safety

Safety conditions what is supportable in practice, and thereby even what thought should be encouraged. To take two examples (that are safe to think about), I have no problem - in the abstract - with the death penalty for the incorrigibly murderous, or even with compulsory abortions in the case of the unborn who would indubitably live short lives of unremitting misery. But it is the hedging in that sentence ("incorrigibly", "indubitably") that tip my hand: I don't trust humankind to wield those powers sufficiently well to entrust them to anyone, or any human culture. If there were a perfect, all-knowing, all-compassionate, all-just God, I would trust that God with these powers, and be thankful for their deployment.

All of which leads to this: I cannot deny that I believe in a kind of thought police. And having admitted that much, I am, inevitably, some sort of elitist. The question is: what sort? (The best sort?)

You won't be able to guess that, so I'll just have to tell you outright: I'm the merit-driven democratic sort of elitist. The drawback is the ultimate incoherence of the stance; the outweighing benefit is that meritocratic elitism seduces the nearly-able into striving, which simultaneously harnesses them, satisfies their inner needs - chiefly hope - and neuters what is otherwise the most threatening non-elite segment of humankind.