So here's a fun thought experiment: If that proposition ("The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves") were true, what would be the correct way to structure a society to maximize the quality-of-life for people in that society?

Preserving inalienable rights or ignoring them?

"Inalienable rights" is too broad a concept to have an either/or answer to that question. Choose some specific rights and choose to preserve them if they're inalienable.

I'll start: I see nothing in the inalienable right to life incompatible with structuring a society that can maximize quality of life for its citizens who, on average, aren’t capable enough to judge information for themselves.

Where your argument fails is assuming that the average citizen isn't a capable judge of information.

Edit: Furthermore, your argument also denies the average citizen their right to life by denying their capacity to decide their own quality of life.

You assign the average citizen a capacity of a child.

It's not an argument; it's a thought experiment. From three posts up:

"""If that proposition ("The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves") were true..."""

I'm interested in exploring the logical consequences of assuming that point, not arguing the truth of the point.

I've generally heard quality-of-life listed under the inalienable right to pursuit of happiness, not the inalienable right to life, i.e. "What's the point of living if you can't ever be happy". But, yes, let's preserve that one as inalienable too. How do we structure a society to preserve those rights if we assume "The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves?" What does that do to their ability to both enunciate what makes them happy and make the correct decisions to pursue that which makes them happy successfully?

Ah, my apology. Have at it.

Sarcasm for me, but I know some believe it.