That is all fine and good, but who gets to decide what is "good" for Athens? It could be argued that the tyranny of the majority is just as dangerous as the tyranny of the wealthy, perhaps more so.
Who gets decide what is "good" for us? Us. It's our society, and we would have to give the keys away to have it be any other way. Democracy is the default, the resting state, although looking at history, you wouldn't guess that.
Since time began, people in power (read: wealthy), and their apologists, have tried to argue against it. But slowly, since the Enlightenment up to modern times, these kinds of arguments have fallen more and more on deaf ears. The more it was tried, the more the results spoke for themselves.
The last time I heard "tyranny of the majority" said with any seriousness, it was in the context of why South Africa should not end Apartheid. Democracy is something we've figured out now, finally, thankfully. There's no going back.
Regarding tyranny of the majority: I think there are a lot of HN users that could tell you about CA Proposition 8 how tyranny of the majority might be used in all seriousness in that context.
In the long run, Democratic Republics favor loosely associated blocs of power, mainly in the form of corporations. The wealthy in Europe probably didn't like it very much when fascists and communists came to power.
Any type of centrally planned economy is an anethema to those who have saved massive sums of capital.
