THERE'S the problem. People in their twenties should not be allowed to act on their opinions, especially not the ones they were issued.

ROTFLMAO. Did you know that farm relief in the New Deal in the 1930s was targeted at farms in swing states, rather than the poorest farms in the country? Because most of those farms were in regions that always voted the same no matter what one party did or didn't do for them. Instead, the farm relief, during the Great Depression, when money was really tight for everyone, went to the places it would be most likely to influence the recipients to vote for the incumbent. And that is just one example I pulled off the top of my head. Most of the politics up to the American Civil War were all about placating demographics. The Eerie Canal might be an examaple of a thing that 'got done' but really, it was all about politicians in the East servicing their constituents, who were afraid that all the westward and southward-flowing rivers would take the trade away from the East Coast ports. The transcontinental railroad's route was selected with an eye to appeasing demographic groups, a fighter plane for the US military in the 1960s was chosen over another, possibly superior plane, because it was built in states with large numbers of Congressmen, while the other plane would have only benefited a relatively small demographic. Your impression of the past is grossly uninformed.

Says you. It would also be a given that people would fight over it. There were issues with this in the first settlements in North America (by civilized people, I mean). Inevitably, those arguments almost destroyed the settlements, because once they decided on an even sharing of the wealth, everyone stopped working, and people died of starvation. Things didn't get better until they started tying the payoffs to the work you contributed. As for the later periods of settlement of the same continent, people started coming to the frontiers, in communities of the size you describe, precisely because they could grab all the wealth for themselves that they could, and no one was around to interfere and start distributing it.

How does dictatorial rule have anything to do with the supposed advancement of a species' intelligence? Dictatorship is actually a rather advanced concept - common sense suggests that seminal societies would have practiced a form of equality and democracy, until specialized economic roles started distorting that natural, innate equality. At various times in history, people have advanced the notion that a dictatorship was the preferrable or advanced or scientific or progressive governing method, often with the approbation of self-important 20-somethings who were positive they had everything figured out already, and were frustrated with demographic-appeasing legislators gumming up the works and preventing the implementation of all the catchy, impressive-looking and "obviously" wonderful policies that theorists dreamed up.

Oh, you're fairly clear as it is.