Your hope is not the human experience of 3,000 years. Freedom is the goal, democracy is just the mechanism, and the passions of democratic mob rule need to be tempered to protect freedom.

Well in the last 3,000 years there has never been the medium for the population to voice their opinions and collaborate at such a large scale. Civilizations were run by the rich, not the population.

My hope is that eventually people will accept 'net supported politics as a way to support true democracy.

If freedom is the goal, then freedom has to be the goal of the majority. Yes, democracy is a mechanism, but we have never truly seen a way for populations to organize politics on mass before.

Democracy in the past (and now) has been an act for representatives that can have their own agenda.

The problem is that the "majority" isn't a set thing, and in a "pure democracy", the reality is that the rabble-rousers loudest voices control the mob.

I've had the good fortune of observing the local occupy movement wreck the park that I like to eat lunch in. It started out like a bunch of people getting together in a little -- sort of like a festival concert. After a few weeks though, there clearly were 3-4 people "in charge". They give everyone lip service, but guide the agenda.

Regarding the ethics of the majority... from 1882 to 1968, nearly 200 bills were introduced making lynching a Federal crime. 7 presidents supported such legislation. Three (3) passed the house. None got through the Senate, thanks to the vice-grip of "Solid South" Senators.

Were all white folks in the South supporters of random mobs hanging black people? I hope not. But those random mobs had leaders, and the rest of the population was cowed into silent complicity.