As many scholars have pointed out throughout history, democracy is a sort of mob rule, where people can make laws that justify the use of physical force against their neighbors if they happen to be in the majority.

You took the words right out of my mouth! I was thinking something like that read the first part.

Traditionally the solution is to have more than one house of government that keeps the other in check, you'll find this in different forms in many democracies. We know now the multitude of ways that this fails now even in the representative democracy system.

But the idea of giving a strong voice to minorities in a system of majority rule still makes sense and in my view is ethically required. We just always have to factor that in.

It's the same on Steemit. We have a kind of wealth rule but separate those powers a little by having witnesses as professional policy makers (AKA politicians) so it's the same as representative democracy but instead of one-person-one-vote we have one-dollar-one-vote. I've argued before that Steemit is not a nation so government analogies only go so far, but still we do have governance.

In light of what you say above, how do you reflect on the system on Steemit? Would you have any opinion on improving governance here?