You did not answer the question.broadway said:Democracy is not my concern. If is was working perfectly, then we wouldn't have reached this current situation. Why should anyone uphold a corrupt democracy? But the question isn't about democracy; it is about corruption. And situation dictates means. But in the process, you're asking us to uphold a corrupt democracy. I say NO.
I support the spirit of the movment, its a celebration of our democracy. That i would think holds for everybody.broadway said:I never questioned you whether you have a problem with the spirit of this movement. I asked you what your stand is; for or against. But you insist that there are other stands besides these two stands. let me hear them.
I did answer that question. It's just that the answer wasn't what you expected. Which is why you think that I didn't answer your question.blr_p said:You did not answer the question.
Do means justify the ends or do the ends justify the means ?
That is the 3rd time i've asked that question btw.
It is. And you already took a stand.blr_p said:This for & against nonsense isn't applicable.
rohan30186 said:@Shripad : Well explained yar...tooo good....But one thing I want to clarify max punishment is 10years and not the minimum..
You completely dodged it.broadway said:I did answer that question. It's just that the answer wasn't what you expected. Which is why you think that I didn't answer your question.
yes i havebroadway said:It is. And you already took a stand.
and in particular this fast to death method. Which gets compared with Gandhi. But gandhi was not living in a democratic country and did not have recourse to what we have today. That is the biggest fallacy with comparing hazare to gandhi.broadway said:Else what are you talking about? Anna's background? Anna's methods?
See, this is what i mean by putting words into my mouth. your completely misrepresenting the position of those that dissent.broadway said:It is a typical anti-anna campaign. It is not about corruption; it is about anna.
kippu said:does anyone know the selection process of anna's lok pal committee as suggested by them?
kippu said:but if you read his bill , it is riddled with problems , so i hope you guys read it for yourself and read what others are saying about it and then think about it
Its not about one person its about the lok pal commitee, an unelected body that has ultimate power over everybody.Shripad said:I still dont understand what you guys are on about giving "all the power" to one person.
I like subramaniam swamy's idea of independent prosecutors. he says the prevention of corruption act in section 5 allows the appointment of such. But its not been tested yet. the govt claims only govt lawyers can act as prosecutors.Shripad said:No one person will have ultimate power. You need to understand how things are drafted. One person even if all powerful, within judicial or extra judicial system that are proposed will think twice about misusing his position if there is transparency. But transparency alone is not enough, there needs to be a fear of ramifications for your action. In perfect world, it wont be needed. But it is needed in real world.
The problem is how to ensure it does not get abused for political reasons. You could stall govt with the right tactics isn't it. You can go after anyone and harass them with frivolous cases.Shripad said:This bill does not give undue power to anyone. This bill provides a infrastructure which a common man, opposition or ruling party or basically anyone can put forward his grievances regarding those in power or are elected in office and have them investigated without fear of political pressure or prejudice against him. This bill will also make people come forward and blow the whistle when someone witnesses a act of corruption rather than be a mute witness.
The scope of this bill and the proposed post of Lokayukta ends at that. He does not have any power to punish / investigate anyone for anything other than corruption charges.
The aim is to reduce corruption in govt, not society.Shripad said:As far as bribery goes. We have reached to the bottom limit of the sinkhole. A honest man or businessman cannot start or run his business these days without bribery because without paying bribe, he cannot work. This has to stop somewhere and it began with RTI. It needs to get stronger and the next step is lokpal bill. After that the system needs to filter down to all government departments with stronger system at state and municipal levels.
Attempt to commit suicide is illegal for the very reason to stop fasts to death.Shripad said:All these protests till now, and there has not been act of violence even with 1000s of people that are out there protesting. That tells you something about this movement.
Ok, so you object to the generalisation -- that the middle classes are by & large corrupt themselves and have little moral standing in supporting this bill.Renegade said:My attention span is very limited and lines like these make it harder to continue reading.
There is a difference between resorting to and succumbing to. Not every middle class initiates these 'transactions'. Some people just have to pay a premium as without that the work will not get done at all. It would be unfair to classify all on the same boat.
kippu said:i bribed a traffic cop yesterday , watch pirated tv shows , movies , earlier was even operating systems , show fraudlent bills to lower my taxes ....
i am totally against corruption
That's all you can sayblr_p said:You completely dodged it.
Yes...?blr_p said:yes i have
Methods are not my concern. My concern is corruption.blr_p said:and in particular this fast to death method. Which gets compared with Gandhi. But gandhi was not living in a democratic country and did not have recourse to what we have today. That is the biggest fallacy with comparing hazare to gandhi.
Does sustenance of the democratic setup solve the problem of corruption?blr_p said:Read what raman has to say.
I know what dissent is.blr_p said:See, this is what i mean by putting words into my mouth. your completely misrepresenting the position of those that dissent.
It doesn't matter. The end matters. What you ask for is to uphold and respect this corrupt democracy.blr_p said:Its not about anna, its about this tactic of fast to death.
If it's about the issue of "corruption" then I can continue.blr_p said:Unless you've got something substantial to add here i'm not going to debate this any more with you. There are other areas i'd like to go into.
Would you rather want jury duty where every tom dick and harry plays a part in the verdict?kippu said:does anyone know the selection process of anna's lok pal committee as suggested by them?
kippu said:^^ you will only receive brickbats and unlikes but go right ahead
Yeah i hear you, but you've answered the question now, its ends that justify the means for you.broadway said:Methods are not my concern. My concern is corruption.
The methods used are curucial if you desire to establish a justified, legitimate & enduring insititution. Think long term not short term.broadway said:Given that this is a non-violent movement, I agree that anna is a noble man. But being noble does not guarantee the ends. My concern is the end; not the means.
you said you did not care about democracy earlier, thats another win for the dissenters.broadway said:Does sustenance of the democratic setup solve the problem of corruption?
No he hasn't but he's justifed the govts actions pretty succintly there, as someone like you is partial to his views i would hope the point has sunk in by now.broadway said:So raman isn't talking about corruption.
Its not about taking the side of govt, its about how you fight. How you fight speaks volumes of who you are and what you represent.broadway said:I know what dissent is.
Those people on the street have no powers. The police beat and jail them on the orders of those who have power.
Fighting "power" is the real dissent. Taking a side with the powerful isn't dissent.
blr_p, the stand you took isn't the stand of rebellion. Anna is the real underdog.
Irrelevant, we don't follow a jury model in our courts. We follow the british system.broadway said:Would you rather want jury duty where every tom dick and harry plays a part in the verdict?