(not parent) I think it is pretty easy to substantiate it (some people are actually deficient), but hard to substantiate to the degree that would justify the measures people propose. Yes, you can find a few nutjobs, but do they justify these truth-seeking policies for the general population? What suggests that these policies are even beneficial?

But even if it was shown to be beneficial, I would still be against it on moral grounds I suppose (but I'm not sure since that might depend on how "beneficial" it is).

I've not really thought about it this way, but I believe both statements. Nobody should be a slave to how someone else wants them to behave, because people are autonomous beings with their own capacity and right to make their own decisions, and there is no universal law about how we should decide or prioritize things. I believe of course in many of the societal constructs we have (most of the ten commandments e.g., taxes) but I think there has to be an almost impossibility high bar in any new imposition we make on peoples right to have their own priorities, because we're all equal in the universe.

Maybe a weird answer, I'm not a philosopher, I just don't think there is a scale of rights that people have, or in the idea of an elite that has special decision making power because it is enlightened.

The best statements of this problem are in Public Opinion and The Phantom Public by Lippmann. You don't need to share his answers to those questions (which are an enlightened corporatism/fascism), to realize that to be serious about governance, answering them is a prerequisite.