> Here's a story . . . my local food co-op recently had a vote to boycott a
> product. There are @16,000 members. In the end the vote was 639 for the
> boycott and 338 against. I call it the tyranny of the majority of the
> minority. Still leaves a bitter taste . . .
>
> The point being that unless folks participate and have made a well-founded
> decision (not just on hearsay), democracy doesn't work very well . . .

It's because voting is not a synonym of democracy, it is, and should
be, only the last resort of it, when everything else fails. In
tyrannies there's also voting, and even more people participate in it,
but that doesn't make it any more democratic, because it's just a mean
for transfering responsibility. When one can only vote if he wants to
be drowned of hanged, what democracy it can be? Focusing on voting
misses the most important point, why voting is needed in the first
place? For most of the time it's not needed at all, because the true
essence of democracy is to ensure freedom, freedom of choice. There
isn't the only one option, there isn't even the best option, and can't
be, because people differ from each other, and they should be allowed
to whenever possible. We shouldn't vote what sex, what skin colour,
what belief is the right one. They all are, as long as they don't
destroy other people's freedom. Of course at a time there can be only
one government, default init system etc. and this calls for voting,
*because there's no other way to deal with it*, but for this reason
winning it doesn't give the right to destroy all alternatives,
otherwise it just turns into a tyranny of the majority. The same goes
for software. Having the source code is like having the right to vote,
it's simply not enough to ensure freedom, because large corporations
can easily abuse it by sheer quantity. The question is, do we have
enough strength and motivation to oppose their last try? Are we ready
for sweat, blood and tears? If not, we're doomed to lose it, because
freedom never comes for free.