In various utterances recently, I have alluded to the horrific notion of "people's courts". The idea is a corruption of democracy, itself a system of government which survives only faut de mieux as far as I am concerned, because I am unconvinced that a system whereby only the people who can make themselves most popular with the great unwashed get to run things is anything but a recipe for mediocrity, at the end of the day.

As far as I am concerned, the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship run on lines that jibe perfectly with my own ideas and I have no doubt that the same applies for the chap standing next to me supping an excellent espresso at Cafe' Caffe in St John's Street. And so on down the line - everyone thinks they're better at everything than everyone else, in their heart of hearts.

Let's face it, in the same way Marx (Groucho, of course, not that other useless one) had the perfectly valid position that he didn't want to join any club that would want him as a member, I believe there's strength in the idea that wanting to be a guv'nor so much that you'd kiss next-door-but-one's repulsive offspring in front of a camera is proof positive that you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the keys to the power-cabinet.

But before someone comes up with a better system, I suppose we're stuck with the one man (and I hasten to correct that to person, lest the PCP (political correctness police) send a squad round to beat compliance into me) one vote principle, with all its faults. The alternative, being told what to do all the time by someone for who respect for anyone else's point of view is a concept that he holds in contempt (cfr. Malta under Mintoff, just as an example) hasn't worked, ever.

The direct corollary of democracy, upheld by the tandemic fundamental freedoms of expression and thought, to have and to state respectively, is that, like certain bits of anatomy, everyone has one and is entitled to spout it.

An opinion, I mean, and the theory that everyone has one and is entitled to express it is captured perfectly in the deeply philosophic utterance so beloved by many of the populi whose vox is sometimes broadcast, generally after having been videoed on Republic Street: "heqq, opinjoni, hux?".

The problem many people have with their opinion is that they are unable to distinguish the fact of their having an opinion from the fact that a) it may be a completely inane opinion and b) the mere fact that they have an opinion doesn't make it fact or even worth having as simply an opinion.

Many people also confuse their right to having an opinion and to expressing it with a right to seek to impose said opinion on everyone without being gainsaid. In this regard, for instance, I hold that - say - the environmental lobbyists have every right to say what they like, how they like, but the same applies to me, and I want to call them a bunch of tree-hugging idealists with no notion of reality, I am free to do so.

But what happens when I do? I get a whole spate of comments to my blog or weekly column, depending which medium I use to express the idea, lambasting me for daring, horror of horrors, to contradict the dicta from on high and to propose the idea that, perhaps, the sainted ones are not, actually, infallible.

For exercising my democratic right to have and express an opinion, I am chastised and called all manner of names, to put it mildly, it thereby being demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that even the tree-huggers are, in fact, deeply undemocratic.

Of course, the vehemence of the comments made to and about me are, in a back-handed way, quite complimentary: they wouldn't put so much vim and vigour into dumping on me if they didn't see some value in my work.

But getting back to the staring point: people's courts. The speed with which, and the way in which, everyone and his wife can pronounce herself on anything under the sun in the Internet era is clear and incontrovertible evidence that we have to make triply sure that said everyone and his wife are allowed nowhere near the process by which real decisions are made.

I don't mean decisions on the way things are run, that's democracy and we haven't devised anything better, so we're lumbered with it. I mean decisions on who is right and who is wrong: boiled down to its essentials, every case in Court is about that simple question. Did Joe Blogs drive his car too fast while under the influence of alcohol, killing three people, or was it a simple accident? Does Megabucks Inc. Ltd have the right to charge a zillion euro for its crappy product or does Jane Doe have the right to a refund?

And so on and so forth.

Are these questions which should be decided by taking a sample of the comments that appear below the story about Joe Blogs or Megabucks Inc. Ltd and seeing what the majority of commenters say, or should professional men and women of integrity with a knowledge of the law and a respect for its rule pass judgement?

God help us, of course it's the latter: the alternative is having our lives decided by the Lil'Elves.