Freedom is (maybe?) psychologically (perhaps biologically?) untenable in humans.

GNU/Linux ---> too much user choice

Freely shared scientific inquiry ---> technologists giv[ing] control of their knowledge to people who have no knowledge

Everyone probably does want the iron fist in the velvet glove.

   The large majority – me included – wants to be passive and rely on an 
   efficient state apparatus to guarantee the smooth running of the entire 
   social edifice, so that I can pursue my work in peace. Walter Lippmann 
   wrote in his Public Opinion (1922) that the herd of citizens must be 
   governed by “a specialised class whose interests reach beyond the 
   locality" – this elite class is to act as a machinery of knowledge that 
   circumvents the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the 
   "omni-competent citizen". This is how our democracies function – with our consent: 
   there is no mystery in what Lippmann was saying, it is an obvious fact; the mystery 
   is that, knowing it, we play the game. We act as if we are free and freely deciding, 
   silently not only accepting but even demanding that an invisible injunction 
   (inscribed into the very form of our free speech) tells us what to do and think. 
   “People know what they want” – no, they don’t, and they don’t want to know it. 
   They need a good elite, which is why a proper politician does not only advocate people’s interests, 
   it is through him that they discover what they “really want.”
   http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/04/simple-courage-decision-leftist-tribute-thatcher
   

It's the "masses" who may be the least delusional: The whole point is to know you're not in charge. The elites actually believe they're in control.

   In The King's Speech the cause of the king-to-be's stuttering is precisely his inability 
   to assume his symbolic function and identify with his title. He displays little common sense, 
   seriously accepting that one is a king by divine will; and the task of the Australian coach is 
   to render him stupid enough to accept his sovereignty as natural property. In the film's key scene, 
   the coach sits on the throne. The furious king asks him how he dare do this, to which he replies: 
   "Why not? Why should you have the right to sit on this chair and me not?" The king shouts back: 
   "Because I am a king by divine right!" At which point the coach just nods with satisfaction; 
   now the king believes he is a king. The film's solution is reactionary: the king is "normalised", 
   the force of his hysterical questioning is obliterated.
   ---Slavoj Žižek
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays