All very interesting. How do you propose such an elite be selected? Keep in mind you need a natural process rather than any formal institution making these decisions, since the institution itself would simply become an elite.
The nice thing about a merchant elite is that they can arise through some sort of market system, with no one group or institution holding a monopoly on kingmaking. If you want to establish a philosopher elite you have to establish some sort of analog to that--and probably destroy the market in the process, especially if you're interested in allocating the nicer apartments to the philosopher elite.
(There is of course a political elite as well, which is partially chosen by political institutions and partially evolving through the democratic process. Perhaps the political system could establish a philosopher elite. How do you propose it do so? Democracy obviously won't work.)
Great points, and I have to admit that I don't have all the answers. I see where we need to go, but not necessarily the path there.
I think political democracy is necessary, but politics shouldn't be the core of society. We want a society that's politically democratic and has a mostly market-driven economy, but in which scholarship, creativity, and culture are revered above all. Right now, the salesmen and bean-counters dominate. I'm not saying that business leaders shouldn't have a place at the table-- the talented ones are very valuable-- but they shouldn't have control of all the seats. Right now, they (and, worse yet, their unproven and entitled progeny) do: they own our politicians and dictate our culture, and they control invitations to the parties and clubs (including, per our interest, venture capital) that are essential if you want to get anywhere in society (save a 1:100000 home-run success).
As for bringing society to a morally acceptable state, it's not easy. You have to change peoples' values on a fundamental level. In the US, people accept it as "natural" that the narcissistic social bullies belong on top and the smart people ("nerds") are to be beaten up, and that the social bullies are destined to be running large companies, and that this is somehow okay. It's not, and just as easily as we wound up in this anti-intellectual arrangement, we can work a way out of it and build a society that is the opposite. With the internet and rising importance of technology, there's no better time to do so.
I think your ideas are incoherent at best if you expect, f.ex., economic investment to be driven by some sort of elite class of philosopher-kings rather than the people who actually manage to earn that money in the market. Venture capital is a means to enter the higher echelons of the merchant class, and you want the merchant class to be disenfranchised therefrom?
I'd also like to point out that, to whatever extent these philosopher-kings exist, they already have some degree power to drive political policy, but this power is strictly limited by the vulgarity inherent in a democratic system. By which I mean obviously beneficial policies which the intellectual elite already agree on are often politically infeasible due to public opinion.
I don't know what, in concrete terms, you want this intellectual elite to be on top. It can't be in terms of political power or wealth, because by definition those are controlled by the very political and economic classes you'd like to leave to their own devices. And I don't know any other substantive way in which they can even be an elite--living in nicer apartments, as you mentioned earlier, is a prize hardly worth even mentioning.
Let me express it better: I think we need a mercantile and political infrastructure-- such "classes", if you will. However, I think the ultimate power should be held by a scholarly class, which should generally use it lightly so long as society remains in a morally acceptable state.
Right now, for example, if an entrepreneur makes a deal with a VC, the founders pay the VC's legal fees. This is a domination ritual designed to humiliate the founders, of a "lesser caste" than the business high priests. This is wrong. The founders, being the creative force, should be setting most of the terms. This world of the "Golden Rule"-- those with the gold make the rules-- needs to shot to pieces and rebuilt in another form, where those with talent and creativity make the rules.
Ultimately, power should be held only by a scholarly set of people who are aware of (and intellectually competent enough to defend against) power's inherent tendency toward abuse and evil.
The nice thing about a merchant elite is that they can arise through some sort of market system, with no one group or institution holding a monopoly on kingmaking. If you want to establish a philosopher elite you have to establish some sort of analog to that--and probably destroy the market in the process, especially if you're interested in allocating the nicer apartments to the philosopher elite.
(There is of course a political elite as well, which is partially chosen by political institutions and partially evolving through the democratic process. Perhaps the political system could establish a philosopher elite. How do you propose it do so? Democracy obviously won't work.)