Legitimacy, Inegalitarianism, Egalitarianism

One of the distinctive features of Political Philosophy, that distinguishes it from Political Theory, is the attempt to legitimize a proposed model.  Thus, in Ancient Political Philosophy, the source of legitimacy is Nature, while in the Medieval era, it is a Deity.  Now, in the Modern Era, there is a return to Nature as the foundation, but with a significant difference.  Among the Ancients, the specific Natural characteristic is some ability that is posited as not necessarily shared by all, e. g. Reason, whereas for the Moderns, it is universally attributed Freedom.  Accordingly, debates between advocates of Ancient doctrines vs. those of Modern ones tend to reduce to an Inegalitarianism vs. Egalitarianism dispute.  But, tending to corrupt that antithesis is the insinuation into it of extrinsic normative considerations.  As a result, a contrast of 'better suited to rule or to choose a ruler' vs. 'less well-suited to rule or to choose a ruler', morphs into a 'superior human being' vs. 'inferior human being' one, thereby corrupting a perhaps modest and inoffensive Inegalitarian proposition.  Furthermore, the corrupt version has become the widely accepted one, which makes it difficult to criticize, even where presumed Democratic processes are a shadow puppet show.