The "debate continues"...... CURMUDGEON: I think I meant that straight democracy should be corrected, just like SR rightly indicated.

If all men are created equal, why should some be more equal than others, especially when the majority is selfish?

The US version of democracy is the world's ideal: think of what would happen without the amendments attached to the Constitution. It was done precisely for the 'sole' reason of preventing tyranny or unfair competition or oppression.

Using your argument, the US South would have been decimated after the Civil War, New York State would produce all the Federal Reserve Chairmen, and Microsoft would be able to tell you to travel to Washington State in order to get a chance to connect to the internet  with any desktop computer.

True democracy should protect the minorities, don't you  think? That's the basis for the existence of  the  Equal Opportunity programs and  the Indian Reservations. You know, live and let live....

As a matter of fact, with that answer / reply I think I have finally solved my own previously long-nagging question about how to practically determine the benevolent voting majority in any democratic society. All that really matters is detecting their presence by their manifested actions: actions speak louder than words, “by their fruits ye shall know them”, etc, etc.

This embedded answer, emerging as a result of the active and positive rubbing of minds and exchange of ideas via participation in a topical issue like what to do to change the world for the better, is another example of why reading as a hobby is vital for improving the sharpness of the mind and memory.

So, I now realize more fully that the benevolent majority in a true democracy is the largest block of voters anywhere who, although overwhelmingly empowered numerically to take make or mar decisions, is still humble and humane enough to allow the rights and privileges of minority groups not to be abused, deprived, or trampled upon just for the sake of brooking no opposition, emphasising superiority of any kind, and / or forming one big cohesive and monolithic stereotypical mass of yes-men and yes-women within a given society.

Humans are by nature and character a dissenting and grumbling lot, sothere must be room for,  or an outlet / avenue for the expression of opposing, contrary or individual views. Otherwise, tyranny and social upheaval would result ultimately, and that’s not democracy to me!

Come to think of it, I guess that’s really why the Press is regarded worldwide as the fourth pillar of the realm in any society. Wherever there is no Freedom of the Press, you can safely bet your last Dollar and be sure that the ruling majority or class is definitely not acting in a benevolent manner towards most of the minority groups. Quite an interesting and independent benchmark for gauging the actual practice of democracy on Earth, and right from your own armchair at home, too!

Please compare the ‘ravings and rantings’ above with an earlier, poetic, and more tentative / exploratory attempt at this.