State vs People?
@headhunter525 (3548)
India
2 responses
@justdroppingby (296)
• Philippines
30 Jun 10
Ideally, a state should be for and by the people. It's not entirely populist, but the interests of the majority (for of course there will be disjoint somewhere) should be upheld by the state.
Realistically though I've seen and read about too many states existing only to enrich those who are in power, so that those who are in the majority become more and more marginalized (and become poorer and have less and less voice in the affairs of the state, and get killed even), whereas those in the minority (those in power) become richer and more powerful.
It's sad, but true. I think that many people just take the role and the power of the state for granted, they just let selfish, greedy people rule them and rob them blind. Or they're too afraid of the power and might of the state. Or they just don't know. In any case, I think education is the key. If people are aware of their rights and how the state should really (ideally?) conduct itself, and they know what's at stake, then they won't elect and support despots and tyrants anymore.
Just my two cents' worth.
1 person likes this
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
1 Jul 10
Thanks for responding. It's a difficult situation because overthrowing a tyranny can also result in anarchy unless sufficient precaution is taken. But the other side of not taking action is that the tyrant will continue to run the writ. Yes, I certainly consider education to be one important tool to bring change in the world.
@shynepapin101 (1879)
• United Arab Emirates
1 Jul 10
True as Justdroppingby have said, those in power never want to be without it or in the caucus. Tyranny is eating up our system and the people in-charge use it to make more money thereby leaving the majority, which are the people out. It's suppose to be a shared system and those put in power by the people should have the peoples will done. Such a cruel world out there.
1 person likes this
@BLD367 (142)
• United States
2 Jul 10
Inherently, all forms of government institute some kind of control over its population. People usually accept this control as trade off for what ever they consider to be an acceptable "way of life". An interesting example can be seen in modern China. While it has been reported that Mao Zedong may have killed upwards of 70 million people, his efforts are what made China as we know it today possible. The only reason he was able to pull this off was because he was only one in China's entire history who actually got things done. The train ran on time so to speak.
The state is an entity onto itself and will protect its being as long as the people let it work. When it stops, it will either cease to exist or evolve into something new. Democracy has a slight advantage in in that there are certain mechanism put into place that allow for gradual change.
It is unfortunate but the individual is at war with the state mainly because their interest directly conflict. The state wants you to work its benefit or some general concept societal well being, while you want the state to help you now and not in some general sense.
In the end we should not so much think about the state vs the people but in more simple and basics terms, the have's and the have not. Those in power will try their best to continue to stay in power.
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
2 Jul 10
I find the last paragraph very fascinating and enlightening. Very true that if we really try to locate the source of the problem it's the have's and have not. And those who have will try to maintain status quo. Thanks for responding.