What, then, does?

Democracy is a good idea, sure. But what happens when democracy reaches a conclusion that seems obviously unjust? Do we decide that our own sense of right and wrong must be flawed? (This is a question I have no good answer to—where should we develop our sense of right and wrong?)

Moreover, historically there are many times that democracy says something is right that the people of a later era (perhaps even just a couple years later) decide was actually wrong, and that's the reason we have constitutional limits on what voters can do—but who decides what the Constitution says? We obviously need a veto over the will of the voters, but who should we trust with it?

What if instead of technical skills you have money? Is it wrong to use money in the service of influencing political goals? (In the US, neither the voters nor the Constitution believe so, by the way.) If others are influencing society with money, is it wrong to use money to counter them?

What about speech and communications media? If you have a platform (say, you're a popular entertainer or writer or talk show host), should you use it to convince others of a particular political position? If you have many listeners and your political opponents don't, is it still okay for you to speak to your listeners, or are you a minority unjustly using your influence and power?

What about weaponry? Traditionally, military might has settled many questions of whether a government should be permitted to engage in an action. Is it unjust to go to war with a country with a smaller army? Would it have been morally optimal for the US to say, we have about 5% of the world's population, the morally optimal choice is to not interfere with World War II?

I worry the argument that it's not our place to act on our principles is popular because it's easy and comfortable—keep your job, don't rock the boat—not because it's morally compelling.

And of these groups who can influence society—the politically-well-connected-200-years-ago, the rich, the media, the military, and the technical builders—if there is an argument for any of them to exert disproportionate influence, it seems to me the strongest argument would be for the builders, since technical work necessarily requires intelligence snd systems thinking more strongly than the others do. That is, if any group is to be entrusted with a veto if the rest agree and they disagree, the builders seem most likely to have a legitimate, informed, reasoned, and non-self-serving reason for the veto.

Society, incidentally, has no stories of praising people who exercised restraint when they saw an obvious injustice and the rest of the world going along with it. It usually disdains them as weak, cowardly, and opportunistic. It does have strong praise for those who took a stand even when it seemed like their position was in the minority.