Is Epistocracy more compatible with capitalism or socialism?
I recently came across Jason Brennan's defense of free market capitalism (he has described himself as a bleeding heart libertarian) and I was surprised considering he's for an Epistocratic political model.
For context epistocracy is a form of government in which representatives are elected by the knowledgeable part of the population as opposed to universal suffrage. I'm aware he proposes maintaining the free market as a way for those that feel excluded from the political mechanism that would keep out large sums of the population if implemented. But doesn't this proposal constitute a weak pitch, considering it doesn't commit to its political principles enough to apply them economically? If epistocracy is meant to ensure that political power is at the hands of the knowledgeable, why doesn't it advocate for the same on economic power? In a strictly State Socialist model, private property would not exist and therefore resources and wealth would be managed by state appointed experts and planned centrally, as opposed to Marxian economics which puts economic power on the hands of the workers on the grounds of combating alienation, and capitalist economics which places it on the hands of the entrepreneurial class on the grounds of promoting competition. I do know that Brennan himself is a skeptic and doesn't believe that epistocracy is an idea that can produce a perfect system. What I want to know is if this idea is more compatible with first, second, or third position economics, or something completely different.