TaN: Democracy is only for a mature and responsible society, whereas totalitarian or autocracy is more suited for the rest. A corrupt and/or dysfunctional government is reflective of an immature and irresponsible society and should not deserve democracy. Moreover, democracy is not the ideal political system but benevolent authoritarianism or dictatorship — as in the case of Heaven, where God’s word/law is supreme and beyond discussion.
People are used to thinking that democracy is the best and has been conditioned to abhor and shun totalitarianism. But one need only take a look at Singapore during the leadership of Lee Kwan Yew and that of Olongapo and Subic (though these appear to be more of the exception than the rule). Whatever the argument, the fact remains that it was successful. It can be done.
Moreover, democracy is highly improbable or impractical in instances of large populations, like when numbering in the millions, let alone tens and hundreds of millions. In such cases, it is more of republicanism (where people’s rule via proxy or representatives, representing their common interests) and this is not quite the same as (true participative) democracy. When populations or constituencies are too many, it is virtually impossible for the concerns of the individual to be heard and attended to by those in the upper echelon of government, which is why republicanism is more apt.
It is therefore wrong (and bullying) for (so-called) democratic powers such as the United States of America to want and (imperialistically) impose democracy on other nations. Each society must be permitted — nay, “permitted” implies moral ascendancy or authority of one over another — or rather be let alone to determine which type of governing system they desire or would suit their common and collective hopes and aspirations — without the explicit or otherwise interference and meddling from arrogant powers with Messianic complexes.
TaN: It takes a (reformed) thief to catch a thief. This has been the paradigm of governments such as that of the United States of America — do not know if it is still being done — when certain masterful criminals are caught and, instead of wasting their skills in prison, put them to good use going after other criminals, such as computer crackers (not hackers — hackers are the good and altruistic cyber wizards, many of whom established and maintains the World Wide Web) going after cyber criminals. This is likewise the same idea being used in so-called white hat hackers, when they employ cyber hackers to “penetrate and intrude” into their cyber systems to find flaws and holes in their defenses and security.
This is a good idea because it avoids wasting good talents and skills plus it acknowledges that many divergent behavior are usually results of a mis- or improperly-guided past or upbringing, or is in need of attention, or in need of an outlet to gain self-confidence or self-assurance, or just plain too much time on one’s hands. In any case, it will be a terrible waste to permit such skills and talents go unused or abuse in wrongful and unproductive ways.
All in all, it is only logical to use a like mindset to solve a problem created by it, hence using a thief to catch a thief (but with a slight difference: the thief must be a reformed thief, i.e., no longer thinking of thievery).
TaN: Do businesses, like tobacco companies, really practice CSR (corporate social responsibility) when they provide medical missions and other socio-civic outreach altruistic or philanthropic programs (such as educational or research foundations)? Good, in order to be so, must be completely good. Any tinge of non-good and it is no longer good. In other words, regardless or no matter how healthy or healthful something is, once the tiniest trace of poison contaminates it, it ceases to be beneficial.
The same is true for goodness (or good intentions). So, in the case of CSRs or social outreach programs conducted by any business that is involved in producing commodities detrimental or bad to well-being, to society, or to others, whatever good or benefit that will arise from CSR is defeated by the bad the business inflicts on consumers.
To cite the earlier example, if we take the totality of the impact of the tobacco company — i.e., the benefits in employment and social (give-back) programs (say numbering to the thousands of beneficiaries) against the harm tobacco products do (numbering in the millions) — the overall bottom line is negative. To be brutally frank about it all, whatever good a tobacco company does through CSR and such programs is merely a means to make it appear to be concerned about the public (especially the indigent and marginalized) and to (assuming that the company does) feel less guilty about dispensing its toxic products to society. If tobacco companies really want to “give-back” to society, SHUT THE BUSINESS DOWN!
In summary, is CSR really a means of sincerely and compassionately giving back to society or just a deceptive and diabolical ploy to make it appear that there is concern for others and gratitude for patronage? What do you think?