It seems the problem is in the use of force. Apart from that, if there's a group of people that would make better than average parents, and whose kids would be more likely to contribute more to society than they consume, then shouldn't that group be encouraged to have and adopt as many kids as they can afford to support?
No problem was ever solved by deliberately reducing the potential number of people available to solve it. If humanity faces resource constraints, the way to solve them is to get as many net-positive-resource people as possible working on solutions.
One person could devote one lifetime to solving a problem. Or, they could have 4 kids, everyone devotes half of one life time (the other half to raising kids), and now there are 2.5+ lifetimes of effort spent on the problem.
We aren't facing resource constraints, we're facing overuse of resources. The problem of overpopulation is not one of an inability to feed, house and water people - the problem is the impact we have upon our own environment.
The single greatest thing we could do to improve our species' odds of survival today is reduce ourselves in number. Because we are currently causing a mass extinction event.
Just because one was barred from university or wealth doesn’t mean that the political entrenchment was eliminated. If I was a wealthy family that rubbed elbows with other wealthy families, such that all my family friends were from wealthy families, any success I gather would also have me nepotize my family friends into whatever companies I make and whatever government success I achieve.
