CreateDebate


Debate Info

80
72
Yes No
Debate Score:152
Arguments:146
Total Votes:152
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (79)
 
 No (67)

Debate Creator

smh62(39) pic



Is a government absent of corruption possible?

 

Inspired by Bohemian and PrayerFails debating "Proof that liberals are illogical":

**Bohemian:** This has always been the nature of things, those in power tend do things that keep them in power, but it doesn't have to be that way. If we were to create a system in which power is more evenly distributed then we would see a drop in corruption. We've heard the old adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

**PrayerFails:** Please describe to me what system doesn't have corruption!! Do you think socialism doesn't have corruption and greed?

**Bohemian:** As long as humans are involved no system is absent of corruption. Certainly some systems are more corrupt than others, dictatorship and theocracy being good examples. I strongly believe that either capitalism or socialism in it's purest form will ultimately fail. The most successful governments on earth have some mixture of the two.

So basically, Bohemian appears to be saying that corruption is undesirable but some level of it is inevitable. Is he right? Or is there an as yet unconsidered form of government which is immune to corruption?

 

Yes

Side Score: 80
VS.

No

Side Score: 72
1 point

Before I argue my case, pray tell the definition of 'corruption' in the context you wish to discuss and the scope of the corruption (ergo, only the leader; the highest placed members of government; or everyone).

Without considering my inquiries, one possible answer I see right now is Marcus Aurelius.

Side: yes
1 point

To clarify, corruption here means political corruption which is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_(political) ) for further clarification.

Also, what a co-inky-dinky!! I was just listening to a podcast about him. I'm not too hot on my Roman history so you'll have to bear that in mind as you make your argument. But I do find it very interesting so do pile it on as much as you like.

Btw, so far I can't think of any good arguments nor have I seen any good arguments which would justify a definitive answer to this question one way or the other. I've been supporting the "Yes" side to bring it towards a tie which really does reflect my understanding. If you start posting on "Yes" I may have to start posting on "No".

:-D

Side: yes
1 point

I do not believe there is a definitive answer to the question, all we can do is argue our positions to arrive at a better understanding. Lets take tic-tac-toe, it's a simple game. First player has only one move in nine different places, and player two has only one move in eight different places; then player one goes again with one move in seven possible places; the conclusion is that if no player makes a mistake then the outcome will always be a tie. This is also applicable to chess: the first player has twenty possible moves, and to each of the twenty moves, player two has his own possible twenty moves to respond, or a possible four hundred moves only the first two moves, and so on so forth; ultimately, if no mistakes are made, chess should always end in a tie, but no man nor machine can account for all possible moves, thus no perfect game can ever be had. Both tic-tac-toe and chess are finite games, but human interactions are infinite and evolving, so we can't have an answer. The only thing we can do is improve our game for the best possible payoffs and remember there is always a bigger game.

Contradictory? a bit, first I gave Marcus Aurelius as an answer and now say there is no answer. Well to the best of my knowledge Marcus ruled with dignity and virtue, he did not take from his people, nor did he cause them any harm; and the worst thing he did was secure Commodus' ascension to the throne, but even this was done legitimately for he must have believed his son was a capable man to rule the Roman Empire. So Marcus was consider as an uncorrupted king and the last of the 'five good kings' by Niccolo Machiavelli . But the times have changed and we do not have a king here in the States to rule the nation. We've privatized principalities and call them corporations, however, even these are not as private as they once were.

Foremost, before I state my arguments I have some ground rules I would like to list; let us not allow this discussion to result in a need to change the regime of any existing nation, and thus as only a theoretical debate on principles which may or may not result in the in-existence of corruption of the government and its members defined as the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. And any person(s) who may wish interpret what is discussed here in the manner of their own consideration is free to do so, and actions which may take place as a direct result there from is of no fault to any persons who have participated in this discussion.

I have a feeling this is going to be fun! :)

Corruption of the government is a small portion of a large image (the nation as a whole). So is the nation 'corrupt' (or allow corruption to take place) or is it 'morally' just and do not tolerate corruption? First, let's focus on the leader of the government, then move on to other offices and the rest of the populace.

Bohemian suggests that we allow corruption to occur because we are human. Thus all we have to do is remove the 'human' factor from government and we shall have an incorruptible sovereignty. The Church of Rome does this by labeling the Pope as a vessel which voices the words of God, therefore he cannot be 'human' per se. If there were to be a second pope, the first cannot retain his status as 'the voice of God'.

In the States, by limiting the role of the leader, or president, to ten years or two terms, he cannot be a prince, and the nation is not his regime. And all presidents before and after only act as a representative of a nation without a regime, a Prince-less Principality. This effectively places the human factor into the government, which may be subject to corruption.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in The Prince "The best Prince is one who is loved, the next one who is feared, and the worst is one who is hated. Thus a Prince must avoid being hated by the people." In Machiavelli's treatise, when a prince rouse the people to anger, they will rise up against him, make one of their own the new prince and rebel. In the US, the babysitter of the prince-less throne can be removed by non-hostile means, and thus creates no cause for fear in the presidents to do wrong.

In the modern world, execution of one another is view as barbarous and uncivilized. The opposite is true, laws must be set and violation of them must be punished without leniency. If the president of the US is allow to be human, he must be treated as one. Meaning he is not above the law. Failure of the government to uphold the law cause the people to not uphold the laws, and corruption of all forms will ensue. If crime remain unpunished or if the punishment does not deter crime, chaos will ensue.

To remove the human factor from the government, there must be only one leader, and not a representative. If the prince is the sole person responsible for the overall wellness of the State and its people, it would be in his best interest to retain that power for as long as he can because he is effectively 'a god' in his own right. Also, no one can be above the prince; for if one is better than the prince, then one would replace the prince. Furthermore, only a few, at most, can consider themselves equal to the reigning Prince; if many consider themselves his equal, they need not obey him. When a prince is place in power by the good grace of the oppressed people, he has no equal; but if the nobles place the price in power, they are all his equals.

To deter a prince from corruption, we must identify factors that may lead to corruption. These are status, money and sex. As the prince, he need not worry of status. This leaves money and sex. The prince must not take from the people for they remember the loss of personal property far longer than the death of their parents. (I know this following statement is a little sexist, or a lot, but regardless, it must be stated.) Though women are of great influence to their lovers and husbands, they are somewhat held as the highest possession. Case-in-point, Helen of Troy.

As stated above, the prince must refrain from being despised by the people. If he is feared, no matter what he does, it cannot be consider corrupted by definition. If he is loved, or well-liked, he ought to remain in that state, and do so by not angering the people with mis-deeds, then he would only fear trouble from outside.

A bit more on sex and money. Sex is fun, sex is great, but sex is just sex. Any person who acts upon his viceful wants to fornicate with countless women has serious issues and is unfit to be prince. Of money, there are three aspects to money. It acts as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. A prince must have money, he cannot be poor; if he is without money, the people need not respect him, and he must take from them, which result in their hatred. Those who have do not need to respect the 'have nots'. Therefore the prince must take from his enemies, the neighboring States. The most alluring facet of money is its purchasing power, the ability to buy whatever one may desire to. Let the prince then categorize the use of his money into two--wants and needs. The first he may ignore for they are disastrous and can never be fulfilled. Of the second, he must break them into three subcategories: store of value, long-term needs, and immediate needs. Store of value ought to be clear and simple. Long-term needs are the need to maintain an army, servants, and other lengthy expenses. Immediate needs are basic physiological needs such as food and water.

If he must do harm to his people, this generally occurs when he comes into power, he must do it swiftly. Let evils to the people be done all at once and kindness to them be gradual and lengthy, so they may forget the first and remember the latter.

A prince cannot be a man, and he is not. He is a prince, above the people, not one of them. And it takes a prince to understand the people and one of the people to understand a prince.

Side: yes
eyelidless(2) Disputed
1 point

I'm not sure I'm satisfied by that definition of corruption; a more coherent definition might be the use of authority against the consent or interests of those subject to that authority.

The reason is that corrupt acts or policies might cause no private gain, or may even cause public gain. For instance of the former, an authority may create economic policies known to worsen economic conditions for the whole of the population it governs, including those in authority. For instance of the latter, an authority may engage in a war of conquest against a foreign population, but share the spoils with the population it governs.

I think both are clear cases of corruption, but not necessarily with clear private advantage.

Side: No
1 point

Governments without corruption can exist. As long as they listen to the people, don't support the corrupt corporations and don't except their demands. They can exist

Side: yes
smh62(39) Disputed
1 point

Governments without corruption can exist.

Ok. How?

As long as they listen to the people, don't support the corrupt corporations and don't except their demands.

But is listening to the people and ignoring the corporations sufficient to preclude corruption? Well, it's easy to ignore corporations when they don't exist and they didn't always exist but corrupt governments where still seen. I'm sure corporate corruption contributes a fair amount to government corruption but I don't think it is the only cause.

Also, it is possible to listen to the people by pursuing popular projects while simultaneously giving project sub-contracts to the company tied for top rank in the industry which is also offering the largest bribe. In that situation, you would be listening to the people and making illegitimate personal gain from exercise of your legislated powers.

They can exist

I agree. But I dispute that your suggestions would be sufficient to bring that about. Please provide a fuller explanation for me to get my teeth into.

Thanks for posting.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes IF the elected leaders are not corrupt.

I still believe that these people exist in the modern day society.

Side: yes
3 points

No. Having power always leads to corruption. History has proved that.

Side: No
michey5321(25) Disputed
1 point

The only thing history proves is that most do not learn from it. Power does not lead to corruption, mis-management of power leads to corruption; just as knowledge is not power but potential power.

Side: yes
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
1 point

People in government are elected officials, which means they care more about getting re-elected than doing their duty.

Side: No

GLAD TO CREATE INSPIRATION

Bohemian contradicted himself:

"If we were to create a system in which power is more evenly distributed then we would see a drop in corruption."

Basically, he is advocating socialism or communism. Some kind of left wing government.

However, later, Bohemain writes, "As long as humans are involved no system is absent of corruption."

Well, this only solidifies my statement that there is no system that is not corrupt.

Why because humans are inherently corrupt and have an insatiable desire for greed and it doesn't matter whether it is capitalism, socialism, dictatorship or theocracy.

With more capitalism, not only is there political freedom, but there is economic freedom. People are able to adventure into entrepreneurship.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Bohemian contradicted himself:

That's not a contradiction. He said that there would be less corruption, not that it wouldn't exist.

Why because humans are inherently corrupt and have an insatiable desire for greed and it doesn't matter whether it is capitalism, socialism, dictatorship or theocracy.

I don't behave this way, and there are others like me. YOU are the one who feels this way, which is why you so desperately support free-market capitalism which is perhaps the most exploitative and unequal system one could hope for.

With more capitalism, not only is there political freedom, but there is economic freedom. People are able to adventure into entrepreneurship.

In free-market capitalism you can work your employees in sweatshops and pay them in credits which only allow them to buy goods from stores that you own near the job site. In free-market capitalism you can sell radioactive water as a panacea and not fear lawsuits because of "let the buyer beware" policies. In a free market there are no safety laws that prevent a company from disposing of heavy metals and deadly wastes in nearby rivers, and so we get toxic waste dumps and people dead in the nearby towns. In free-market capitalism companies can trade debts, or create unstable bubbles that cause major economic recessions. All of this and more, with corporate impunity because they have the money and therefore the power to buy laws.

That's why we no longer have a free market. We did, and our workers suffered, our consumers suffered, and our environment suffered. The free market doesn't solve ethical issues.

Side: No
1 point

I don't behave this way, and there are others like me. YOU are the one who feels this way, which is why you so desperately support free-market capitalism which is perhaps the most exploitative and unequal system one could hope for.

Oh, yeah, your friend, the teacher as well. You don't possess a bone of greed in your body. You are a Commie at Heart. Great!!!

Sweet shops, Water Pollution, Safety Laws, and Recessions

Luckily, for those who know what Laissez-faire capitalism or free market capitalism is, none of these fears would apply because it allows industry to be free, and it certainty doesn't mean polluting, child labor, or unsafe workplaces, it destroys the regulations and restrictions in the form of tariffs and government monopolies such as public schools, USPS, international trade and central banks.

As for recessions, the responsibility is in large part due to the Federal Reserve as its monetary policy.

Side: yes
smh62(39) Disputed
1 point

I don't think that's a contradiction.

The first point is about power distribution where it is true that large power gaps allow a strong elite to serve their own interests at the expense of weaker masses who are unable to even adequately represent their interests. Think feudalism.

The second point is about human nature. Some humans are dispositionally dishonest. But it gets better than that: even totally honest people are still able to convince themselves that a certain course of action does serve the purposes of their deliberation and that incidental personal gains outside of those purposes did not play a part in their decision making. Such people aren't liars. They just aren't aware that there can be subconscious influences on apparently completely conscious and honest attempts at rational decision making.

And it's even easier to fool yourself like that if you're part of a group of individuals who need to rationalise away the same conflict of interests. The best superficially unbiased arguments for why a 'coincidentally' favourable decision would 'best serve' the claimed purposes is what will be on everyone's lips. No one needs to be consciously dishonest. Circumstances just need to leave the possibility that the group might find itself in this bubble.

Straightforward dishonesty is something many people have considered and many observations and suggestions made. The second kind of unwitting corruption is really a much trickier problem that I don't think many people have thought about and is really the mechanism by which good people become corrupted by power. I'm sure there's a solution to this but I just haven't cracked it yet.

Side: yes
1 point

Since government is not run by robots, the power distribution and human nature are inseparable in relation with government and corruption.

Greed is the foundation of corruption. That is what is corruption is.

Greed In Government supplied with human greed.

What do Dictators want?

Suspended elections and civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality

What do capitalists want?

Money and the domination of the market.

What do socialists want?

More money and benefits without any returns.

As long as people run government, as Milton suggests, there are no such thing as Angels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtsFWnZ38g8

Milton Socialism
Side: No
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

No contradiction, you just fail to see the subttlties in that statement.

less corruption =/= no corruption

Basically, he is advocating socialism or communism. Some kind of left wing government.

That is a gross misconstruction of what I said. My statement was if anything, PURE capitalism and PURE socialism fail. There needs to be, and there is, a mixture of the two in most healthy societies.

Side: yes
1 point

Is a thinker absent of thoughts possible?

Government IS corruption.

Side: No
smh62(39) Disputed
1 point

Sorry mate. Simply stating a conclusion doesn't deserve a point. You actually have to have an argument. I could easily precede my conclusions with things equally lame like "is a bag of marbles empty?" Saying something philosophical sounding doesn't excuse you from speaking to the point. Asserting a conclusion without giving evidence indicating the conclusion suggests a lack of understand of the meaning of the word 'debate'.

You'll notice that I haven't posted a specific argument for the notion that an incorruptible government is possible. I don't have one. I intend to explore the topic first. I'm not a big fan of conclusions without justification. Thanks for your contribution anyway.

Side: yes
ryuukyuzo(607) Disputed
1 point

1. You claim to not be a fan of conclusions without justification, yet you've written me off without even asking for clarification on my stance.

2. If you would have taken the time to actually think about what I wrote you'd realize there's no need for anything else to be said.

3. You haven't posted a stance, you've even admitted to it. How debates work is one person makes a claim, then another goes about saying why said person is wrong, then they go back and forth until someone wins. It would be a waste of time for me to post an argument if everyone already agrees with me... like now for instance.

I made the claim, not you, so its up to you to at least say you disagree with me in order for a debate to start. It takes two to tango and I'm not responsible for anything but making a claim if I'm looking for a debate. Perhaps you are the one with a lack of understanding when it comes to the word debate.

Why should I go about posting arguments addressed to a ghost? Do you know how much I could write on this issue? I'm not about to post argument after argument after argument for disputes that no one is going to bring up.

But since you've taken the time to make a big fuss over it I'll give you this much;

Government is based on taxation. Taxation is the coercive extraction of funding for government monopolized services. If government services were optimal, then there would be no need to threaten people with kidnapping and death for not paying taxes because people willingly pay for optimal services. Therefore, government services are NOT optimal as they require both forced payments and the monopolization of the industry to be sustained.

If government requires coercive payment to be sustained, then it is corrupt.

Side: No
1 point

Take a survey of the people around you one day as you walk on the sidewalks in town. Then realise that government is made up of people like this, with the crucial difference being that they have an army and police force working for them that gives them power over you.

This is why government corruption exists. No matter how many safety features and checks may exist, there will always be common slobs running that system, and the common slob doesn't tend to think of those grandiose thoughts that cause people to act with considerable respect towards the system, instead it's a job and if it pays well and a few special benefits can be received, he'll look the other way.

Side: No
2 points

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you here. What kind of survey do you refer to? Do you intend to collect ordinal or nominal data? What questions? What tests do you intend to use to test this data? What are your hypotheses? What is your sample size? Is this sample size adequate to use as a representation of the entire nation, or is it just enough to represent the town or state? How do you intend to interpret the statistics you may find? People like what?

And how does 'this', whatever 'this' is, measure the existence of potitical corruption? What actions, if any, may define the behaviour you label as 'common slobs'? What are the 'grandious thoughts that cause people to act with considerable respect towards the system' of which 'common slobs' tend not to ponder about?

And if all 'this', whatever 'this' is, is the reason as to why the 'common slobs' do not think of grandiose thoughts to which people stir to action for the system, but instead view 'it', whatever 'it' is, as a job that may or may not pay well with only some benefits the supposed 'common slobs' are entitle to receive would cause him to 'look the other way'?

Please clarify what you are proposing.

Side: No
1 point

What kind of survey do you refer to? Do you intend to collect ordinal or nominal data? What questions? What tests do you intend to use to test this data? What are your hypotheses? What is your sample size? Is this sample size adequate to use as a representation of the entire nation, or is it just enough to represent the town or state? How do you intend to interpret the statistics you may find? People like what?

I thought it was obvious, but the statement was implying that the majority of people that make up a nation are not particularly smart, and that government is made up of many common people.

And how does 'this', whatever 'this' is, measure the existence of potitical corruption? What actions, if any, may define the behaviour you label as 'common slobs'?

What does common mean? A person who is representative of the population, unexceptional.

Corruption comes from common people treating their position of power like it is a job.

What are the 'grandious thoughts that cause people to act with considerable respect towards the system' of which 'common slobs' tend not to ponder about?

The power that a government position has, how any edicts or legislation will last for decades and may pave the way for other legislation that is undesirable, how the immediate wants and needs of this common person supporting his family and living comfortably are less important that maintaining a system that doesn't spiral out of control due to special interests or personal gain.

Common people focus on small things like family, love, happiness, friends, etc.

Side: No
1 point

It depends whether, by "government", you mean "state" or you mean "system of governance".

When most people refer to government (of a nation or country, rather than something like student government of a university), they are referring to a state. A state is defined as an institution which has, and either wields or reserves the right and capacity to wield, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (violence).

Some nations or countries may lack a state (like Somalia, or the Duwamish) and may be ruled or occupied by another state (like Palestine or Tibet). In some of these cases, such as Palestine, some form of governance may exist (in order to delegate rote tasks like refuse collection), while in others, many (or no) such system may be in place.

As another example, during the Spanish Civil War, parts of Spain had been removed mostly or entirely from the aegis of any state's power, but operated under formal governance without an institution that claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

All of these examples are very different, and help to illustrate my answer:

Absent a state, corruption can be eliminated (anarchist Spain tended in this direction before its successful destruction by communist and fascist forces; that isn't to say that it was a utopia, but that its trajectory was toward the creation of a truly egalitarian society) but may not be (Somalia, Palestine).

If a state exists, corruption is not just inevitable but built into governance by design. A claim to have monopoly on the legitimate use of force is itself a corruption, by definition. Such an institution grants itself, under threat of violence, the ability and even the duty to define (and redefine) virtue or right behavior as it sees fit, and obligates itself to treat as illegitimate and repress any challenge to its determinations in this regard (failure to do so undermines its monopoly, and thus its legitimacy).

The corruption of a state can vary, depending both on its strategy to maintain power (the more democratic states tend to favor "soft power" where effective; more autocratic states tend to be more repressive) and on its fragility (a contested state tends to wield its monopoly more), but at its root a state is inherently built on coercion. The only form of authority which is not tainted in this way is that which derives solely from the consent of its subjects. Consent and coercion being mutually incompatible, a state is inherently corrupt.

This may seem like a wordy regurgitation of the adage, "power corrupts...", but it should be taken to be more nuanced. Power is not what's being denounced: a talented athlete, for example, can possess and exercise power without resorting to coercion. As can a talented orator. Power should be understood as the ability to effect, not necessarily to coerce.

Side: No

I'm an optimist and I'm laughably surprised by how many people marked "yes" on this. Going on a slightly unrelated tangent, I find it strange that CreateDebate is over 50% Conservative, which is like the definition of political pessimism, and yet there is an overwhelmingly positive response to this question. Makes me think about the silly flaws in my own beliefs. Ah well, no one's perfect.

Focusing more on the subject at hand. I don't think it's possible to have a government absent of corruption simply because it's within human nature to sin (faith or no). Temptations are not impossible to overcome, but they're impossible to overcome every single time. Think in your own heart, the corrupt desires you gave into. Think you can avoid them every day for a year? How about four years? Most governments are more than a single person too, you just increased your odds big time. Yeah, seems like pretty impossible odds to me.

Side: No
smh62(39) Disputed
1 point

Your surprise isn't surprising.

I see this as a kind of engineering problem. Suppose you're a microchip manufacturer. The plan is to produce 1,000 working chips. You have a battery of tests to ensure that all the chips are working. Each test has a 90% chance of detecting any faults and thus fails to detect an actual fault 10% of the time. If you choose to use only one test on the 1,000 chips, you'll probably have 100 faulty chips which is pretty bad. Two tests would reduce this down to 10 and three would reduce the probable number of faulty chips down to 1. Adding additional tests would steadily increase your odds of having zero faulty chips, that is, a greater guarantee that your 1,000 chips really do all work. Indeed, a battery of more than 163 tests each being 90% reliable would reduce the odds of missing a fault to less than the odds of you and me both happening to independently choose the same atom in the universe.

Going to the definition of political corruption:

the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain

Ok. So now suppose we're looking at 1,000 cases where a government official has used legislated powers. We need 163+ tests each 90% effective at identifying illegitimate private gain if present. We don't have a government absent of corruption in the strictest sense but the presence of corruption has no practical significance.

So how could we seriously perform 163,000+ tests in any reasonable amount of time? We could have a computer system which monitors the use of powers and any personal gains made. It could red flag any correlations between the two and attach all the evidence which will be required in court to obtain a conviction.

Political corruption can be approached as an engineering problem of a fairly routine variety. It's just that political philosophy doesn't teach engineering problem solving.

Side: yes
1 point

No. I do think that it is possible to have a government with very little corruption that, for the majority of the time, is beneficial to the people. However, people are people and think bad things and make bad decisions. As long as people are human, there will be some corruption not just in government, but also in each and every one of us.

Side: No
smh62(39) Disputed
1 point

I think it comes down to job design. An artist friend told me he used to be a police officer and he figured that most people who join the police force are people who are politically right of centre. I disputed that. I said that my experience with people about to join the police force are politically representative of the population but have simply found themselves at a stage in their lives where they have several career options and they happen to prefer the police officer option. It is then in doing the job and finding themselves frustrated at times by liberal legislation, designed to do things like protect the human rights of suspects etc., that police officers become politically right of centre. My point is that people are shaped by their jobs and that their thoughts and behaviour are really a result of their job rather than their nature. If some part of the shaping is not desirable then redesign the job.

Side: yes

If you look in history, power almost certainly corrupts the person. And even though it also shows we are not learning from it, what makes people think we will start anytime soon?

Side: No
1 point

-bursts out laughing-

Two words for you, my good friend: Human Nature.

Side: No
1 point

No. As long as humans run anything it is vulnerable to corruption and exploitation.

Side: No

As long as government had the power of coerion, corruption will always exist in government because the use of legal power is the driving force of corruption.

Side: No
1 point

Um, no. Human beings are not perfect sentient beings who will always carry out the moral/rational/effective decision.

I think that particularly in the American system there is an appropriate balance of power and yet corruption gets worse and worse with the passing decades. There is no example of a government without some level of corruption, and for good reason: It's not possible to achieve.

Side: No