well the way you quoted me (with just my conclusion, withtout citing the context of a hypothetical example) makes me come across as a proponent of anarchy,which i am not. and all i wanted to do was to bring some opposing points of view to the discussion rather refuse to consider differeing thoughts like an overzealous religious fanatic. i hate to repeat, but in this case, i guess the point did not get across, so ... I said: "i can think of one hypothetical example where it's not....let's say that in this hypothetical world, 49% of the people are knowledgeable, and are genuinely concerned for the overall welfare of society..the other 51% are ignorant buffoons who think they are smart, but in reality always end up harming everyone in the society by their stupid decisions. say there is a major referendum on a critical issue affecting everyone in society...democracy in this case ensures that society will be worse off... " so, in this hypothetical world, democracy is neither the best nor the right solution. the best (and right, assuming that you are concerned about everyone's welfare) solution, is for the 49% of hte ppl to decide on behalf of everyone. this process may not be democratic, but it benefits EVERYONE. A pareto efficient point, as an economist would say. ...i am sure you will let me know if it is unclear.