This is an engaging and interesting thread and it's also beginning to resemble one of those slippery debates with Christians - especially fundamentalists - about just how to understand Bible versus.

Nietzsche's political philosophy is an inversion of Plato's. Both are concerned with the politics of the soul, and in that sense works of psychology. For both Plato and Nietzsche the question of who is to rule is of central importance. For both Plato and Nietzsche the question of slavery in addressed in light of the problem of self-mastery.

Plato's concern was the education of the just soul . Nietzsch(e's is the education of the individual. Plato's concern was the creation of harmony out of conflicting desires. Nietzsche's concern was the creation of the individual who maintains strife, internal enmity rather than harmony.

For Plato although it appears as though the harmony of the soul and the harmony of the city gives us a picture of justice, the fact is that the just city is full of injustice. Nietzsche's soul in internal strife seems to lead to a troubling picture of the city full in internal strife, but strife cannot be eliminated nor is it desirable to do so; for it can only be accomplished through totalitarian suppression which is not harmony but a false image of harmony. But this is not to say that all claims are equal. Like Plato, Nietzsche hold to a hierarchical ranking. For both, the philosopher is "commander and law-giver". (BGE 211) And this is to be understood with regard to the politics of the soul.

The 21^st century version of the OP's title should be, in my humble opinion, Nietzschean argument in defense of robotics.

A system should be put in place which allows the crème da le crème of society to blossom into maturity, this will come at the cost of a non-egalitarian society — Wittgenstein

How is this not already happening?

What approach should morally upright social scientists & legislators take regarding the naturally occurring inequality of human individuals grouped together within a state? — ucarr

None. The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.

For example, theoretically, officially, we're all equal before the law. But practically, we're not.

Put down that old dog-earred "Nietzsche for Dummies" and go read Freddy's works.

Put down that old dog-earred "Nietzsche for Dummies" and go read Freddy's works. ↪180 Proof — 180 Proof

:ok: Clark Kent (Superman) didn't own slaves!

What approach should morally upright social scientists & legislators take regarding the naturally occurring inequality of human individuals grouped together within a state?
— ucarr

None. The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.

For example, theoretically, officially, we're all equal before the law. But practically, we're not. — baker

By saying "none," you're saying you condone the double-standard that, for the same crime, has the judge handing down a draconian sentence to a commoner and a slap on the wrist to a noble.

Your conformity to the status quo, once it's amplified by a smug polity, launches a potent recipe for revolt.

John Lennon sang about nobles keeping the masses doped on sex, drugs & religion. Are you also signed on with this stratagem?

Game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways take aim at the roiling dissatisfaction of the legions of working stiffs. Apparently you think they're effective.

Nathaniel West, like other writers before and since, characterizes Los Angeles as a desert fever dream unmoored from the Puritan stolidity that keeps the rest of the continent sound. At the movie premiere, the downtrodden, the locusts of the land, ignited by Homer Simpson's breakdown into psychotic rage, erupt into mad revolt against the class bondage that mummifies them.

The quick & the clever are forever herding the pliant populace into one or another scheme of usury until, periodically, a seismic eruption of social upheaval lays waste to the cultural order. The first cracks in the facade appear within the glib & gleaming complacency of the conservatives. No?

What approach should morally upright social scientists & legislators take regarding the naturally occurring inequality of human individuals grouped together within a state?
— ucarr

None. The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.

For example, theoretically, officially, we're all equal before the law. But practically, we're not.
— baker

By saying "none," you're saying you condone the double-standard that, for the same crime, has the judge handing down a draconian sentence to a commoner and a slap on the wrist to a noble. — ucarr

No. I'm saying, again, that the classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.

Your conformity to the status quo, once it's amplified by a smug polity, launches a potent recipe for revolt.

Resistence is futile.

John Lennon sang about nobles keeping the masses doped on sex, drugs & religion. Are you also signed on with this stratagem?

Game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways take aim at the roiling dissatisfaction of the legions of working stiffs. Apparently you think they're effective.

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?

The quick & the clever are forever herding the pliant populace into one or another scheme of usury until, periodically, a seismic eruption of social upheaval lays waste to the cultural order.

And then the revolution eats its children and soon enough, things go back to the way they used to be, just the faces in positions of power are new.

The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically..., — ucarr

Do you believe class division & the established social order, like human inequality, occur naturally, and thus no need for any type of social engineering?

Do you believe the law, like class division & the established social order, are natural?

In your sentence above, you use the passive voice with reference to (see bold words above) the fact of classism. If you rewrite the sentence with the verb in the active voice, who will you posit as the actor bringing classism into effect? You can answer by giving an example of the sentence rewritten with the verb in the active voice.

And then the revolution eats its children and soon enough, things go back to the way they used to be, just the faces in positions of power are new. — baker

Do you believe revolts & revolutions are, more often than not, merely superficial makeovers of short duration?

Do you believe revolutions are always the undoing of their authors?

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways? — baker

Do you acknowledge two systems of justice, one for the rich & powerful, another for the commonality?

The answers to the following questions might provide us some insight into the issue of slavery.

1. Do you want slaves?

2. Do you want be a slave?

Being an übermensch is not only about doing whatever one wants but also requires resisting one's innate urges/instincts. Nietzsche was telling only half the story, oui?

He who conquers others is strong; he who conquers himself is mighty. — Lao Tzu/The Buddha

Do you believe class division & the established social order, like human inequality, occur naturally, — ucarr

Yes.

and thus no need for any type of social engineering?

Attempts at social engineering are useless, at least as far as they have equality as their aim.

Do you believe the law, like class division & the established social order, are natural?

Leaving aside what "natural" means or is supposed to mean, yes.

In your sentence above, you use the passive voice with reference to (see bold words above) the fact of classism. If you rewrite the sentence with the verb in the active voice, who will you posit as the actor bringing classism into effect? You can answer by giving an example of the sentence rewritten with the verb in the active voice.

I'll give you an example from just last week at the local grocery store (a small store with only one check-out).
I was packing my groceries, the cashier wasn't yet done with the rest of them, while the next customer behind me pushed ahead even though it wasn't her turn yet (never mind that we're supposed to maintain 1,5 m covid safety distance). She was already waiting for her groceries at the other end, even though the cashier wasn't finished with mine. She almost physically pushed me away. She was about my age, or maybe even a few years younger, a middle aged woman. By my assessment, we were of about similar socio-economic status.

Going by my experience, me saying anything to her or the cashier or the store manager would only result in things getting worse for me. Why is that? Because bosiness, aggressiveness, competitiveness always win, always prevail. Sometimes, they are institutionalized, and this is when we talk of the class war. It is a phenomenon that can readily be observed between individual people; in any given situation, people generally try to establish a hierarchy.

You're asking who is the actor who is bringing classism into effect. In the situation at the grocery store, people would typically blame me. That if I were or at least appeared to be of a higher status than the other woman, she wouldn't dare to push ahead and step into my space. Or if I at least somehow maintained my space better, she would remain in hers. People would typically say that she simply did what every normal person in a situation like hers would do. That the way I behaved simply deserves the kind of behavior she displayed. From their perspective, it was I who brought classism into effect.

Do you believe revolts & revolutions are, more often than not, merely superficial makeovers of short duration?

Yes.

Do you believe revolutions are always the undoing of their authors?

To answer this with precision, we'd have to look into the historical details.

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?
— baker

Do you acknowledge two systems of justice, one for the rich & powerful, another for the commonality?

Of course.

And you didn't answer my question:

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?

Well! I must say, you're whacking me arse pretty good with your answers.

And you didn't answer my question:

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways? — baker

Is it my fault the public schools give short shrift to critical thinking? The public needn't be herded together as livestock if they choose to resist. You can't deny, however, that rabbler-rousers travel the fast lane to prison. Most people are so numb with misery they've gotta be reminded of their discontent.

On the other hand, state-sanctioned rabble-rousers score pots of gold for their sage pronouncements, as we've been seeing with the many tongue-waggers hawking that Replacement Theory bosh.

Going by my experience, me saying anything to her or the cashier or the store manager would only result in things getting worse for me. Why is that? Because bosiness, aggressiveness, competitiveness always win, always prevail. — baker

I must say, Mr. Tweedle-Dumdee Baker, you're over-civilized to a fault, considering your experience at the greengrocer. I see you're a man who shelters by blending with the crowd. "What? I should publicize myself by opposing a shrew?! Messy affair."

Why, I say, someone's got to get you seeing yourself. You're deeply ensconced within a cage bound by gold bars, but a cage just the same.

It's beyond time you got that old rascal Complacency up on his feet and shakin' a leg.

And you didn't answer my question:

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?
— baker

Is it my fault the public schools give short shrift to critical thinking? — ucarr

You still didn't answer my question.

Is it my fault the public schools give short shrift to critical thinking? The public needn't be herded together as livestock if they choose to resist. You can't deny, however, that rabbler-rousers travel the fast lane to prison. Most people are so numb with misery they've gotta be reminded of their discontent.

On the other hand, state-sanctioned rabble-rousers score pots of gold for their sage pronouncements, as we've been seeing with the many tongue-waggers hawking that Replacement Theory bosh.

Why do you think this has anything to do with not being taught critical thinking in school?

If anything, I think what's lacking is the culture of the heart, morality, and it's this lack that is causing so many problems.

A person can be fluent in critical thinking, and still be a thug.

I must say, Mr. Tweedle-Dumdee Baker, you're over-civilized to a fault, considering your experience at the greengrocer. I see you're a man who shelters by blending with the crowd. "What? I should publicize myself by opposing a shrew?! Messy affair."

Why, I say, someone's got to get you seeing yourself. You're deeply ensconced within a cage bound by gold bars, but a cage just the same.

It's beyond time you got that old rascal Complacency up on his feet and shakin' a leg.

Oh dear.

And you didn't answer my question:

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways? — Baker

Powerful, shaping influences upon our lives are not always blatant.

The short answer to your question is propaganda.

My reasoning proceeds from the premise that all professional governments maintain an aggressive propaganda machine. Propaganda + (the science of) polling_statistics combine to form the bedrock of technique for winning the hearts & minds of the people.

Ingenious propaganda closely interweaves with culture to make a seamless combination so seemingly natural as to prevent native members from even questioning the legitimacy -- both existential & moral -- of the state-sanctioned, core values of the culture. The minority of citizens who actively oppose core values are then easily shunned as radicals, malcontents, degenerates etc.

For example, consider a child born into a small village, geographically isolated. Everyone in the village professes to be a Christian. From day one, the child is casually indoctrinated with Christian ideology. They get it from their parents & extended family, from the school teacher, policeman, fireman, merchant and minister. In this situation, we have religious ideology shaking hands with the culture so tightly as to make the two indistinguishable & therefore inseparable.

But they are separate. Religion is spiritual_moral. Culture is social_political. When all of these potent forces are combined into a tight interweave, how likely is it that a child, nurtured up therein, will turn away from the family & society that fed, clothed, sheltered, educated, inspired & protected them?

Not very likely.

And you didn't answer my question:

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger... — Baker

Your metaphor above is taken from a crime drama. In real life, the gun placed to the head (and within the head) of the average citizen is ingenious propaganda, not a firearm.

What is the counter to ingenious propaganda? A firearm? No. The counter is critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking is taught in the public skills. However, when students are encouraged to apply such skills to core cultural values, their teachers, being radicals, soon face termination.*

*For an example, examine numerous articles pertaining to CRT.

One of the important responsibilities of philosophy is cultivation of a critical thinking mindset that plays no favorites.

You seem to think that people are born innocent tabula rasas, and that they are helplessly, haplessly thrown into the jaws of propaganda that swallows them up.

I was never taught any critical skills at school or at home, and I still come up with the question, Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?
How is that??

First of all, I don't think people are born so good and so innocent, or so weak and vulnerable as you suggest. To tie to your example, nobody is born a Christian, but people are born with varying passions. I think these determine how strongly the cultural indoctrination will take root in a particular person and in which ways.

Ingenious propaganda closely interweaves with culture to make a seamless combination so seemingly natural as to prevent native members from even questioning the legitimacy -- both existential & moral -- of the state-sanctioned, core values of the culture. — ucarr

I think you underestimate people's cunning and their propensity for keeping up appearances.
I grew up among Christians in what was a majority Christian culture then. These people mostly didn't actually believe anything they were taught at church, but they kept up the appearance of believing. They would ridicule the small minority who actually took the religious doctrines seriously.

Keeping up appearances is an art form in its own right. It's a form of self-defense.

What you say is true. On the other hand, can you cite legions of family, friends and acquaintances who frequent this website, ready to spout alternatives to the cultural conventions that guide our everyday lives?

Reinventing the wheel works up a sweat!

Otherwise, mediocrity will be the rule. — Wittgenstein

As the supply is low, and demand (for quality) is high, prices will shoot up, naturally; almost immediately a Hackliste will develop and consolidate itself.

What's wrong with mediocrity?

The Mediocrity Principle:

1. The Copernican revolution: Earth ain't special.
2. The Darwinian revolution: Humans ain't special.
3. The Freudian revolution: The mind ain't special.
4. The Galactic revolution: The Milky Way ain't special.
5. The Multiverse revolution: The universe ain't special.

Reinventing the wheel works up a sweat! — ucarr

:snicker:

Well, as a liberal who has come to admire Crazy Friedrich quite a bit, I think that he was being Nietzschean at rather an unfortunate point in history. He would have been much better say a generation after himself but that's admittedly a pretty impractical wish.

3. The Freudian revolution: The mind ain't special. — Agent Smith

Shouldn't the Freudian revolution read: The mind is a very special and edifying substance in light of the wild and enriching depths of the unconscious?

Shouldn't the Freudian revolution read: The mind is a very special and edifying substance in light of the wild, enriching depths of the unconscious? — ZzzoneiroCosm

The unconscious, we have no control over it and it seems to be in the driver's seat - bah! mind! F*****k me!

The unconscious, we have no control over it — Agent Smith

But we do.

If dreams are understood as a window into the unconscious, it's very much a possibility to refine or ameliorate dream content over time in sympathy with the willful maturation of the conscious mind.

For example: What was once a toothy nightmare wolf is now a licky cuddly docile puppy.

An example from my personal dream journal.

The unconscious?

Frued posited dream content to be a surfacing of unconscious material.

See the Interpretation of Dreams.

To my view a comprehensive amelioration of (yes, conscious) dreamstuff or dream themes implies a transformation or amelioration of the dynamics of the unconscious.

Shouldn't the Freudian revolution read: The mind is a very special and edifying substance in light of the wild and enriching depths of the unconscious? — ZzzoneiroCosm

:up:

The unconscious, we have no control over it and it seems to be in the driver's seat - bah! mind! F*****k me! — Agent Smith

The relationship seems complicated. How is it that adults don't pee the bed (very often anyway, or unless they're trying to) ? How does the sleeper 'know' to resist the urge ? And many thinkers have noted that mastery involves skill becoming automatic, so that the conscious mind is only necessary at the most strategic aspect of the performance.

Keeping up appearances is an art form in its own right. It's a form of self-defense. — baker

:up:

It's maybe the primary art form or the mother of art. It's not necessary lying. Virtue is also involved (I may 'put on' the appropriate solemnity at a funeral that doesn't actually affect me much, because I know it's shitty to do otherwise.)

Also:

A diminishing of the negative potency of the archetypes implies an ameliorative transformation of the unconscious. When mother is just plain old mother and no more a mystique-laden dual mother-goddess (creative-destructive); when a king is just a man with a crown; when a nation loses its jingoistic aura; when the star spangled banner is just an interesting picture.

And especially the de-mystique-ification of the self: from ego-riddled baby lordling to - a man, no more, no less.

This de-mystique-ification of reality I take to imply a transformation of the unconscious.