical from a societal standpoint.
That's not necessarily against what I had in mind. Essentially, all should have the same rights a priori. But a right may be "apply for an unbiased, specific exam that proves they are able of performing X without harming others". Of course not everyone should be able to do everything anyone else has is able to do at each moment. But no one should be denied that possibility just because they had some alcohol in their blood-surrogate, nor should anyone be waved from the requirements. And the requirements shouldn't be bullshit designed to keep certain groups away.
I'd rather have a ruling elite, because they presumably be reasoned with
Sure they can. But in politics, reason is mostly a way of justifying one's preferences. You can't reason with core axioms or goals, just with what they entail and/or the way of reaching them.
or removed in favor of a better elite.
By whom?
---
In any case, don't take me too seriously. I'm far too ignorant and immature to have a real position. I'll argue for anarcho-capitalism today and for situationism tomorrow, without really having my mind set into any.
And I'd rather have a mass of idiots (which I don't think most people are) ruling than an elite of people who consider themselves superior to others. At least the former are less likely to successfully torment me for my own good.