English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In the name of Democracy world cannot control the rich and powerful and the poor and feeble live in poverty and pain though many many steps are taken in empower democracy. Practically can not find change but only in words.

2006-11-16 23:46:39 · 21 answers · asked by selvaaindia 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

21 answers

Agree. Not very strongly. Can think of no alternative . Let's hope for a more democratised fabrication to happen .

2006-11-17 11:39:52 · answer #1 · answered by akshay s 3 · 0 0

Absolutely not.

Do not blame the system for your own shortcomings.

I have been observing people since I was a teenager, and take my word for it, that's a long time. My observations show that
there are only reasons why people do not make it in this life.

1/ They are lazy.

2/ They want someone else to take care of them (and I am
talking about healthy, capable people, not people who are
unable, for what ever reason, to take care of themselves).

People have opportunities for education and once that is out of
the way ( and I'm talking high school not collage) there are
more opportunities. Now, do not get the wrong idea. education
beyond the 8th grade is not required in order to become wealthy.
some of the wealthiest people left school after completing
the 8th grade. You can check that out if you wish.

There are oppurtunities to own your ownbussiness, and you
don't need a degree in business to do it either. As a matter fact
an education in business will slow you down.

The main thing anyone needs to succede is a good attitude.

Example:
I worked in machine shops all my working years. And except
for the time I spent learnig the trade, I was always the highest
paid person in the shop. Reason, attitude. The boss would hand
me a blueprint ans ask if I could do it. I'd say yes, then worry
about how.

But, what it really comes down to is, if you give a person a fish,
he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, he eats for lif. There is a
but in there, The individual has to WANT TO DO IT. If he or she
does not want to nothing can be done. They will end up on the
street, panhandling. Do not feel sorry for them. Give them a
quarter or a dollar and move on. They do serve a purpose.
Because when you give them what you can spare it makes you
feel good.

BUT, you need to remember THEY ARE EXACTLY WHERE
THEY WANT TO BE, If they were not, they would find some way
to change their situation.

And do not tell me they can't because they are poor. That
argument is so full of holes it can't hold water. Even poor people
have opportunities, if they look for them. However, the the
attitude of a lot of the poor is; I am poor, therefore you need to
take care of me.

Sorry about being so long winded, but this needed to be said.

2006-11-17 10:16:19 · answer #2 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 0 1

Yes that is THE ABSOLUTE FACT. This is a PARADOX. We tell democracy is BY the People, FOR the People and OF the People. Substitute is as Democracy is BY the Rich , OF the Rich and FOR the Rich. Money power is at its best in Democracy.
As democracy starts maturing the market forces start assuring themselves. Emotions have only lip service in Democracy.
The wealth distribution becomes very uneven. It is a known fact that the entire wealth of the country is controlled by selected few which will not exceed 10% of the population. Thus 90% of the wealth is concentrated with 10% population and 10% is with 90% population.
How does it happen.? The answer is not difficult to find out. As democracy matures the choice starts decreasing. There will be only two major political forces and they will exploit the population after grabbing the power in Rotation. USA has Republican and Democrats and so is in India we have NDA and Congress led alliance. No third option. The options are killed in democracy but you will always have a choice to choose between two evils both claiming to be having good policies.
Take for example Coke And Pepsi. When they came they just purchased all the smaller brands . Those who wished not to join were forced to quit in slashed pricing environment. Finally we have just two companies and they jointly decide the pricing. There will be reducing of pricing by one to increase sells which is followed by another.
The result of democracy in India will be exactly like other democracies.
The farmers will become labourers of multinational brands and poor farmers will become casual labours. The big shops will become extinct unless they become part of Malls and small shopowners will become labours / casual workers/ employee in these Mall Shops. The price of goods even the essential ones will increase because of the middlemen and stockists decide to create artificial shortages. This will lead to a life full of struggle to earn the bread that people will have no time to think and discuss democracy.
In dictatorship we have very few Looters but in Democracy we have a large number of Looters. Just think of Beauraecrats, Political Leaders , Police , Lawyers, Doctors and other priofessionals and so on everyone is trying to extract his pond of flesh.

2006-11-18 04:00:07 · answer #3 · answered by seybiomed 2 · 0 0

Basically it is just one of the systems of human beings for collective living. Religions, casts, regionalism, communism, socialism, a variety of unions, clubs, circles are simply systems evolved for a collective living, and so is democracy. But Survival Of the Fittest is the cruel mother nature's law. This you see fully operational in all systems, and "corrupts" every system designed/developed by humans, including Democracy. Hence you find Riches getting Richer and Poorers getting worse by time. It is natural.

But remember, although the Democracy has failed in controlling what you expected it to, still it is so far by the way the least destructive, or the best amongst the worst systems, till devloped.

2006-11-17 08:32:41 · answer #4 · answered by suneelv d 1 · 0 0

In a society di\divided into classes there can not be true democracy. It will always be in the interests of dominant class. It may project its interest as interest of all, though.

There is a fine subtle difference between democracy and autocracy. See, in feudal system a king might take a perfect step in consultation with his council and elites, but that may not be in the interest of rest i.e. a few persons vs. rest of the population. So what may look democratic to king and hi cohorts may look autocratic to rest. Similarly in present capitalist society, where capital dominates, same will happen. Third democracy will be titted in favour of rich and privileged- always.

Can elaborate more if you want. Write at nbs_delhi@rediffmaol.com

2006-11-18 06:53:46 · answer #5 · answered by navya 2 · 0 0

Finely fabricated? Nothing fine about it. The expense of daily living in Australia has soared under the dubiously elected current govt. beyond all expectations of the consumer price index and there has been no real relief for the underpriveleged as there was under Labour (not that they were perfect, but at least they didn't slap us in the face with it). The GST, for God's sake - it's a way of taxing a homeless guy for getting his first hot meal in a month! We have democracy because we haven't found a suitable replacement. Humans are inherently corrupt, therefore systems like communism can't work.

2006-11-17 09:58:40 · answer #6 · answered by The Mad Shillelagh 6 · 0 0

Democracy in itself doesn't favor any one group it's how it's carried out that makes it work or not work just like anything else, if you're going to have a democracy that is run by a bunch of corrupt amoral people then that's what it's going to be, but by the same token if it's run by descent, honest hard working people who want to make things better for everyone than that's what you end up with, what you put in is what you get out, plain and simple.

2006-11-17 07:57:50 · answer #7 · answered by booboo 7 · 0 0

Yes, I do agree with you. Present democracy has become a poison coated with sugar. When the people and their leaders are corrupt, nothing better we can expect from such type of democracies. Benevolent dictatorship is found to be better than democratic mobocracy. Here I remember a quotation, 'Democracy is the best of bad governments and the worst of good governments'. The onus lies in us to change the trend. Who will tie the bell in the neck of the cat when we are all criminally tolerant of all sorts of injustices?

2006-11-17 19:48:55 · answer #8 · answered by SRIRANGAM G 4 · 0 0

Any political system is heavily influenced by a few.

At least in a democracy, the average Joe has the opportunity to become wealthy. In other, more restrictive forms of governments, there are very limited opportunities for its people to obtain higher standing.

Viva democracy.

2006-11-17 11:42:49 · answer #9 · answered by Gonzo 4 · 0 0

yeah what U say is correct but we cannot change the world the world is only for the rich and powerfull persons the poor and the middle class people or only living under there grac. Its true its lot proved by America they are always trying to control all the other nations for example war on Iraq and the death sentence to the previous president Sadam Hussien

2006-11-17 08:06:15 · answer #10 · answered by Ramasubramanian 6 · 0 0

Democracy means that the people have the power. But we can't all rule our states, so we need representatives. Usually, our political representatives only want the job so they can make money, they and their relatives. So they make laws to favor them and they make a lot of money. But the money has to come from someone, and that someone is the rest of us. Every political lieder that sees the possibility of getting rich takes it, there is no altruism in politics, and politics is tightly connected to personal economy. Tough luck for us, huh?

2006-11-17 08:05:26 · answer #11 · answered by lucantropeea 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers