This is an engaging and interesting thread and it's also beginning to resemble one of those slippery debates with Christians - especially fundamentalists - about just how to understand Bible versus.

Nietzsche's political philosophy is an inversion of Plato's. Both are concerned with the politics of the soul, and in that sense works of psychology. For both Plato and Nietzsche the question of who is to rule is of central importance. For both Plato and Nietzsche the question of slavery in addressed in light of the problem of self-mastery.

Plato's concern was the education of the just soul . Nietzsch(e's is the education of the individual. Plato's concern was the creation of harmony out of conflicting desires. Nietzsche's concern was the creation of the individual who maintains strife, internal enmity rather than harmony.

For Plato although it appears as though the harmony of the soul and the harmony of the city gives us a picture of justice, the fact is that the just city is full of injustice. Nietzsche's soul in internal strife seems to lead to a troubling picture of the city full in internal strife, but strife cannot be eliminated nor is it desirable to do so; for it can only be accomplished through totalitarian suppression which is not harmony but a false image of harmony. But this is not to say that all claims are equal. Like Plato, Nietzsche hold to a hierarchical ranking. For both, the philosopher is "commander and law-giver". (BGE 211) And this is to be understood with regard to the politics of the soul.

The 21^st century version of the OP's title should be, in my humble opinion, Nietzschean argument in defense of robotics.

A system should be put in place which allows the crème da le crème of society to blossom into maturity, this will come at the cost of a non-egalitarian society — Wittgenstein

How is this not already happening?

What approach should morally upright social scientists & legislators take regarding the naturally occurring inequality of human individuals grouped together within a state? — ucarr

None. The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.

For example, theoretically, officially, we're all equal before the law. But practically, we're not.

Put down that old dog-earred "Nietzsche for Dummies" and go read Freddy's works.

Put down that old dog-earred "Nietzsche for Dummies" and go read Freddy's works. ↪180 Proof — 180 Proof

:ok: Clark Kent (Superman) didn't own slaves!

What approach should morally upright social scientists & legislators take regarding the naturally occurring inequality of human individuals grouped together within a state?
— ucarr

None. The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.

For example, theoretically, officially, we're all equal before the law. But practically, we're not. — baker

By saying "none," you're saying you condone the double-standard that, for the same crime, has the judge handing down a draconian sentence to a commoner and a slap on the wrist to a noble.

Your conformity to the status quo, once it's amplified by a smug polity, launches a potent recipe for revolt.

John Lennon sang about nobles keeping the masses doped on sex, drugs & religion. Are you also signed on with this stratagem?

Game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways take aim at the roiling dissatisfaction of the legions of working stiffs. Apparently you think they're effective.

Nathaniel West, like other writers before and since, characterizes Los Angeles as a desert fever dream unmoored from the Puritan stolidity that keeps the rest of the continent sound. At the movie premiere, the downtrodden, the locusts of the land, ignited by Homer Simpson's breakdown into psychotic rage, erupt into mad revolt against the class bondage that mummifies them.

The quick & the clever are forever herding the pliant populace into one or another scheme of usury until, periodically, a seismic eruption of social upheaval lays waste to the cultural order. The first cracks in the facade appear within the glib & gleaming complacency of the conservatives. No?

What approach should morally upright social scientists & legislators take regarding the naturally occurring inequality of human individuals grouped together within a state?
— ucarr

None. The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.

For example, theoretically, officially, we're all equal before the law. But practically, we're not.
— baker

By saying "none," you're saying you condone the double-standard that, for the same crime, has the judge handing down a draconian sentence to a commoner and a slap on the wrist to a noble. — ucarr

No. I'm saying, again, that the classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically, even if not officially, and it prevails.

Your conformity to the status quo, once it's amplified by a smug polity, launches a potent recipe for revolt.

Resistence is futile.

John Lennon sang about nobles keeping the masses doped on sex, drugs & religion. Are you also signed on with this stratagem?

Game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways take aim at the roiling dissatisfaction of the legions of working stiffs. Apparently you think they're effective.

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways?

The quick & the clever are forever herding the pliant populace into one or another scheme of usury until, periodically, a seismic eruption of social upheaval lays waste to the cultural order.

And then the revolution eats its children and soon enough, things go back to the way they used to be, just the faces in positions of power are new.

The classism based on the inequality of human individuals is in place practically..., — ucarr

Do you believe class division & the established social order, like human inequality, occur naturally, and thus no need for any type of social engineering?

Do you believe the law, like class division & the established social order, are natural?

In your sentence above, you use the passive voice with reference to (see bold words above) the fact of classism. If you rewrite the sentence with the verb in the active voice, who will you posit as the actor bringing classism into effect? You can answer by giving an example of the sentence rewritten with the verb in the active voice.

And then the revolution eats its children and soon enough, things go back to the way they used to be, just the faces in positions of power are new. — baker

Do you believe revolts & revolutions are, more often than not, merely superficial makeovers of short duration?

Do you believe revolutions are always the undoing of their authors?

Who is placing a gun to the head of the masses, threatening to pull the trigger if they refuse to get doped on sex, drugs & religion, game shows, state lotteries & promotional giveaways? — baker

Do you acknowledge two systems of justice, one for the rich & powerful, another for the commonality?

The answers to the following questions might provide us some insight into the issue of slavery.

1. Do you want slaves?

2. Do you want be a slave?

Being an übermensch is not only about doing whatever one wants but also requires resisting one's innate urges/instincts. Nietzsche was telling only half the story, oui?

He who conquers others is strong; he who conquers himself is mighty. — Lao Tzu/The Buddha