Even if we accept, as the basic tenet of true democracy, that one moron is equal to one genius, is it necessary to go a further step and hold that two morons are better than one genius?

As quoted in "Some Szilardisms on War, Fame, Peace", LIFE‎ magazine, Vol. 51, no. 9 (1 September 1961), p. 79 | 2. Let your acts be directed toward a worthy goal, but do not ask if they will reach it; they are to be models and examples, not means to an end. | 3. Speak to all men as you do to yourself, with no concern for the effect you make, so that you do not shut them out from your world; lest in isolation the meaning of life slips out of sight and you lose the belief in the perfection of creation. | 4. Do not destroy what you cannot create. | 5. Touch no dish, except that you are hungry. | 6. Do not covet what you cannot have. | 7. Do not lie without need. | 8. Honor children. Listen reverently to their words and speak to them with infinite love. | 9. Do your work for six years; but in the seventh, go into solitude or among strangers, so that the memory of your friends does not hinder you from being what you have become. | 10. Lead your life with a gentle hand and be ready to leave whenever you are called. | "Ten Commandments" | Personal dictum, (variant of #7) as quoted by Albert Szent-Györgyi, in Science, Vol. 176, (1972), p. 966

I'm all in favor of the democratic principle that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line when someone takes the next step and concludes that two idiots are better than one genius. || Don't lie if you don't have to.