Wander wrote:

On the surface of this issue is already a contradiction avoided in the qualifications, "general mass" and "elite". Without great exposition the question of whether or not "humanity should be ruled by itself" is managable before specifying which oligarchy by what attribute will rule whom. Humanity has always ruled itself, currently rules itself, and will always rule itself. An arbitrary subgroup thereof from this book or that has no bearing on the fact that human rulers are members of humanity - even if humanity itself deems them otherwise. If divine inspiration, benevolent aliens, sentient machines, Morlocks, or wayward celestial constructs are hereby proposed as the elite, humanity would do well to yet oppose their rule in favor of living as free humans - or at the prospect of being subtly engineered into lesser creatures by some impossibly complicated devices of Gods or the superintelligent, die finally in that, the most honest war possible a man - against beings that are truly not other man.

wanderer wrote:

Further, assume such an arete existed - that a man could justly count himself another's master a priori due to some characteristic he exhibited. What relationship would the specialized rulers bear to their slave masses?

Mr. Anonymous wrote:

First point: Throught mankind's history, society has always believed that in order to be more modern, more civilized, we must inherently be more tolerant, more understanding. The elite have more and more, with each new generation, been looked at as the enemy of this, the source of all oppression and intolerance, the enemy of all that is good.

Our literature depicts the upper class as glutonous pigs, or wicked hawk faced villians. While this occurs, the common man is move up in society's standing. Many of today's movies will have the common farm boy, a good-looking blonde male, embark on a quest to defeat the evil count or duke, or some form of nobility, and rescue the princess. Sometimes, the princess will even be portrayed as heroine who could easily live amoung the common folk, and will often know some martial art.

I grant that the elite have often fitted into this Hollywood-fabricated role. But are the masses any better? The answer must be no. Both the elite philosopher and the common peasant are human, thereby capable (and even predisposed) to error. Left to there own devices, the common shop keeper in ancient Rome, if not married, will most likely go to a bar or brothel, rather than a temple or library.

Mr. Anonymous wrote:

Second point: So far, humanity has had absolutely no luck creating a society without the High. The earliest human societies, though having very little in the way of an elite class still had clan leaders, who were the high at the time. And although they may have often changed if someone could sieze power from the current leader, but the clan leaders would often have the most access to wealth, food, and women. In the Soviet Union, one of the first communist nations, we had the Communist Party. The Party advocated equality and improved life-style for the proletariat, but in reality it was always amassing wealth and luxury that would be fit for an industrial middle class capitalist for its highest members. In the French Republic of Virtue, we had Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his wife. While Napoleon advocated republican virtues and overthrew monarchs, he himself was a monarch who amassed great wealth for himself and established various dukes in France's dependent states. In Rome, even before the ascention of Julii-Claudian family to leadership over the Empire, the Republic's Senate was made up of patrician land owners who came from upperclass families.

coolazice wrote:

Seems to be obviously false. Was Ancient Egypt interested in being more tolerant and understanding in order to be civilized? Was Medieveal Europe? Nazi Germany?

I'm not sure 'leader' means the same thing as 'elite'. You seem to be conflating the two.

A very obvious example of the naturalistic fallacy. Showing that having elites is 'natural' has no relevance whatsoever as to the morality of it.

Buddahchuck wrote:

Typically, the person who is defending the status quo gets presumption and the other opts for a change. In a debate where one person is arguing that in the status quo, elites rule the government, then we cannot say that the elitist has the burden of proof because the status quo is presumed right. My suggestion would be to drop the discussion of burden of proof altogether, and require both parties to prove their point.

Buddahchuck wrote:
But my contingency with the whole concept of "burden of proof" in this debate is that there are historically NO governments that are actually ruled by the masses, rather, there are only governments that are ruled by the elites.