The eradication of corruption.

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

The eradication of corruption.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The eradication of corruption.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The eradication of corruption. - 9/11/2014 3:12:28 AM

AKinkCounselor

Posts: 53
Joined: 8/12/2014
Status: offline

The argument about money buying speech reminded me of a discussion I had a while ago, and thought I'd find out your views...

To look through the history of politics, it there seems to be pretty strong evidence that political power corrupts people. It doesn't appear to matter if you look at communism, capitalism or fascism! the ones at the top end up siphoning a good proportion of the wealth to themselves or those around them.

Now I don't know if politics corrupts *everyone* who enters it, I'd like to think it is simply that corrupt people are drawn to it, rather than all people are corrupt. But woods through the sleaze and all that.

So my question is twofold.

Firstly, if you were the head of state of a brand new nation, is it possible to implement a method of government that would be impervious to corruption. If there was such a thing as a 'greenfield' nation, what would you do with it.

Secondly, in a more realistic world, do you think there are any safeguards, processes, ideas, laws that could make government less susceptible to corruption.

_____________________________

While in the real world I give advice, this is not that.

These are my opinions (and half thoughts) opinions that I have worked hard to form. They are mine. You shouldn't trust them, you should get your own.

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/11/2014 4:58:03 AM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

The argument about money buying speech reminded me of a discussion I had a while ago, and thought I'd find out your views...

To look through the history of politics, it there seems to be pretty strong evidence that political power corrupts people. It doesn't appear to matter if you look at communism, capitalism or fascism! the ones at the top end up siphoning a good proportion of the wealth to themselves or those around them.

Now I don't know if politics corrupts *everyone* who enters it, I'd like to think it is simply that corrupt people are drawn to it, rather than all people are corrupt. But woods through the sleaze and all that.

So my question is twofold.

Firstly, if you were the head of state of a brand new nation, is it possible to implement a method of government that would be impervious to corruption. If there was such a thing as a 'greenfield' nation, what would you do with it.

Secondly, in a more realistic world, do you think there are any safeguards, processes, ideas, laws that could make government less susceptible to corruption.

I refuse to be so cynical as to believe that politics corrupts everyone but I am enough of a realist that I believe those who can remain pure of deed remain few and in between (I am cynical enough to believe that no one remains pure of thought). Humans are and remain a tribal species. We think in tribal terms. We are plagued by in group morality which may have aided group survival when we roved in small bands but now hampers our efforts at true consensus. Actual morality (that is, applying a moral code to everyone, not just the in group) is an act of self discipline. It is the exercise of intellect over instinct.

As for your first question:

What is the extent of my authority? Am I a dictator with absolute authority? Ooh . . . I'm getting a hard on just thinking about it. Well, I guess that kills that idea. Okay, seriously - I can't fathom any system that would be impervious to corruption. Any system devised would be run by humans and that automatically means it can never be impervious. Ultimately it comes down to the individuals that make up the society. If the majority are moral enough to want the system to work for everybody, if they are dedicated enough to making it work - then it will work. Perhaps not perfectly, but it will work.

As for your second question:

The system can be designed to make it easier for corruption to be avoided and, when not avoided, prosecuted. I generally believe in fewer laws, with clear definitions (ambiguity in law is the working space of the would be tyrant), strictly enforced and with as much openness in the process as can be tolerated without compromising personal privacy or national security.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to AKinkCounselor)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/11/2014 6:05:05 AM

ExiledTyrant

Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AKinkCounselor

Firstly, if you were the head of state of a brand new nation, is it possible to implement a method of government that would be impervious to corruption. If there was such a thing as a 'greenfield' nation, what would you do with it.

Governments like to remain intact and will do whatever is necessary to do so. Idle hands are the devils work and tend to topple governments. Any empire that has endured understood that. You cannot have a fundamentalist state without administering a lot of lobotomies, so you have to have points of control:

1. Work: you have to build an economic base, no matter how impractical, that will keep it's citizens employed. America chose A/C to power the nation because it sustains jobs, impractical, wasteful, dangerous, and destructive, but sustains many jobs. The railroad was the most reliable and practical means of distribution we had and was mothballed to create thousands of impractical and costly jobs.

2: propaganda: you have to control the view points of the masses and lead them to believe that your nation is the greatest. Mercedes made the first car, Henry Ford made the first production line of cars. First flight, Charles Renard and Arthur Krebs 1884 the La France Airship. December 17 1903 the wright brothers succeeded at fixed wing flight. The nun-uh and but, but, but of propaganda is necessary to delude the masses.

When I was a kid, the teacher was giving the Cold War spill on how awful it was to live in Russia; you cannot leave your house without your papers, blah blah blah... I said my folks cannot leave the house without their papers either, ID, proof of insurance... Yep, detention seen a lot of me.

3. Mind control: this part is pretty crucial because dissidents like to talk, gain momentum, and cause trouble. The easiest way to control what they talk about is to give them something to talk about (I'm sure Hup will have a lot to add to this part). The easiest way to control conversation is to create an immensely complex electronic device, make it very affordable, even selling it at a loss, and then create a free system to pimp information to that device. We call it TV. It influence every aspect of your life, and once it was readily available the shindigs, hoot-nannies, hoedowns, and all other interpersonal networks collapsed and we became victims of complacency.

That said, if you are going to cast off any sense of morality and sacrifice the well being of the population to sustain a government, you've became aberrant, why not profit?

quote:

Secondly, in a more realistic world, do you think there are any safeguards, processes, ideas, laws that could make government less susceptible to corruption.

Yes. It is as simple as changing the law so that in criminal proceedings, if you are convicted your lawyer goes to prison with you, the buddy system. If you are not convicted the prosecutor and investigating detective go to prison for as many years as the charges allow.

There is no "justice rate" in America, only a conviction rate. Any lawyer will advise you to not break any laws, cuz he/she damn sure doesn't want to go to prison with you, and prosecutors will not ever pursue prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, they don't want to go to prison and won't risk it. That will eliminate malicious prosecution, which happens often when one "good ol boy" wants shit you have and won't give up, and his "good ol boy politician" can create enough trouble for you that it can be taken.

Jus sayin

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to AKinkCounselor)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/11/2014 6:54:10 AM

Zonie63

Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AKinkCounselor

The argument about money buying speech reminded me of a discussion I had a while ago, and thought I'd find out your views...

To look through the history of politics, it there seems to be pretty strong evidence that political power corrupts people. It doesn't appear to matter if you look at communism, capitalism or fascism! the ones at the top end up siphoning a good proportion of the wealth to themselves or those around them.

Now I don't know if politics corrupts *everyone* who enters it, I'd like to think it is simply that corrupt people are drawn to it, rather than all people are corrupt. But woods through the sleaze and all that.

So my question is twofold.

Firstly, if you were the head of state of a brand new nation, is it possible to implement a method of government that would be impervious to corruption. If there was such a thing as a 'greenfield' nation, what would you do with it.

Secondly, in a more realistic world, do you think there are any safeguards, processes, ideas, laws that could make government less susceptible to corruption.

For the most part, people have been conditioned to accept corruption as "the way it is," an attitude which has poisoned the political culture for a long time. A lot of times, it's not even taken that seriously, as demonstrated by certain cultural attitudes against whistleblowers and so-called "snitches."

However, there are also those who seem to have an inordinate amount of faith in their government and politicians, and they practically take personal umbrage if anyone dares to criticize their favorites in government. There are too many people among the masses who are all too willing to run interference for and defend the government from any criticism whatsoever. I think that also helps to aid and abet government corruption.

There might be ways of curtailing corruption to some degree. One way might be to change the compartmentalized culture of government where (typically) the right hand doesn't what the left hand is doing. Everybody in government should be able to get into everybody else's business (within government itself, not the people at large). The culture of secrecy in government has to change, as that only helps to facilitate and encourage corruption, making it harder to detect and prove. Transparency should be a top priority, so that the public can have access to and see the inner workings of government at any time.

It's a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, so the people have a right to know what's going on in their own government. The government officials who demonstrate that they're hiding something or say things like "no comment" should be put under suspicion. If they don't like it, they can always be reminded that they chose to work for government.

But the other side of this is that the people must also make a firm stance and show the government that they're not going to put up with any further corruption.

< Message edited by Zonie63 -- 9/11/2014 6:59:25 AM >

(in reply to AKinkCounselor)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/11/2014 7:25:05 AM

AKinkCounselor

Posts: 53
Joined: 8/12/2014
Status: offline

I think my original deliberations around this came down to voter apathy, lack of governmential transparancy and more damningly, the involvement of big business.

If you're Mr Global CEO, and you're faced with reworking some process that will cost a few hundred million in order to comply with new laws, it makes good financial sense to make a couple of politicians members of the board, with a few million a year in salary. I spent some time pondering how that process might be disconnected.

Over here in blighty, Parliament releases official statistics regarding all aspects of the political system. The most recent of these concluded that 26% of the population believe politicians are 'mostly trustworthy' 20% that they 'tell the truth' 85% think they have 'little influence' in the political system.

So we know they lie, are dishonest, and think there's nothing we can do about it. This bothers me a lot.

Hence the thought of what does the perfect system look like - if it exists - and how is that different than this.

_____________________________

While in the real world I give advice, this is not that.

These are my opinions (and half thoughts) opinions that I have worked hard to form. They are mine. You shouldn't trust them, you should get your own.

(in reply to Zonie63)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/11/2014 7:32:09 AM

ExiledTyrant

Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline

When I take over the world, work faster minion, there will be global transparency and honesty one beheading at a time.

Jus sayin

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to AKinkCounselor)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/11/2014 7:37:57 AM

AKinkCounselor

Posts: 53
Joined: 8/12/2014
Status: offline

I have wondered how many corrupt senior ministers you would need to behead for corruption before the others realised that honesty might be a better policy.

Unfortunately, out in the real world, they'd probably just realise they need to be careful not to be caught.

_____________________________

While in the real world I give advice, this is not that.

These are my opinions (and half thoughts) opinions that I have worked hard to form. They are mine. You shouldn't trust them, you should get your own.

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/11/2014 7:49:03 AM

ExiledTyrant

Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline

Funny thing, I'm pushing to make illegal drug manufacturing/distribution a Capitol crime, death penalty quality. In tandem with that legislation, I'm working on "unequivocal guilt" law. If your caught red handed, irrefutable evidence, you qualify for the maximum sentence the law allows. Furthermore, if found guilty in a Capitol crime, and unequivocal guilt is found, you do not go to death row, you go to death week. "Best get right with Jesus, boy, come Friday you're meetin him."

I discussed this with a methhead to color my contempt and disdain for illegal drug manufactures/distributors, and the methhead said, if you kill them, new ones will just take over. I told said methhead that is exactly what I'm hoping for, we will ru. Out of them much faster that way.

Finding a politician that has the balls to sponsor the bills is problematic. They're in a very cushy job and votes keep them there. So the always run the numbers on potential legislation.

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to AKinkCounselor)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/11/2014 8:02:15 AM

AKinkCounselor

Posts: 53
Joined: 8/12/2014
Status: offline

And that is the ultimate power and beauty of Democracy.

It is the perfect illusion of freedom, we have to believe we *could* implement a 'death week' law, if there are enough people who support it we should be able to make it happen. For the people by the people and all that.

So what you need to do is create some dissent. Throw another party in to the mix to split those people up, make them apathetic towards government to lower the numbers even more.

and before you know it, you might think you have the power to change things, but there is a very very clever system in play to make sure death week would only ever be introduced if it had tangible benefits for those in power.

_____________________________

While in the real world I give advice, this is not that.

These are my opinions (and half thoughts) opinions that I have worked hard to form. They are mine. You shouldn't trust them, you should get your own.

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/12/2014 9:44:04 AM

Zonie63

Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AKinkCounselor

I think my original deliberations around this came down to voter apathy, lack of governmential transparancy and more damningly, the involvement of big business.

If you're Mr Global CEO, and you're faced with reworking some process that will cost a few hundred million in order to comply with new laws, it makes good financial sense to make a couple of politicians members of the board, with a few million a year in salary. I spent some time pondering how that process might be disconnected.

Over here in blighty, Parliament releases official statistics regarding all aspects of the political system. The most recent of these concluded that 26% of the population believe politicians are 'mostly trustworthy' 20% that they 'tell the truth' 85% think they have 'little influence' in the political system.

So we know they lie, are dishonest, and think there's nothing we can do about it. This bothers me a lot.

Hence the thought of what does the perfect system look like - if it exists - and how is that different than this.

In a democratic republic like ours, the quality and intelligence of the people can make or break the political system.

I don't think we could ever form the perfect system, but I think public perceptions and reactions to their government might play the larger role in fomenting and encouraging corruption (along with voter apathy, as you mention). What it really takes is a sense of vigilance on the part of the masses and a willingness to question authority, something that has diminished over the course of my lifetime. As a default, any governmental or business entity should be expected to be corrupt - unless there is a system of checks and balances in place, along with an activist, vigilant populace to oppose corruption.

People don't have to actually trust individual politicians, although there does seem to be more trust in the system of checks and balances. That's where the public's faith seems to be (mis)placed.

While the public might criticize the politicians or the government in general, there's still this belief that the system still works and that wrongdoers will eventually be uncovered and exposed. A lot of people have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and they get tried and sentenced. Some might question whether the current laws are strong enough or have enough teeth to discourage corruption, but it still reinforces the public's faith that the system still works and that "somebody" is out there keeping an eye on things.

Woodward and Bernstein, along with many others in the Fourth Estate, might be considered heroes in many people's eyes, as they're often seen as the "watchdogs" for the public's interest - even more so than the elected politicians, as strange as it may seem. People seem to like and trust the media more than the government/politicians. Walter Cronkite was once considered "the most trusted man in America." Because of this, the media have been put more into the spotlight, and some might believe that the media have also become corrupted.

But there's still this love/hate relationship the public seems to have with the media. Even those who can't stand politics or political news, they still love their entertainment news or their sports news. Bread and Circuses; it's an old ploy.

So what's the solution? Perhaps more checks and balances on the system might be in order. Perhaps more "watchdogs" out there to keep an eye on things and report any wrongdoing to the public. I think that a lot of people try to do the right thing, but sometimes, there are those who overdo it or go off track somehow, speculating about possible corruption and attempting to pass it off as fact. Some people can get almost melodramatic and mystical about it, suggesting that corruption is so widespread and powerful that it must be due to some grandiose conspiracy, far more powerful than that of mortal men, which explains why many people generally mistrust politicians but likewise feel there's nothing they can do about it. They're just too powerful; nobody would stand a chance against them, so people might just do their best to be content and not worry about things.

(in reply to AKinkCounselor)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: The eradication of corruption. - 9/12/2014 5:40:58 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10540
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

You'd have to eradicate essentially the entire ruling class. The corruption most people speak to or think of is the most visible kind.

Some of you have touched on the subtle corruption and thus much less visible kind. One difference I would mention is that laws have little do with corruption as of course, laws can be and have been changed to accommodate the corruption and is in fact...part and parcel of the corruption.

The very concept that property (money) is speech and that the corporation is a person is all part of the corruption and are not even subjects upon which the highest court should be ruling. The public discourse having been taken in that direction and now having successfully changed the meaning of words..socially and politically empowers the courts themselves to then assume the task for the specific purpose of instilling the corruption.

Thus yes, the corruption becomes so interwoven into the system that the public at large as the figurative slaves to [it] locked in chains...would fight off anybody with the key and the creation of political and social partisanship has...slave against slave.

Democracy is the political ruse that has the people convinced they can change things when all they do is change the smiling, idealistic head of the ruling class and as I've written here, has about as much to do with the direction of govt. as the hood ornament does with the direction of a car.

I am thinking in America...it may be too late now to change anything. An H Ross Perot (only as successful as he was because he had $150 million of his won to waste) and Ron Paul can all be quickly marginalized through media (money) and partisan opposition educated by his alleged craziness.

Although I must say that Perot did cause the defeat of the poster child of the NWO crowd, H.W. Bush but put in another clam...soon to be marginalized accept around the edges. (Clinton)

(in reply to Zonie63)

Profile

Post #: 11