> Divine right of the mob is no better than the divine right of kings, oligarchs or whatever else. Absolutely. If the mob says a witch must be burned; is that

> Divine right of the mob is no better than the divine right of kings, oligarchs or whatever else. Absolutely. If the mob says a witch must be burned; is that still the democracy that the author had in mind? It seems that there are two definitions of democracy: one that implies a liberal system of the sort that developed in the West that has public institutions, several branches of power, and regular referendums, and another that implies that the majority is always right (aka "tyranny of the majority", "dictatorship of the masses" etc). I have a feeling that Thiel had the second definition in mind when he criticized democracy, and the author of the article decided to take advantage of the ambiguity of the word "democracy" and paint Thiel as an authoritarian of some sort. Either that or the author is really confused and shouldn't be writing about politics.