I particuarly felt this when I was reading "The public philoshpy" by Walter Lippmann. Lippmann was some famous American newspaper columnist. The book was written in the 50s. Walter was very worried about the fate of democracies, after the second world war. He was worried that liberal states were under threat, because too many people were allowed to vote. He didn't like places like Russia where not enough people were allowed to vote.
He seemed to be in favor of the aristocracy being in charge, because they had a deeper feeling for making decisions about the fate of the nature, because they have been trained by doing things like fox hunting.
So I am confused as to what points he was making. I thought that Thomas Payne had explained why the aristocracy should not be in charge. I have a two word argument against the rule by aristocrats: Prince Charles. Do we really want that twat in charge?
Gosh, I would be so popular and "street" if I was a prof of philosophy, but I am not enough of a toff to get the position.