Idea: : Is self-interest more important than democracy? Or do principles matter in foreign policy? As India...

I have an idea

I share a problem

January 12th 2011

by sonu1
Brain-fu: 655

(86232) : Is self-interest more important than democracy? Or do principles matter in foreign policy? As India...

Shake it Thumb this up Digg this idea Save on delicious Share on Facebook

Stats

Viewed 243

Good Idea 1

comments 1

Is self-interest more important than democracy?
As India is a democratic country is it viable to have both self-interest relates to Liberty and democracy of the country on the whole.
Social and economic interests... are the keen reasons for the self-interest and when power is added to it... it becomes self-interest i.e. manipulating the political system at the expense of the society.
There is a need to combine with both liberacy and limited democracy. So as to retain the sovereignty and via. dignity of the individual and harmlessly to freedom of the individual on the society as contrary should not be violated.
There has to be peaceful & productive voluntary relationships of the market.
We need to bring 21st century of freedom, prosperity and peace. Tolerance, Dignity, domestic civility & international harmony are the criteria’s... Less political corruption, violence & deception only when combined of liberacy and democracy prevailing in the Country. And we need to remember that it is not the question of just Majority over Minor and vice-versa… or of judiciary conduction of votes…, appealing in court…, etc. but to understand the betterment and look forward for the welfare of the Country.
It depends upon each of us whether to opt for liberal world or contrary either defined to combining to defend it as an ideal and to do what is necessary to bring it about by all possible efforts.

SUGGESTED FOR:

Dedicated to:

Co-ideators:

Related Tags

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY...

Learn more

LANGUAGE...

Vote as Good Idea

Report Abuse

Build On Idea

add a new comment:

In order to keep the high quality of the contents, you must log in to leave a comment

Sign in! New user? Sign up!

Comments

see all


	by badfaith (Kent, United Kingdom) January 12th 2011 since: 03/09/2010, Brain-fu: 18970 To be liberal is to be free to choose for one's self, so freedom begins and ends in the individual, with two people you either have agreement, or disagreement, so democracy begins at three people, where a majority exists to decide an issue. More thatn this, that ability to choose for one's self is constrained according to how many people are voting, and so liberality naturally diminishes with the increase in population, and therefore, Democracy should never be confounded with the idea of freedom, but is a tool and system of compromise based on the individual choices of it's constituent members, but disappointing and inhibiting the freedom of many who's interest is not that of the majority... and so size matters, and there are natural limits in geographical and population size beyond which democracy breaks down as a desirable concept and becomes the simple tyranny of the masses over the minority, so the best thing is to divide over large populations and nations into smaller parts in order to maintain the integrity of the system, In a general election for instance, in Britatin, a population of sixty million, voting for two viable parties, it is possible that barring the unlikely unanimity of the whole 51 percent get there way against 49 who don't, so 29,600000 could be disappointed, but in the US, a population of 700, million, this would mean, y the same ratio voting for president, 349+ million people are disappointed, which is more than the combined popultaion of Britain, France, and Germany who's vote counted for nothing, and yet the US still calls this democratic, but being the equivalent of one half of Europe telling the other half what to do, we would call this tyranny, and most likely go to war over it. Democracy in small portions is best.	Report Abuse