> We also shouldn't let the lowest common denominator have a say in the direction of society.

Interesting. Do you see this as defending democracy?

I'm not sure your question has enough context. But yes, not allowing the most illogically angry people (defined by me as the lowest common denominator in this Context) start wars (aka crime and violence) over their hurt feelings is most definitely a way to defend democracy.

>Why do you go directly to the extreme implementation

> We also shouldn't let the lowest common denominator have a say in the direction of society.

I guess it's human nature, I don't know.

So your answer is "we'll just manipulate people without them noticing"?

How will that not backfire?

> People that "would go to war" over the fact that they should eat less red meat are not exactly of sound mind.

I see nothing in their position that indicates they aren't of sound mind. They're inconvenient to your own position, and you're willing to manipulate them if you can manage the trick.

Maybe you're worried that they will choose to "go to war" as manipulated people do so often once aware of the ruse?

Who said anything about "manipulation"? Do you know that influence is not tantamount to manipulation? Do you know that many of your own behaviors are most likely subsidized by government and therefore you are being economically influenced (or in your perspective "manipulated")? Have you ever heard of a Sin Tax? Have you ever realized that Expansionary Policy is often put into place in order to influence (your perspective is "Manipulate"). I would encourage you to learn a little about economics before trying to hypothesize why and what makes people go to war.