Some time I also feel if democracy is madness of many for the gain of a few. No doubt, democracy has reduced people to numbers only. But then again, only democracy can give better dividends than other systems. Read the following angry but thought-provoking piece, with this spirit: agree to disagree.
Fuck democracy!(from: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=157392#post157392)
Dictatorship in disguise
Being against democracy is not necessarily the same as wanting dictatorship. It is entirely possible to be against the idea of democracy, whilst at the same time being against the idea of dictatorship, although society rarely gives us any option – it’s always either one or the other.
In order to survive, the establishment must maintain the lie that democracy is the only viable alternative to dictatorship. That the two are polarities, outside of which nothing can exist. Dictatorship is presented as the dystopia, and democracy, the utopia. But polarities are often illusions…
There are, in fact, similarities between democracies and dictatorships. The most apparent one being that for a minority it doesn't matter if the ruler is a dictator or a majority; it is simply being ruled over in both cases. And that’s the point - both systems are designed to control people. The only difference is that people living in a democracy generally tend to believe that they are free. But democracy is nothing but dictatorship in disguise.
The illusion of democracy has many layers that I will peel off, one at a time, until the whole concept has been dissected, brought out into the light, and exposed for the all-time-greatest confidence trick that it truly is. I will begin with the most apparent element of the grand deception.
The First Layer
Democracy is primitive
In the ancient world of warring savage tribes, a bigger tribe would, because of its numerical superiority, probably stand victorious after a bloody conflict with a smaller tribe. The members of the smaller tribe who weren’t slain in the battle would be enslaved.
This bloody principle has, in modern times, been systematized and labeled “democracy.” Bigger groups are given power over smaller groups by law.
Have we come no further? Will the majority rule just because a larger group of people can destroy a smaller group in the event of a fight. Do we really want to base our system on that primitive principle? Is democracy really democratic when looked upon from this perspective?
People only like democracy when it does their bidding
Democracy, or "majority rule," survives, as the phrase suggests, because it appeals to the majority. Most people are content in this system because they agree with it. So discontentment will only arise within minorities, but because they are minorities they can’t change it... Thus the status quo is secured for as long as the system remains.
However, when some extremist party enters the governing institution of any democratic country, even the people that usually shiver with excitement at the mere thought of democracy start proclaiming restrictions to the free vote. Because the truth is that they only supported democracy as long as it successfully brought their own values to the status of laws. Can these people really be taken seriously?
The Second Layer
Every individual should reasonably have the undivided power over his own life. But in a democratic system this birthright has been taken away and diluted with the collective power of everyone else in the area, thus rendering it useless. For example, in a democratic country with ten million inhabitants every individual possess only one ten-millionth of their sovereignty. That's only 0,0000001%, which means that 99,9999999% of a persons sovereignty is gone. Now that's a majority! True, they also possess one ten-millionth of everyone else’s too, but that's still a terribly bad trade from the original situation! What good does it do to be able to slightly affect others if you don't have the power over yourself? Why do people accept this?
The Third Layer
The illusion of choice
In elections we the people are given only a few alternatives from which to choose from. Vote for the "left"; which strives for more taxes, or vote for the "right"; which desires stricter laws. Rest assured that any vote will bring us deeper into hell. It seems like a win-win situation for the rulers of the world. This is no coincidence.
Politics is just a show, a lie which whole populations swallow hook, line and sinker. People do not see any further than this seemingly colorful curtain of imagined hope, but behind it hide the real rulers of the world. To them, politics is a great way to channel peoples' frustrations concerning the world into ways that suit their purposes. Frustrated individuals become politicians or activists and have to accept the whole program of their chosen party as their own ideas. The rest of the population then humbly submits to these puppets.
The true purpose of democracy
Dictatorship wasn’t enough. Its system of control by overt force generally worked, but it also created opposition. Naturally, since people were aware of the fact that they were being controlled, they would sometimes fight for their god-given right to Freedom.
So the elite agreed that the ideal system would be one of control by consent. –A population convinced that its society is the highest utopia possible would not rebel.
All they would have to do would be to fool the people into believing that a world of rules and limitations is what’s best for them. This would later prove to be easily accomplished; by creating reasons for laws and limitations, people would cry out for these readily available solutions.
But the elite realized that it would be impossible to fool everyone. So they made up a system with which there was no need to: In this system, they would only need to manipulate a little more than half to automatically gain control of the whole. Democracy was born!
This system was then presented as the solution; the long awaited final end to dictatorship. Thus, it conquered the world.
Why should your opinion matter to me?
Plato once proclaimed that although he didn't agree with the opinions of a fellow citizen, he would sacrifice his own life for this person’s right to have those opinions. So far so good, but what if a person's opinion is that you should conform to some system of conduct, and this opinion then wins public acceptance? In a democracy your forced submission would be justified by the advocates’ numerical superiority alone.
This is unacceptable! If the opinion of a fellow citizen is that you should be enslaved by his values, the only justifiable reaction would be for you to sacrifice him in an act of self defense and in the name of Freedom!
Why should anyone have any say in how you live your life if your lifestyle doesn't interfere with his; or does but only in moral terms? It shouldn't matter to you what anyone else thinks. Peoples’ opinions should be of no importance to you what so ever because your Rights and your Freedom should be inviolable! Ideally they should be, but they are not…
Let’s create a list of Human Rights where the individual’s Sovereignty and Freedom tower high above everything else. And not even if the world is falling apart and the only way to keep it intact seems to be to submit to the will of some savior shall these fundamental rights be given up.
Those who wish to control this world frequently attempt to scare us into abandoning our sovereignty. Don’t be fooled. Let the world fall apart, and when it does, keep defending your rights until you are kicking around dust in an otherwise empty space and you have drawn your last breath!
As the old Roman proverb so eloquently states, "It is better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand days as a lamb."