I thought along those lines too, until this problem occured to me: No equality-minded low-brow mob will ever accept a philosopher king without some element that forces them to do so. Because the lowest, or common man does not want to transcend himself. But that is essentially what accepting a philosopher king means: to transcend oneself.
So then I asked myself again, if not from democracy, then wherefrom could the philosopher king arise? And I think that subjectively, there must be some kind of divine inspiration, and objectively, force of arms. Because neither the mob nor a tyrant would give way voluntarily.
-*- -*- -*-
On freedom as absence of force, I'd say that "force" can be said to mean that A effects something in B. From which it can be said that there is no absolutely free being other than the Absolute Good itself, and that the more we resemble this Good, the free-er we are.
But in liberal jargon, freedom seems to mean something else. Every prole would agree that he is affected by some B, but he would add: with my assent. So that it now means: freedom is to be affected by something, AND willing this. It is obvious to me that this second thing called "freedom" is very different from the first.
Note that every normal human being has will, but that those who resemble the Highest Good will be able to act truly freely because they are free.
On the other hand, those who are far from the Highest Good will be unfree, but still be able to act according to the liberal definition of freedom. So in a very weak sense of freedom, they will be free, but in the intrinsic sense of freedom, they will be unfree.
What follows from this? I think that this follows, namely that only does he truly act free who intends, by his act of the will, to either be good or become good, i.e. closer to the Absolute Good; and that on the contrary he who does not intend to do this, acts unfree and slavelike. Or more succinct: free will is either the good will, or the will towards the good.
For Egypt, or any country ruled by a dictator, this means that the liberal understanding of freedom is not a good criterion to judge the real freedom of the people. Yea, these citizens would be free while enduring some good that is against their will; and they would be unfree while accepting some evil that pleases them.