Thank you for the review and I'll check out the literature you cited!

I argue in the piece that democracy lacks inherent moral and epistemic value. I'll argue for its instrumental value in a later piece though. It lacks moral value since democratic decisions may stray from ethical principles of the social contract (tyranny of the majority) and it lacks epistemic authority since there are certain systemic biases of the electorate (anti-market, identitarian biases, etc.) that inhibit any resulting wisdom of crowds. Especially as laws require more complexity to deal with modern issues.

On the first point, I argue that certain decisions would be better handled through expert-led agencies and courts. They already perform this role in some regard. For example, courts have been enforcing social rights in the face of democratic legislation, but not economic rights.

On the second point, I mean reason as publicly recognized justifications. The SEP on Public Reason captures my view fairly well.

If you have any more reading recommendations, I'd be happy to review them and address their arguments in later posts.