From the Article: "Honestly now: Do you have what it takes? We all like to think we’re smarter than average, but the math is cruel. Half of us are below median intelligence, and some of us are considerably lower. So why should we think that freedom is a good policy for everyone?

I believe freedom is the best policy, but sometimes that is a hard argument to make. A free society presupposes that people are capable of living self-responsibly. That in turn presupposes that they have enough intelligence to do so. And a free democracy presupposes that the majority will consistently make good political decisions. That also presupposes they have enough intelligence to do so.

But a strong claim can be made that it’s naive to think that most people are smart enough. So let’s take up that hard challenge, since only by facing the best arguments on all sides can we be most certain of our own conclusions."
-----------------------------------------------------------
The author goes on through various example and 'what ifs' to describe why a paternalistic approach to government might be justified in some thinking on how to deal with this situation, but that ethical concerns tell us that a 'free democratic' government is still better. But he doesn't really address what would happen to the less intelligent endowed, in a true 'free' government without the burden of a democracy that gives equal voting rights, regardless of intellectual ability.

Another way to describe such a government is the long sought one, strictly limited to only providing retaliatory force to initiators of force on others, defensive reaction to foreign aggression, and contract dispute resolution--with no opportunity to enact laws of taxation, mandatory fees, or any other forced collection/reimbursement device, and only free market capitalism to influence human interaction.

As an aside, one such way to ensure such a system is to require a super-majority vote for any legislative action and any and all financial related laws to be submitted to citizens, with again a super-majority vote required. But back to the point.

What happens to the less intellectual endowed with such a government that can no longer assert through a vote, any special considerations and more to the point, should we care. It's my contention that in such a system, those without such abilities, education, or drive would fail, and probably do so fatally. Over a very few generations, their numbers would drastically reduce to a point that they would be a true minority.

What would such a place look like? Would it look like a Gulch Nation? Would we all be comfortable there, and if we're not, should we leave or be forced to?

For those that don't like the sound of such a system, we've actually done this twice in our history. Once was the original settlement of the Eastern US, and the second was the settlement of the West during the 1800's. Individual and even group failure was rampant during those periods of this country and the man that pulled through such failures and went on to make it in other ventures was celebrated.