Whatever clothing this author puts on it, the naked truth of his thesis is that people who disagree with him should not be allowed to vote. The implication is that all human beings who are sufficiently intelligent, educated, and informed would agree with him, at least on general policies. Though he is intelligent, well-informed, and entertaining, he seems to be among the many who endlessly complain and criticize, but are unwilling to advocate for a solution.

One solution would be to expand democracy, actually, by applying it to the economy, via a "democratically distributed income." Once we had made the existing economy self-regulating, with no unemployment, poverty, or taxes/public debt and increased sustainability--which instituting such an income would irrefutably accomplish--then we could deal much more easily with the rest of it. Before it really is too late, we could start advocating for this solution in the existing democratic political process.