CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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?
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.
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".
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.
A sovereignty needs a centralized principality with one leader, the Prince; the Prince must not anger the people, if he does, they must rebel. (Read Machiavelli, and I'm not suggesting a dictatorship in its purest form.)
Upon glancing at this debate I noted that you had written what may be the longest argument heretodate on this site, and being creative, pursued to see if you could refine it as I had hoped. It was mereley for fun, and not a reflection on either my inability to, or, my lack of will to, read. You see, I am a big fan of Einsteins lesser known quote: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough," not to claim you don't understand what it is you write (being as you clearly do).
True. It takes much greater understanding to explain something simply and early explanations are always very complicated because much of the understanding has yet to develop. Also, we shouldn't mistake simple for easy. Simple means calling on the fewest concepts where the concepts themselves could be anything from immediately transparent to requiring years of training to grasp. Just think of something like quantum theory. The equations are often very simple but you still need plenty of schooling to appreciate the simplicity.
Considering the length of some philosophical treatise and how little understanding is actually conveyed, I get the distinct impression that philosophy has become the collection of questions which humanity has made virtually no progress with. As soon as some progress is made with a topic then it becomes it's own subject.
Without offending any philosophers, but some philosophers do seem to want to obstruct the development of any understanding on a topic because they don't want to lose the ability to speak authoritatively on it. There's something quite archaic about someone who advances himself as an authority on all of the unrelated topics we know almost nothing about.
Simplicity is key to understanding any concept, but human nature as it is we adore complexity to make it more exclusive. Learning something that require years and great understanding versus a subject even a child can learn is a show of authority.
Take being physically healthy, the concept is to eat right and exercise. Break it down into smaller bits and you have a nightmare.
My long argument was an attempt to answer any why?'s before they occur. After years of political philosophy study I've arrived at the conclusion any sovereignty can be prosperous iff, if and only if, it follows the dogma of growth, strengthen, and maintenance in that cyclical order.
My central dogma is maintenance, growth, and development. All three need to be served simultaneously. If you don't maintain the population and the physical structures then the society collapses in less than one generation. If you don't grow the population then the society collapses after one generation. If you don't have any scientific, technological or cultural developments then the society's ability to maintain and grow itself is limited to it's initial circumstances.
I don't want anyone disputing this. It's my dogma. And as we all know, we should always respect other people's dogma especially when it's utterly ridiculous and they intend to take political action based on it. ;)
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.
Your alternative makes no sense. You'd be waiting a long time for a convicted murderer, subject to the authority of a judge, to actually consent to the sentence handed down.
Absence of corruption largely pertains to private neutrality i.e. officers stand neither to make private gains nor incur private losses through the exercise of their powers. Once we have private neutrality, we can discuss whether the officer is displaying competent exercise of those powers.
1. public loss/neutrality with private gain is corrupt;
2. public loss/neutrality with private loss/neutrality is incompetent;
3. public gain with private gain/loss is untenable;
4. public gain with private neutrality is the ideal;
We're disputing #3. I argue that gain/gain and gain/loss should both still be considered corrupt as they readily lead to corruption. Either because the officer maintains the decision even after the public no longer gains or because the officer changes the decision to avoid a personal loss even while the public would still stand to gain.
A good example of private losses incurred in the exercise of power is the matter of travel expenses. These should always be reimbursed in full. This is common practice. The asymmetry in common practice is that private gains are not declared and surrendered to the office. Without that, all officers always have an ulterior motive for taking office.
Neutrality is the ideal situation and is what I'm driving at by the phrase absent of corruption.
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
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.
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.
Politicians get elected into their respective offices by popular vote, and to obtain these votes they must please the people. If they fail to do so, they would not be re-elected. The way to pleasing the people is to do as the people want. Since they are being re-elected clearly they are doing their duties.
Let's say politicians are liars--they say anything to get into their offices. They want to stay there so they will say anything to get re-elected, and they get placed back into their offices.
If they failed the people the first time, why did the people allow them back in? Are the people insane as defined by Einstein? or just plain stupid? If the people are insane, what politicians do won't really matter to the people; and if the people are ignorant, what politicians do, again, won't really matter to the people as they are unable to tell the difference between positive and negative policies. Either way, it's a moot point.
Do you ever watch the news? Haven't you heard all the political scandals and lies? John Edwards, Nicolas Sarkozy etc. You think presidents keep their promises from their campaigns?
Of course I watch the news, this is a debate forum though, the whole idea is to debate. So convince me I'm wrong, or prove you are right.
You say politicians are liars, that they are corrupt and their only objective is to enter offices of power and remain there long as possible; to achieve their objective they give empty promises to the people for votes.
So any promise given by a politician is empty. Thus nothing gets done, and the time they are in power, which is always, nothing gets done? What exactly are they doing then, and things government related, such as public education, social security, welfare, roads, utilities, etc., ought not be there, so why are they there?
On a different note, politicians are liars and the people know they are liars with empty promises of hope and a better tomorrow, why elect them to be politicians? Unless to lie is to be a politician, this way the people should always vote for the best liars with the best empty promises, because what they want is an organized and systematic group of soothe sayers to offer them hope and salvation. Isn't that churches are for?
So any promise given by a politician is empty. Thus nothing gets done and the time they are in power, which is always, nothing gets done? What exactly are they doing then, and things government related, such as public education, social security, welfare, roads, utilities etc, ought not to be there so why are they there?
I not saying there aren't any good politicians . There are some.
Currently our public education system is failing, social security is turning into a pyramid scheme, welfare is costing tax payers millions, not just roads, but our whole infrastructure needs an upgrade, but we don't have the money, and our grid needs an update to be able to handle new green energy, but it's too expensive.
I see your point, but you seem think politicians are good people who set aside their own agendas to serve the people. Even when they are in office they put themselves first. It's human nature to be greedy.
Currently our public education system is failing, social security is turning into a pyramid scheme, welfare is costing tax payers millions, not just roads, but our whole infrastructure needs an upgrade, but we don't have the money, and our grid needs an update to be able to handle new green energy, but it's too expensive.
Some things are meant to profit, others to lose, and others to break even. Not everything is about profit. The American dollar loses value at five per cent per annum, or a half life of 13.5 years, but about 90 years for a dollar to lose all value. The current system is similar to a zero sum game, but it's not quite so because of inflation, importation and exportation. If there is more exportation, it would result in a positive sum game; if more importation, a negative sum game; to have a zero sum game, we need no importation and no exportation.
Let's examine the US Gross Domestic Product, the government uses faulty accounting to suggest the nation is fine, but in fact it is not.
Now you are arguing your own point. You said the government wasn't corrupt. Now you are saying they deliberately create things to lose profits? That is not like them. They want to keep the money flowing. We can't have a zero sum game because our economy is based on growth. So we need more exportation and less importation.
Where did you get the perception I thought the US government isn't corrupt. I maybe arguing on the side of possible existence of a government without corruption, but I've never argued for no corruption of US officials. I was just trying to convince you that you were wrong.
Okay, some examples: fossil fuel is a depleting resource, so it's meant for loss, and it's negative sum; agriculture, proper management can increase or decrease a population and also non-profit; acts such as war and taxation are for profit, also positive sum.
Our GDP is base on zero-sum. To determine GDP, either add up all expenses of households/consumers or all gains of producers, this essentially means zero-sum. But it's just bad GAAP.
I see your point, but you seem think politicians are good people who set aside their own agendas to serve the people. Even when they are in office they put themselves first. It's human nature to be greedy.
I never said I believe politicians are good; I might have lead you to believe so, but I said no such thing. Human nature is not greed, our nature is to create. Money is just a mean to an end. If your only objective is money, the easiest way to amass it is by robbery and counterfeiting.
As stated above our money does rot, maybe slower than flesh but it does. Any person who wishes to survive with some standard of living must obtain a store of value of five per cent annually compounding. There are many ways to go about this.
The concept of the invisible hand by Adam Smith states that every person ought to act out of self interest and this will benefit society as a whole. Of course this is base on the assumption everyone in the economy is rational.
Greed is only part of human nature. The easiest way to get money is not to commit robbery- too many security cameras, the vaults in banks are really strong. Not counterfeiting either- money is increasingly becoming more difficult to counterfeit. Special inks and dyes, special paper, tiny patterns and security threads.
Adam Smith described a key principle of capitalism. Of course not everybody is rational
Say greed is a part of human nature; if so: "...greed, for a lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA." Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), Wall Street, 1988.
The saying "crime pays" exists for a reason. I didn't say rob a bank (you can though, just send a hundred pounds of C4 to a hospital fist; not that you should, just hypothetical), there are plenty of methods for stealing money. Ever heard the words Ponzi or boiler room? And if you make funny money, they don't need to look real, just have to convince people they're real; ever receive bank's savings account interest? Governments are the first counterfeiters anyhow, heard of gold certificates?
Everyone is rational, act to receive the best payoff for themselves, just not logical, act to receive optimal payoff for everyone or the nation as a whole.
Let's play a game, a person gives you ten dollars to split with me, if I accept we get the money, if I reject we get nada. How much would you offer me?
Let's play a game, a person gives you ten dollars to split with me, if I accept we get the money, if I reject we get nada. How much would you offer me?
Well, for the sake of argument, let's say it can only be split into ten separate dollars. If I offer you zero dollars then you should be indifferent as to whether you accept or reject the offer. If I offer you one dollar then you should accept the dollar rather than get nothing.
But only a free market economist would think that that makes any sense. Since we both have to cooperate to get the ten dollars then you would expect a fair share of that ten dollars. You would expect five dollars and be disappointed by anything less. Below a certain point, perhaps three dollars and less, your disappointment would be enough that you would rather forgo your meagre reward to ensure that I did not receive an unfairly large reward. Not only are you prepared to punish my greed, but you're also prepared to incur losses to yourself in punishing me.
Taking account of your actual psychology, I should probably offer you four or five dollars. But knowing what you're testing me for, and since it's only ten dollars, I would probably offer you the whole ten dollars provided you bought me lunch. I would then, of course, order something priced at nine dollars. ;)
they are liars yes, but if we had a better way of checking their facts and proving or disproving those facts are lies, we would have a better chance of having a goverment withour courption. i think politicans should forfeit some if not all of their right to privacy, atleast until their time in office is up.
"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.
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.
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.
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!!!
It may be hard for you to imagine but I have bigger goals than amassing wealth and taking advantage of my power to harm others.
Luckily, for those who know what Laissez-faire capitalism or free market capitalism is, none of these fears would apply because
All I'm getting from you is "but it's not REALLY free market when things go wrong" even though from the early industrial revolutions to the early 1900s, it WAS a free market void of industry regulations.
Do you know what happened when consumer protection acts didn't exist? Inventors (sorry, entrepreneurs) were free to sell patent medicine which could be made of ANYTHING, and they could make bogus claims like X product curing any disease or malady. A famous case was irradiated water sold as a sort of love potion. Someone drank a bunch of bottles and lost his jaw from cancer.
Same with dumping toxic compounds. Leather factories dumped all sorts of heavy metals right outside their plants with no concern for health. Coal miners became very ill from the job and weren't owed any compensation.
It may be hard for you to imagine but I have bigger goals than amassing wealth and taking advantage of my power to harm others.
Great, go for it.
All I'm getting from you is "but it's not REALLY free market when things go wrong" even though from the early industrial revolutions to the early 1900s, it WAS a free market void of industry regulations.
Free market capitalism does NOT mean there is no government regulation or influence on commerce. That is a false assertion. This is explained in my last post.
Free market" means that producers are free to gain entry into business and sell their product at whatever price feasible in order to stay in business; meanwhile consumers are free to buy whatever products they want at whatever price they are willing to accept.
Consumer protection create more competitive atmosphere to avoid fraud or other flimflam practices, and again, consumer protection doesn't fall under the category of destroying tariffs and government monopolies.
Plus, consumer protection can also be asserted via non-government organizations and individuals as consumer activism.
The early industrial revolution lack any government regulation of human health because the lack of knowledge on the dangers of exposing humans to harmful compounds or chemicals.
Free market capitalism does NOT mean there is no government regulation or influence on commerce. That is a false assertion. This is explained in my last post.
If a government is imposing regulations on what can and cannot be sold and the standards by which products can be sold, it isn't a free market.
Consumer protection create more competitive atmosphere to avoid fraud or other flimflam practices, and again, consumer protection doesn't fall under the category of destroying tariffs and government monopolies.
Not really. Consumer protection is government intervention which limits what companies may sell and how they may sell it. The market isn't working its magic to eliminate products that are bad for consumers.
The early industrial revolution lack any government regulation of human health because the lack of knowledge on the dangers of exposing humans to harmful compounds or chemicals.
Right. Back then we didn't know that Mercury and Arsenic were poisons. I'm being sarcastic by the way. These were commonly used compounds in manufacture of leathers and other products. You know the Mad Hatter, right? Why was he mad?
They just didn't care. No pressure to have practices that are clean and free of poisons.
It may be hard for you to imagine but I have bigger goals
Still waiting....
If a government is imposing regulations on what can and cannot be sold and the standards by which products can be sold, it isn't a free market.
Correct, but that is a regulated market, but a free market or laissez faire only pertains to economic laws such as eliminating unions, tariffs, government monopolies, minimum wage, duties, and trade restrictions whereas child labor laws and workplace safety are social laws and clean water is environmental. These effect business costs, but not affect the idea of a free market or laissez faire.
Not really. Consumer protection is government intervention which limits what companies may sell and how they may sell it. The market isn't working its magic to eliminate products that are bad for consumers.
Wrong. The Bureau of Consumer Protection works to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. The Bureau conducts investigations, sues companies and people who violate the law, develops rules to protect consumers, and educates consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. The Bureau also collects complaints about consumer fraud and identity theft and makes them available to law enforcement agencies across the country.CP
Correct, but that is a regulated market, but a free market or laissez faire only pertains to economic laws such as eliminating unions, tariffs, government monopolies, minimum wage, duties, and trade restrictions whereas child labor laws and workplace safety are social laws and clean water is environmental. These effect business costs, but not affect the idea of a free market or laissez faire.
I'll restate since you seem to not understand what I said. The Industrial revolution saw a free market. What came of this were companies that became monopolies, created sweatshops, dumped toxic wastes and had unsafe products and working conditions.
Lack of government regulations on the market allowed these companies to grow in power, and it allowed these companies to become abusive.
You seem to think that allowing companies free reign will keep them small and unable to resist legislation that promotes better work conditions, and so forth. What happens is that they become monopolies and exhert power over lawmakers so that social conditions remain unequal.
Wrong. The Bureau of Consumer Protection works to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. The Bureau conducts investigations, sues companies and people who violate the law, develops rules to protect consumers, and educates consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. The Bureau also collects complaints about consumer fraud and identity theft and makes them available to law enforcement agencies across the country.CP
The Bureau of Consumer Protection = government. Government != market.
You seem to have a hard time comprehending the difference between social to environmental to economic laws. So, I will restate since you seem to not understand what I said.
Dumping Waste, Child Labor laws are not economic laws. Is it? No, it is social and environmental laws. Government monopolies and tariffs are economic laws.
You seem to think that allowing companies free reign will keep them small and unable to resist legislation that promotes better work conditions, and so forth. What happens is that they become monopolies and exhert power over lawmakers so that social conditions remain unequal.
Big Government and Big Business (Not my ideal) = Corruption
I am not for big business either but you have a different perceptive that regulations help the little guy, but in reality, regulations help big business.
The Bureau of Consumer Protection = government. Government != market.
Dumping Waste, Child Labor laws are not economic laws. Is it? No, it is social and environmental laws. Government monopolies and tariffs are economic laws.
Dumping waste, child labour, etc. is the result of the ABSENCE of government intervention and legislation.
Government creates big business with regulations.
Government regulations create private monopolies.
Big business forms as a result of the business owners taking the logical step, once successful, of buying out or bankrupting their competition, resulting in a monopoly with great wealth.
Government regulation can hasten this, typically when the business provides favours to politicians.
Big Government and Big Business (Not my ideal) = Corruption
I am not for big business either but you have a different perceptive that regulations help the little guy, but in reality, regulations help big business.
Regulations have made unions possible, have given us minimum wage, prohibited child labour, set minimum work conditions and safety (OSHA), eliminated the sweat-shop, and prohibits monopolies and price fixing.
So yeah, we've been helped out a lot.
Remember that in capitalism the end game is to no longer have market competition for your business. This results in huge amounts of wealth if executed successfully. Wealth always means power, especially political power, and the little man just cannot compete with that.
Dumping waste, child labour, etc. is the result of the ABSENCE of government intervention and legislation.
I agree but it is not a economic laws and not pertain to free market or laissez faire.
Big business forms as a result of the business owners taking the logical step, once successful, of buying out or bankrupting their competition, resulting in a monopoly with great wealth.
No business becomes a monopoly without the help of government.
Unions
-Monopolize by creating uncompetitive labor markets by restricting the available jobs and entry, so they can weed out unwanted entrants. AFL-CIO, NFL and MLB Unions perfect examples. They protect union workers from competition.
-Majority rules unions to where all decisions are made by one person.
-Lazy workers create no incentives so hard workers are discouraged, and makes others causes violence because they look bad.
-Contract-go on strike if even the smallest details are not met.
-Dues-must pay yearly fee just to be part of the union
Minimum Wage
Minimum wage actually creates more poverty because these laws enforce employers not hire those with low skills and talents. If the minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and so a person's skills are suppose $7.00/hr, they will not be hired because the extra 25 cents per hour is charity work. Thus, minimum wage laws protect unions from competition and restricts open opportunity for all members of society who want to gain entry into that occupation.
Furthermore, the problem is not necessarily minimum wage but unions. The unions are the biggest problem because when unions lobby for minimum wages in Congress and State legislatures, they are no advocating for the poor, they are doing the exact opposite; they are protecting the unions from any competition and create less free labor market. Minimum Wage hurts the poor because it is protecting those who already have jobs in the union and limits the number of available jobs.
Without minimum wages, the market forces would not cause lower paying rates in America like that of China, Africa, or any other developing nation simply because of the supply and demand of labor in the market. For example, if there are 10 million willing Chinese manufacturing workers in which they get paid 1.00/hr, while in the U.S. if it was the same manufacturer in which they are only 2 million willing America manufacturing workers, they get paid $8.00/hr just based on the short supply of labor; this doesn't include the increase in demand. Or, why does Alex Rodriquez get paid so much? Because union protection and supply and demand. The union protects him by guaranteeing him and all players a minimum wage. on the supply and demand, how many people are going to hit 30 HRS, 100 RBI's 20 SB, .300 AVG and team leadership every season? Well the supply is likely 1 and demand is very high, like 32 teams. When companies are freely allowed to compete for the most skilled in their profession, wages will increase.Since the inception of minimum wage, it has incrementally risen to its current state of $7.25 and limit job creation.
Prohibited Child Labor
I agree.
Minimum Work Conditions and Safety
This is really unnecessary because skills and talents are really set the working conditions. Think About It. Chinese unskilled workers have the worst working conditions because it is unskilled work whereas being a executive in a major company has very nice work conditions because of his skill set. However, this doesn't mean that there should be no safety laws.
Prohibits monopolies and Price Fixing
Agreed with Anti Trust Laws except for public monopolies because who is making the rules, the government.
This results in huge amounts of wealth if executed successfully. Wealth always means power, especially political power, and the little man just cannot compete with that.
Remember, in socialism or communism, all power is vested in government bureaucrats where if people disagree, you are killed. e.g. USSR and China
When was the last mass genocide of a free capitalism and democratic society? Never
I agree but it is not a economic laws and not pertain to free market or laissez faire.
Simple concept: When you don't regulate the market, especially with concern for accumulating wealth through loopholes, or abusing the system to create instability, people can accumulate wealth in obscene ways. What happens when people have wealth? They buy political favours. They undermine democracy.
No business becomes a monopoly without the help of government.
A common scenario is that an established company buys out its competition or charges less for the same product than its newly created competitors, bankrupting them. Then that company holds the entire market, without any intervention from the state.
-Monopolize by creating uncompetitive labor markets by restricting the available jobs and entry, so they can weed out unwanted entrants. AFL-CIO, NFL and MLB Unions perfect examples. They protect union workers from competition.
-Majority rules unions to where all decisions are made by one person.
-Lazy workers create no incentives so hard workers are discouraged, and makes others causes violence because they look bad.
-Contract-go on strike if even the smallest details are not met.
-Dues-must pay yearly fee just to be part of the union
Blah blah blah. You're wrong. Try researching the early industrial revolution across Europe and America. Pay special attention to how exploitative companies were towards workers, and how violent companies were towards organised labour.
Minimum wage actually creates more poverty because these laws enforce employers not hire those with low skills and talents. If the minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and so a person's skills are suppose $7.00/hr, they will not be hired because the extra 25 cents per hour is charity work. Thus, minimum wage laws protect unions from competition and restricts open opportunity for all members of society who want to gain entry into that occupation.
Again, pure bullshit.
In countries with no minimum wage, or very low minimum wage, the workers receive a pittance. Industry doesn't pay based off of what a skill is worth, it pays the very least it can get away with. This is why in the United States you can spend four years earning an exceptional education and credentials but make only a few dollars above minimum wage in certain cities and towns, while others will pay you twice the hourly wage. Certain areas have jobs where the employers all pay low wages and can get away with it because they are the only places in the area for that kind of work.
This is exacerbated in developing countries where "well-paid" people are actually making wages just comparable to what American minimum wage is, because everyone else receives mere dollars an hour despite that the employers can afford to pay more (the employers are actually often America-based, who create sweatshops in countries that don't regulate the minimum working conditions like in the states. You're only advocating a return to sweatshops in our modern, industrial nation).
Furthermore, the problem is not necessarily minimum wage but unions. The unions are the biggest problem because when unions lobby for minimum wages in Congress and State legislatures, they are no advocating for the poor, they are doing the exact opposite; they are protecting the unions from any competition and create less free labor market. Minimum Wage hurts the poor because it is protecting those who already have jobs in the union and limits the number of available jobs.
Heaven forbid someone earn just enough to live thanks to organised labour, rather than ten people earning a tenth the pay, for the same work conditions, to spread poverty.
Unemployment comes from a lack of jobs. Asking that people be paid less than the cost of living is ludicrous, and would only create a further divide between the wealthy and lower middle classes, because companies will only pay the least that they can get away with. Unions protect workers from arbitrary termination, force companies to provide a retirement or benefits like medical, and keep the hours fair.
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, and are operating purely from what you've read, rather than any actual personal experience.
Without minimum wages, the market forces would not cause lower paying rates in America like that of China, Africa, or any other developing nation simply because of the supply and demand of labor in the market. For example, if there are 10 million willing Chinese manufacturing workers in which they get paid 1.00/hr, while in the U.S. if it was the same manufacturer in which they are only 2 million willing America manufacturing workers, they get paid $8.00/hr just based on the short supply of labor; this doesn't include the increase in demand. Or, why does Alex Rodriquez get paid so much? Because union protection and supply and demand. The union protects him by guaranteeing him and all players a minimum wage. on the supply and demand, how many people are going to hit 30 HRS, 100 RBI's 20 SB, .300 AVG and team leadership every season? Well the supply is likely 1 and demand is very high, like 32 teams. When companies are freely allowed to compete for the most skilled in their profession, wages will increase.Since the inception of minimum wage, it has incrementally risen to its current state of $7.25 and limit job creation.
One need only look at South America, Central America, and South Asia to see how wrong you are. If having no minimum wage created jobs, and did not cause extremely low salaries, then all these regions' nations wouldn't have such desperately poor working conditions. However, like I said for the third time: companies will pay as little as they can get away with. They have no morality, no sense of fairness. The point of minimum wage is to prevent us from having an excruciatingly poor lower class, that has to sustain itself in paper and aluminum house "cities" like the favelas in Brasil.
At least in the states if you're unemployed you can count on your family in the meantime, while you find work, and they're being paid a wage that is enough that they can afford to carry you. You're just arguing for a return to dollar an hour wages, or even less, while the rich create a deeper divide.
This is really unnecessary because skills and talents are really set the working conditions. Think About It. Chinese unskilled workers have the worst working conditions because it is unskilled work whereas being a executive in a major company has very nice work conditions because of his skill set. However, this doesn't mean that there should be no safety laws.
You're funny. There's no reason a company should respect skill sets unless it has another company setting a precedent it has to compete with, and even in that case the limiting factor is jobs available.
Remember, in socialism or communism, all power is vested in government bureaucrats where if people disagree, you are killed. e.g. USSR and China
When was the last mass genocide of a free capitalism and democratic society? Never
You changed the subject, however if you want an answer look at Nazi Germany. If you want a less ambiguous answer, look at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. If you're still having trouble agreeing, look at the government-funded or politically backed wars across south America and Africa in which capitalist democracies shook hands with and supported dictators and death squads.
A common scenario is that an established company buys out its competition or charges less for the same product than its newly created competitors, bankrupting them. Then that company holds the entire market, without any intervention from the state.
What don't you understand about this? Government helps with regulations where the costs of regulations are crippling smaller businesses, and allows larger businesses to merge or acquire.
Try researching the early industrial revolution across Europe and America. Pay special attention to how exploitative companies were towards workers, and how violent companies were towards organised labour.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. You're wrong. Two can play that game.
I am aware of the industrial revolution of exploitation of workers. A minimum wage would have made sense then because they didn't possess any skills or talents and use them against their employer as leverage to improve their income and working conditions. A good majority of those unskilled workers didn't have a education, not even a primary school education. This is why today public education is important because it benefits all of society because it increases jobs skills and talents through a minimum education.
So, if I am wrong, then why don't homeless people have jobs? Is it because they lack any skills or talents that are above the minimum wage or because they were exploited with their previous employer of bad working conditions or maybe they moved from Central America to get out of there to come here because of our excellent minimum wage laws.
This is why in the United States you can spend four years earning an exceptional education and credentials but make only a few dollars above minimum wage in certain cities and towns, while others will pay you twice the hourly wage.
Where is your proof?
This is exacerbated in developing countries where "well-paid" people are actually making wages just comparable to what American minimum wage is, because everyone else receives mere dollars an hour despite that the employers can afford to pay more
Lack of labor in supply and demand. There is no infrastructure.
Unemployment comes from a lack of jobs.
Wow, you do know something about economics. So now you can understand how well educated people in developing countries are only paid as well as minimum wage because of supply and demand, and they want to come to America due to the high supply of jobs based on the skills that they acquired in their home country.
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, and are operating purely from what you've read, rather than any actual personal experience.
You clearly no fucking clue who I am, and I have never made any conclusions on who you are.
One need only look at South America, Central America, and South Asia to see how wrong you are.
Flip that around because it is only to see how right I am.
Anyone can see that workers in developing coutnries have no leverage of working conditions or income because the lack of basic education, which then means less skills and talent.
Why do you think a doctor makes more money than a janitor?
Two Reasons:
Supply and Demand
More Education and Skills, which are due in part to supply and demand.
If you want a less ambiguous answer, look at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
That was under war. Mao Zedong's genocide was under peacetime. As for Nazi Germany, they were hardly Democratic.
What don't you understand about this? Government helps with regulations where the costs of regulations are crippling smaller businesses, and allows larger businesses to merge or acquire.
The scenario I proposed is something that can happen in almost any kind of market. Regulations are irrelevant.
So, if I am wrong, then why don't homeless people have jobs? Is it because they lack any skills or talents that are above the minimum wage or because they were exploited with their previous employer of bad working conditions or maybe they moved from Central America to get out of there to come here because of our excellent minimum wage laws.
The homeless exist because whatever skillsets they have are already used at maximum capacity in the area they reside. It's also possible that they have no skills, or their brains are addled and they cannot work in a normal environment.
Where is your proof?
It's an obvious fact. If you need proof, try shopping for a career in different parts of the nation and pay attention to how much the rate of pay fluctuates.
Lack of labor in supply and demand. There is no infrastructure.
No. There are no minimum wage laws.
Actually, if you think about it for more than a minute it all makes sense. How can we, the USA, afford such opulent lifestyles? Does capitalism create wealth out of thin air? No. Resources are limited and so is money (or what it represents, anyway). Therefore capitalism must be shifting and redistributing wealth. It must follow that we can live this life of luxury because we can import products cheaply, and obtain cheap labour, from nearby countries that are poor and lack legislation that requires minimum pay, benefits, etc.
In other words, we benefit at the expense of other nations. That's how capitalism works.
You clearly no fucking clue who I am, and I have never made any conclusions on who you are.
On can infer a lot from what you write.
Anyone can see that workers in developing coutnries have no leverage of working conditions or income because the lack of basic education, which then means less skills and talent.
South America, Central America and a number of the Asian countries we obtain cheap labour from all have universities, schools, etc.
They have no labour laws. They are like modern-day slaves to us, the wealthy. We stand on their backs to obtain success, or more accurately we support the companies who stand on their backs by investing in their products.
Why do you think a doctor makes more money than a janitor?
Two Reasons:
Supply and Demand
More Education and Skills, which are due in part to supply and demand.
You know, you really should TRY talking to these people. They aren't all janitors, or taxi drivers, you know. In Bangledesh, Malaysia, El Salvador, Mexico, Brasil, Chile, etc. they are real life people like you and I, with the full spectrum of jobs and businesses and schools. The difference between you and them? Whatever job we have here pays between four and ten times the annual salary for the same work. This is capitalism creating poverty.
That was under war. Mao Zedong's genocide was under peacetime. As for Nazi Germany, they were hardly Democratic.
Nazi Germany came about via democracy. Also, wartime versus peacetime doesn't change anything. We annihilated tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and then tens of thousands more died from fallout-related disease.
But hey, you're forgetting all the death squads that capitalist democracies fund. What about the arms trade we fund and buy into? How about the diamond trade and slavery that we support by dealing with African diamonds?
It's an obvious fact. If you need proof, try shopping for a career in different parts of the nation and pay attention to how much the rate of pay fluctuates.
Odd that you are putting the burden of proof on me instead of yourself.
Resources are limited and so is money....Therefore capitalism must be shifting and redistributing wealth.
In other words, we benefit at the expense of other nations. That's how capitalism works.
I understand your a socialist or a communist.
No, capitalism creates wealth. If it redistributed wealth, America would not be what it is today.
Sure nobody wants to work in sweatshops in developing nations nor in the industrial revolution, but what is their alternative, agrarian economy where they work all day in the heat working hard labor on the farm where they are self sufficient or they can work at a sweetshop where it benefits their community along with global economy.
The Industrial Resolution was our developing nation period. We are not developing nation because over time we accumulated wealth and capital through education and development of skills and talents. These developing nations are at the very same crossroads as we were 150 years ago.
Whatever job we have here pays between four and ten times the annual salary for the same work. This is capitalism creating poverty.
What is so difficult to understand that development in the accumulation of skills and talents.
On can infer a lot from what you write.
Yeah, I am sure. I would love to read that.
Nazi Germany came about via democracy. Also, wartime versus peacetime doesn't change anything. We annihilated tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and then tens of thousands more died from fallout-related disease.
But hey, you're forgetting all the death squads that capitalist democracies fund. What about the arms trade we fund and buy into? How about the diamond trade and slavery that we support by dealing with African diamonds?
When the numbers are added up, I am sure the number killed by Mao Ze-Dong of 50 to 80 million and 23 million killed by Joseph Stalin equaling 73 to 103 million is even with atomic bombs and the blood diamonds and arms dealing. Yeah no doubt.
Odd that you are putting the burden of proof on me instead of yourself.
I told you how to witness it for yourself.
No, capitalism creates wealth. If it redistributed wealth, America would not be what it is today.
Wealth comes from new resources. Capitalism works by trading existing resources. Therefore in a capitalist society, the wealthy and the middle class obtain their wealth at the cost of a lower class.
This is basically what we call a zero-sum gain.
The Industrial Resolution was our developing nation period. We are not developing nation because over time we accumulated wealth and capital through education and development of skills and talents. These developing nations are at the very same crossroads as we were 150 years ago.
Wealth doesn't come from nothing. You're just describing how one makes a person better at acquiring wealth, not creating it. The body which makes up wealth are limited resources that are hard to find. This is in the form of crude oils, minerals, metals, and so on. This forms the core of wealth. A capitalist entrepreneur simply takes these resources and makes something that can be exchanged for more wealth than invested in creation.
What is so difficult to understand that development in the accumulation of skills and talents.
Same skill set, drastically different salaries. It's an easy to reach conclusion.
When the numbers are added up, I am sure the number killed by Mao Ze-Dong of 50 to 80 million and 23 million killed by Joseph Stalin equaling 73 to 103 million is even with atomic bombs and the blood diamonds and arms dealing. Yeah no doubt.
Change of topic? We're not discussing quantity, just the plain and simple fact that democratic capitalist societies engage in genocide, and support states that do.
Many economic situations don't involve zero sum because valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated, which any can be a net gain or loss. Assuming the counterparties are act in a rational matter, any commercial exchange is a non-zero-sum activity, because each party must consider the goods it is receiving as being at least fractionally more valuable than the goods it is delivering. Economic exchanges must benefit both parties enough above the zero-sum such that each party can overcome its transaction costs.
e.g. Absolute advantage, Comparative advantage & Free trade
Factors of Production*
Labor, Capital, Human Capital, Land and Entrepreneurship
Same skill set, drastically different salaries. It's an easy to reach conclusion.
Different economies with different set of supply and demand. Logical Conclusion
Many economic situations don't involve zero sum because valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated, which any can be a net gain or loss. Assuming the counterparties are act in a rational matter, any commercial exchange is a non-zero-sum activity, because each party must consider the goods it is receiving as being at least fractionally more valuable than the goods it is delivering. Economic exchanges must benefit both parties enough above the zero-sum such that each party can overcome its transaction costs.
I was discussing resources, not profits, also I said "basically" because there are instances where can you can find more resources.
Resources, however, are always limited no matter the economy so you can either divide them up evenly, or have unequal distribution. If you divide them evenly there will be a loss of living quality felt by many. If you have uneven distribution, a small portion of the world will live in luxury as the rest has even fewer resources.
Economics just clouds this simple fact, by introducing value, exchange rates, bubbles, etc.
Different economies with different set of supply and demand. Logical Conclusion
They are capitalist democracies. They have the same amount of supply and demand relative to ours. What's different? No minimum wage, less safety regulation. Less government oversight. Also, the economies are poorer because the wealthy nations outsource jobs to them, using their cheap labour and skills so they can have high profit margins in goods sold over here. The net result is foreign powers making a killing off of weak labour laws, and serving as a barrier to social improvement.
Resources, however, are always limited no matter the economy so you can either divide them up evenly, or have unequal distribution.
That we call absolute advantage as already mentioned.
They are capitalist democracies. They have the same amount of supply and demand relative to ours.
Still Wrong. GDP measures the different scale of economies among how resources are distributed such as GDP per capita.
The economies are poorer because the wealthy nations outsource jobs to them, using their cheap labour and skills so they can have high profit margins in goods sold over here.
Wrong Again.
The outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas is part of an economic movement that promises a better life, indeed, a new beginning for many people in developing countries. It gives technologically savvy young people in countries like India livelihoods that move them into the ranks of the middle class
Still Wrong. GDP measures the different scale of economies among how resources are distributed such as GDP per capita.
That's why I said relative. I know that different nations have differing wealth.
The outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas is part of an economic movement that promises a better life, indeed, a new beginning for many people in developing countries. It gives technologically savvy young people in countries like India livelihoods that move them into the ranks of the middle class
Not really. You'd think that wealthy companies that struck gold here, who move jobs overseas, would improve the lives of the people there because they'd offer good wages and benefits. It makes a lot of sense, you know? But what really happens is that they move to India, Pakistan, Mexico, etc. and then proceed to provide wages that are just a minimal improvement over what the average pay was. Say the average pay was 40 cents an hour, they'll pay under a dollar still. They'll also create sweatshop conditions and use child labour. So, what happens? These companies start to disrupt the local businesses, and become the main jobs. Because they ARE providing better, albeit insufficient, wages it may be the case that local businesses lose workers. In a really bad situation, the local businesses start to vanish and just the sweatshops exist, and there's no chance of improving salaries because unions are illegal, or violence is perpetrated against organised labour, and being that these companies make billions annually they aren't threatened enough that they need to raise wages to compete.
THAT is why I support unions and minimum wage laws. I don't want to see a return to low-paying, near-sweatshop conditions to this country.
No, it is not. If it were, China and India would have the first and second largest economy in the world relative to population, and IN, but America is still the number one. Japan is a prime example of how it is not because it is only the tenth largest country in the world in population but the second largest economy in the world. Along with Germany, the fourteenth largest population country, yet the fourth highest GDP. The United Kingdom fits into this reason of logic, 22 in population, 6th in GDP.
On the other hand, India is the second largest most populous country yet only 11th in GDP.
From the 1950s to the 1980s, India had socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth.
GEE, I wonder why?
In 1991, the nation liberalized its economy and has since moved towards a free-market economy. With the socialist movement, it severely hurt India economically until it reigned in capitalism, and it is on the rise.
No, it is not. If it were, China and India would have the first and second largest economy in the world relative to population, and IN, but America is still the number one. Japan is a prime example of how it is not because it is only the tenth largest country in the world in population but the second largest economy in the world. Along with Germany, the fourteenth largest population country, yet the fourth highest GDP. The United Kingdom fits into this reason of logic, 22 in population, 6th in GDP.
I see now that I didn't elaborate my thoughts thoroughly and so used simplistic language that seemed erroneous.
Getting back at what I said earlier, each nation will have a raw potential for wealth that comes from the resources found on the land and environment. Some nations have a very low potential (note for example the north African nations that are on the verge of being assimilated into the Saharan Desert) and others have very high potential (India and China count among this class I believe). There will next come the issue of exploiting those resources, a country like India is making strides in technological growth but suffers from social problems that get in the way of perfect usage of resources. At this point you have your basic market that allows trade of resources. No nation at this point is creating wealth, they are taking existing wealth in natural resources and trading it for something else. Next you factor in science and technology, which is very good at creating something we might call intellectual wealth. Now let's jump to economic models like communism and capitalism. Communism would work by regulating the trade of wealth (which often has a symbolic value attached to it indicating value, we know as money) so that there is no hoarding of it. In the idealistic sense, this would mean that everyone is as wealthy as their nation is, divided by the population. In a capitalist society there is no regulation or control, and so there is an incentive to control a particular type of wealth so that you can control the value of that wealth (this is known as a monopoly), there is also an incentive to minimise expenses while selling at a maximum market value (this is where we see employee exploitation). Since in a capitalist society, wealth is not distributed in an even manner, there is intrinsic social inequality because wealth always represents power in a society, irrespective of the type of economy.
Now let's jump to the point in question. In an uncontrolled capitalist society there is no incentive to increase the salaries of workers. This is where the sweatshops in the US came from. Eventually there comes enough social unrest that laws will change, and we will have regulations like minimum wage and organised labour parties developing in reaction to these conditions. Now that workers are paid more, and benefits are expected, labour becomes expensive to companies and so incentive forms to move jobs overseas to poorer or less regulated nations. The cycle repeats itself, because now these nations have sweatshops thanks to foreign companies (and local companies that use this type of production), and so the older capitalist, post-industrialised nations are living in wealth because the workers are paid well and those jobs that are menial and can be exported are carried out by poor, underpaid workers in South America and South Asia. In this way capitalism isn't creating wealth, it is trading off the improved living conditions in one nation for poor living conditions in another country (or countries).
How is this an intrinsic problem with capitalism? A lack of regulation means that there will be unevenly distributed wealth and therefore power. This means that what must follow is that the powerful will easily become moreso, favouring those that pay their workers the least, while those that are able to control the market on their product (monopoly) will receive the most power of all.
How does this keep poor countries in poverty and social inequality? Large corporations that export jobs and have their fingers in other nations' economies will have power within those nations, and will have political favours that impede change that might grant the workers better work conditions, pay, benefits, etc. Capitalism favours this.
From the 1950s to the 1980s, India had socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth.
GEE, I wonder why?
They also lacked a modern infrastructure, suffered class issues. The picture is more complex than you realise, and capitalism doesn't care about social equality.
In 1991, the nation liberalized its economy and has since moved towards a free-market economy. With the socialist movement, it severely hurt India economically until it reigned in capitalism, and it is on the rise.
Indeed, India has a very unregulated market. I wonder who else their companies and corporations are exploiting in sweatshops and less than a dollar a day pay, to have that wealth?
Consumer protection create more competitive atmosphere to avoid fraud or other flimflam practices, and again, consumer protection doesn't fall under the category of destroying tariffs and government monopolies.
Um. That's just wrong. Do you really think companies cheer in applause for the greater challenge when consumer protection laws are introduced or added to? I'm afraid not. Individual consumer protection laws are introduced precisely because, without the threat of severe legal reprisal, the free market by design favours companies which only seek a profit. If a company were to spend any money on maintaining any quality standards or safety standards which the consumer is not able to appraise personally then it would not last very long. The free market is just the 'political market' with dollar voting. And the political market favours:
(according to michey5321 also posting on this debate)
the best liars with the best empty promises, because what they want is an organized and systematic group of soothe sayers to offer them hope and salvation.
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.
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.
Well, it's not greed. Greed is an emotion which some people experience more frequently and across many more situations than do others. It's effect is to give priority to personal gain in specific situations over concerns regarding negative consequences or loss to others. It's still possible to exhibit corrupt behaviour without experience a hint of greedy emotions e.g. if you're doing it for a good cause.
I think transparency would vastly reduce the corruption rate. We certainly have the technology to track a person's or group's financial transactions. We have the technology to automatically publicise this information to the general public in real time and archive it for later reference.
What would the consequences be if it was a condition of taking office that you submit to this kind of transparency instead of making people responsible for public funds and hoping they wont misappropriate the funds? I think there would be odd occasions of corrupt conduct by those whose greed is SO great that it is able to override their basic sense of consequences. But that would be the overwhelming exception and I'd argue that those would be cases of mental illness rather than bad role design. Such people experience greed and act on it even to their own detriment.
What I'm arguing is that good design of official roles may be the key to this question. Probably the above transparency measure would be a good basic template but additional counter-corruption measures would need to be added on a role by role basis depending on what the specific powers and responsibilities of a role are.
What do you think? (Bearing in mind the question is of whether it is possible to have a government absent of corruption not whether humans are greedy by nature or whether greed is okay.)
I am dying to read a example of justified corrupt behavior for a good cause.
Nice call. My apologies. Good should have been in quotes ('good') so I could avoid having to discuss this side issue. But I'll deal with it since I screwed up and you're asking for the side issue.
Well, everyone makes mistakes and governments and institutions are also capable of adopting bad policies and rules which have unforeseen consequences. To borrow a computer programming terminology, these unforeseen consequences are the bugs in the policies. Now, you may find yourself in a position where you feel very certain that the rules compel you to do things in a way which would be harmful to those you are responsible for. Even though a non-harmful approach exists and is available to you, the rule has been conceived in such a way that it is too restrictive and does not afford you that option. Here, it would be immoral to follow the rule but if you're a government official (or a doctor or a lawyer or whatever) it would be unethical to break the rule. Immoral because you're knowingly doing harm and unethical because you do not singly have the authority to determine whether the rule needs revising and what that revision should be. This leads to the perverse situation where doing a good thing would be corrupt (and here's the clincher...) even if your judgement was later found to be sound.
Even with all the rhetoric of Obama's transparency, there are still back room deals.
Interesting but actually irrelevant. It's not an example of 100% transparency. Also, even if it was an example of that, it would still be just a single example. Good evidence would be evidence showing situations of 100% transparency reliably failing to keep down corruption which I doubt are studies which have been conducted. I'm in the same boat. Good evidence for me would be studies showing situations of 100% transparency reliably succeeding in keeping corruption down. Okay, well maybe we can change our approach on this sub-issue. Do you think if 100% transparency where possible then that would ensure 0% corruption or do you think that 0% corruption is impossible even with 100% transparency?
There is no system able of absolute transparency nor zero corruption.
Correct. There is no such system right now. I already know that. It's like saying there is no way of landing on the moon when you're speaking before it's actually happened. What I'm asking is whether such a system is possible. I think this kind of question about the possibility of some kind of thing usually gets resolved by either an actual physical demonstration (like man landing on the moon) or by showing that the occurrence of such possibility would require two physically incompatible conditions to hold simultaneously. So you're generally going about it the right way by arguing that corruption is intrinsic to the concept of government (although you take a far bigger chunk than you need by arguing for humanity wide corruption). However, you'll easily concede that some systems are more corrupt and others are less corrupt. My question is of whether or not that lessening can go to zero and what is the justification for the answer.
it would be immoral to follow the rule but if you're a government official (or a doctor or a lawyer or whatever) it would be unethical to break the rule. Immoral because you're knowingly doing harm and unethical because you do not singly have the authority to determine whether the rule needs revising and what that revision should be.
That is a hypothetical example.
In your response, Sorry, but I still don't see actual real life example of justifying corrupt behavior for a good cause.
Do you think if 100% transparency where possible then that would ensure 0% corruption or do you think that 0% corruption is impossible even with 100% transparency?
0% corruption is impossible even with 100% transparency because if humans are involved and are easily corruptible, which makes it not possible. All it takes is a bribe.
My question is of whether or not that lessening can go to zero and what is the justification for the answer.
Regardless of the current system or hypothetical system, corruption will never reach zero because if humans are attempted, they will dive in.
because if humans are involved and are easily corruptible
But isn't that really what transparency changes? By 100% transparency, I mean that every decision/transaction made by every official ever is archived in perpetuity and is easily available for analysis by anyone at any time. Also, beyond transparency you'd actually need effective laws to severely punish any corruption which is detected. I've already argued that, under such circumstances, anyone who did accept a bribe should probably be referred for psychiatric evaluation because they're unable to curb their greed even where it's not actually in their interest.
I'm talking about 24 hour public access electronic surveillance systems rather than human news reporters. Also, online access to all banking records and transcripts of all conversations held.
Under these circumstances, if any official does anything beyond farting in a packed elevator, he'll get booted out of office and the full force of law applied without leniency.
Hm. I'm half seeing a dystopian sci fi thriller in this idea.
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.
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.
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.
1. In debate, there is already the tacit understanding that you do provide justification for claims made. If you're going to post a conclusion without justification then I'm going to call you on it by pointing out the lack of justification. Themz the rulez.
2. That's quite a purile comment. Worse, it's false. I have a great many opinions on a wide range of topics. If someone expresses an opinion which I share, I still expect them to have a good justification for it. If they don't have one then I wonder whether I have a good justification. If I don't have one then I reaslise that I've made the common thinking error of holding an opinion without good justification. I would only be further compounding the blunder if I simply told others "You wouldn't need a good justification if you already agreed with me".
3. That's the adversarial model of debate which you might find if you study e.g. law. My background is in sciences where the collaborative model is preferred. The object in this model isn't to 'win' but to come to a fuller and more accurate understanding. When I first read Bohemian's statement, I took it as something obviously true but realised I couldn't come up with any good justifications for being so confident that it is an impossibility. So I thought I'd get you guys to help if you want to. I'd disagree that posting an argument would be a waste of your time as you may find that once it's written down that you yourself find a glaring hole in it. Or there may be a glich in it that you've overlooked but someone else spots and draws your attention to it. It's worth going through this process even where the opinion is widely held. In the past, there was a widely held belief in fairies but that didn't make them real. It just boils down to this: do you care whether your beliefs and opinions are true?
And then, after point #3, you go on to an actual justification. Ok. Let's see...
Government is based on taxation.
False. Taxation is one of the fund raising options available to a government. Other options include issuing treasury bonds, exporting resources or invading a neighbour and selling all of their resources. I'm sure you can think of many more options.
Taxation is the coercive extraction of funding for government monopolized services.
False. No part of using taxation as a fund raising method then limits the use of those funds to providing monopolised services. The funds may be used to provide services which are not monopolised and non-government alternatives are availabe, they could be used to build a new palace for a king, or they could be used to find families for all of the orphans in the nation.
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.
Wrong. If people chose goods and services because they are optimal then advertising campaigns would not be as helpful as they are to the bottom line. There's a little more to why people choose the things they choose than mere optimality.
Also, I'm wondering what regime you're referring to. I'm not sure when the last time a person was sentenced to death for not paying taxes. Maybe you can find the most recent case. I wont limit you to the US. You can check in Canada, UK or anywhere in western Europe but I am going to have to limit you to peacetime cases as being uncooperative during wartime can be considered treason and that is a different matter entirely.
Finally, it is true that taxes are legally compelled but that's no different to you compelling someone to pay rent. If a friend came to stay with you for a few days and then it later became clear that he may need to stay longer term then you would be reasonable in expecting that he pay rent, contribute to bills, contribute to maintenance, do chores and buy his own food. You wouldn't be too impressed if they refused this and instead replied "It's a free country! You can't make me do anything. I didn't make you build your house but since it's here I'll go raid the fridge."
Therefore, government services are NOT optimal as they require both forced payments and the monopolization of the industry to be sustained.
The premises have been disposed of so the conclusion stands unsupported. However, 'optimal' has yet to be defined.
If government requires coercive payment to be sustained, then it is corrupt.
This statement does not follow from the preceding argument given. It's function here is to create the sense that the preceding argument is somehow relevant to the main question by equivocating on the word "corruption". 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.
1. Then It's an arbitrary rule YOU made up and didn't tell anybody. It's your own damn fault.
Can a debate be sparked from a person simply stating a stance? If yes, then nothing else is necessary to start a debate. That's it, sorry to disappoint you.
2. If you didn't understand what I meant and you "wondered" what I was getting at, then you should ask for clarification. Everyone else grasps this concept, I'm sure you could to.
3. Then you ADMIT to using uncommon rules, especially uncommon for this site. If you have specific guidelines for your debate then it's YOUR responsibility to outline them ahead of time. It's NOT my responsibility to guess.
I'd disagree that posting an argument would be a waste of your time as you may find that once it's written down that you yourself find a glaring hole in it.
You assume I haven't debated this issue copious amounts of times in the past. I've written arguments for my stance so many times if there was some glaring whole that could be seen simply by writing it, I would have come across it already.
So no, there would still be no point.
Besides, even if there was something wrong with my arguments, it STILL wouldn't make sense to post several of them before they come up in debate. If there's a problem, naturally whomever takes issue with my stance will question me into realizes any flaw, assuming they're competent.
Anyway,
False. Taxation is one of the fund raising options available to a government. Other options include issuing treasury bonds, exporting resources or invading a neighbor and selling all of their resources. I'm sure you can think of many more options.
Could the U.S. army sustain itself based solely on the funds it extracts from Iraq? Of course they can't, that's just stupid. Every government knows without a tax base they have no power. It takes 2 tings to run a government.
1. Coercion
2. Public belief in the states virtue
It takes both, just one will cause you to grow less and collapse sooner. Every (half-competent) successful politician since the dawn of politicians has known this.
False. No part of using taxation as a fund raising method then limits the use of those funds to providing monopolized services. The funds may be used to provide services which are not monopolized and non-government alternatives are available, they could be used to build a new palace for a king, or they could be used to find families for all of the orphans in the nation.
This is just an immature point to make. O.K., so the government can also use the money to keep themselves fat and well accommodated. I'll give you that but, that's more a point for my stance, not yours. XD
And yes, the ever gracious government allows some "competition" to some of it's services, but this "competition" is just an illusion as payment for government services are mandatory. Even if you don't want to use it and you want to use a non-state service, you'll have to pay both. Most people just aren't in that situation, or even willing. It is in this way that government can both have it's monopoly AND seem like good guys by offering us a choice.
Wrong. If people chose goods and services because they are optimal then advertising campaigns would not be as helpful as they are to the bottom line. There's a little more to why people choose the things they choose than mere optimality.
You're very quick to say wrong on these points. I'm beginning to think you're reading my comment with the mind-set it's wrong and just making up reasons that fit your belief.
When was the last time you saw a commercial advertising a government service? They don't need to fork out the cash to advertise, they have a mandatory payment system. How do you think a company acquires the money to mass advertise? Either they lobby the state to for "regulations" that make it harder for new companies to grow, or they offer such a damn good product/service that people willingly pay them enough for them to advertise. Without government, only the later is possible.
I mean, it's like you didn't even bother with a simple thought experiment before you made this point. =/
Also, I'm wondering what regime you're referring to. I'm not sure when the last time a person was sentenced to death for not paying taxes.
It hasn't happened in the U.S. as far as I know, but all that proves is that no one pushed the state that far, not that the state wouldn't do it.
Think about it, if you don't pay your taxes what happens? Well, you get a letter, then another letter, maybe a couple more. then they send someone to collect it, if you still refuse they send a court notice. If you don't show they get police to come kidnap you. And if you STILL refuse to pay they will either have to kill you or somehow manage to throw you in prison.
Even then, your only incentive to not break out of prison is that they will kill you. All the letters and court rulings in the world mean nothing if they wont kill you in the end.
Usually the government only has to go as far as extracting the funds from your bank account since most people value their lives enough to live under the governments rule.
Finally, it is true that taxes are legally compelled but that's no different to you compelling someone to pay rent.
Not true. Rent is a completely voluntary system. You agree on a price when you move in, if you don't want to live there anymore you can leave. Taxation is something you "owe" the government for just existing on land they claim, even though most of it is vastly unused.
You aren't allowed to opt out of government services. You must pay them. And there is no agreeing on "price", you pay what they want you to pay. The land lord offers you a home. The government didn't build my home, but they still want my money. You're land lord doesn't take extra money off your salary and charge you extra for everything you purchase. There are few things less similar.
The premises have been disposed of so the conclusion stands unsupported. However, 'optimal' has yet to be defined.
No it hasn't. By "optimal" I just mean "better than any other company is doing".
This statement does not follow from the preceding argument given. It's function here is to create the sense that the preceding argument is somehow relevant to the main question by equivocating on the word "corruption". 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.
I LOVE how you always seem to bring things up after the fact, but still act as though it's something I should have just "known". XD
I was using the word corruption as it is in the dictionary because all you said was "corruption". Now you mean "political corruption"?
I said what I said as a summary of everything i said previous. It was a "bottom-line" kind of deal. You say you want to know if a government can exist free of corruption, I say it's very structure is one of corruption, therefore it cannot exist free of corruption. Government is set up by corrupt, for the corrupt. It's structure is based on power over the common man by monopolizing all the most necessary services an making payment mandatory. Further corruption is only a given as this set-up will attract all the most greedy and power-hungry people.
A society DOESN'T need a government to sustain itself AND it works better without one. The only reason for government is to support the lifestyle of the politicians. For that to work, they have to convince the population that they NEED the Government either by creating problems only the government can solve or teach the next generation about the validity of the state by setting up government education camps and making attendance mandatory for 12 years.
Is that corrupt enough for you, or do you still think further corruption is necessary for you to finally view the state as illegitimate?
Ah Okay. I'll be sure to add a clear rule about this at the bottom of future debate descriptions. It's a rule I follow without needing to deliberately think about because I used to like logic puzzles as a kid. A puzzle might, for example, have three possible choices available where only one is correct. Someone could just choose the right one but up to that point it's just a guess. How I know when someone has really cracked the puzzle is when they're also able to provide the reason why that choice is the correct one i.e. do they have the right answer for the right reasons?
If you didn't understand what I meant and you "wondered" what I was getting at, then you should ask for clarification.
Um. Yes and no. If some justification had been provided and a part of that justification was unclear then I'd have simply asked for more detail. What I take issue with is the stating of opinion without justification. I couldn't be less interested in an opinion poll. I want the best arguments available on both sides.
Anyway, justification was provided later so I consider the matter closed.
Ok. Well, if it's an analogy then it's a bad one but I don't think you could've realised that if your focus was not on political corruption. I'll explain:
A: Is a thinker absent of thoughts possible?
Well, obviously not. That's because a thinker is someone who does think and someone who is absent of thought is someone who does not think. Easy.
But this is not analogous to the question:
B: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
It's good for either:
C: Is a government absent of officials possible?
or
D: Is a corrupt official absent of corruption possible?
both of which are obviously not possible.
My question is closer to the combination:
E: Is an official absent of political corruption possible?
combined with
F: Is a government absent of corrupt officials possible?
Both of which are possible. The first part just refers to officials who never use their legislated powers for private illegitimate gain, and the second part refers to a government composed of only such officials.
That basically does answer my question if you only take the question literally but I'm also really aiming for the deeper answer to the question:
G: If so then what is the way to reliably construct such a government?
You might think I'm adding unfairly to the question but I say this is the nature of exploring the question.
You can have a stab at answering (G) but I suspect you're more interested in unpicking either (E) or (F).
When I wrote about the thinker and the thought I was talking describing government on an entirely different dimension.
The thinker is the byproduct of thought. It too is illusory as it only exists to the extent the thought does.
So, truthfully there is no thinker as the word "thinker" is a noun and implies it is a static thing. If something is static, it can't exist. Atoms need motion to exist, if all the atoms in an apple stopped spinning the apple would phase out of existence.
Take out the static "thinker" and you're left with only the dynamic "thought".
So, the question "Is a government absent of corruption possible?" in analogous to the thinker and the thought in this way. The government is the thought, but it is synonymous with corruption. I don't make any distinction between the government and government officials because it's not a matter of cause and effect, but of simultaneousness.
Government is not a static thing, it is like a thought, constantly progressing. Government officials are like thinkers, but in this case I would call them corrupters (corrupter-ing-ers to be completely honest, but this isn't a proper word in English). It's a complex thing, a cause causing a cause and an effect effecting an effect. This is something that needs to be understood rather than explained.
They are dependent on each other, just as a thought cannot exist without a thinker (and vice-versa), government cannot exist without the corruption of the government officials (and vise-versa). Government is something born out of the corruption of corrupt people. I say corrupt people and this too implies something static, understand it is a flaw in the English language as even a corrupt person is not a static thing.
In truth, there are only thoughts and there is only government (corruption), but I say thinker and government officials only as a bridge to connect the gap between these two ideas.
As I said, this is more something to be understood rather than explained. I did my best, but if this still doesn't make any sense I'll try again.
Then you ADMIT to using uncommon rules, especially uncommon for this site.
I said no such thing. Both adversarial debates and collaborative debates are common and used for different purposes.
I'll offer a quick distinction off the top of my head: the first, to advance the viewpoint of one group against an opposing group; the second, to actually arrive at a reasonable decision on a question.
In the first kind, everyone is like a lawyer who is recruited to one side and their job is to argue that side only. In the most extreme cases, you might be expected to do this irrespective of the facts of the matter.
In the second kind, everyone is like a judge who has to appraise the merits of each side and render a justifiable decision. Ideally everyone presents evidence or arguments for both sides to some degree but participants are free to only present on one side if they've already made up their mind. However, in order to be intellectually honest, even a participant who has made up their mind should present any evidence which they have against what they believe to be the stronger position.
I hope I'm making the difference clear here. Adversarial debate is for advancing an agenda. Collaborative debates are for arriving at reasonable decisions.
I said no such thing. Both adversarial debates and collaborative debates are common and used for different purposes.
But not on this site. Sure, when I first started out on this site I used to post tons and tons of arguments for my position. It didn't take much time before I realized that this is a waste of time since people didn't always take issue with my position.
Sometimes people just don't care so it's only logical to post something short, so it doesn't take much time to write/read and teases out an opponent, rather than assumes one.
It is for this reason that I and most others start debates with as little as necessary. That's all.
Ok. Sounds logical. I think I'll keep going with providing the initial justifications but I'll bear your approach in mind if it really does waste my time. I don't think it will though. I think it occurs often enough that someone agrees with my opinion but does not agree with my reasons for holding that opinion. That makes it more useful to me to present both and hear both from others.
You assume I haven't debated this issue copious amounts of times in the past. I've written arguments for my stance so many times if there was some glaring whole that could be seen simply by writing it, I would have come across it already.
Not necessarily. There are theologians who've based whole careers on bad arguments only to find later that pretty much everything they've ever written is BS. In presenting your argument to fresh audiences who have the opportunity to ask questions of it, you learn new things about the argument. Some will be reassuringly positive. Other things may be embarrassing enough to make you rethink the argument and possibly your stance.
I've never lost a debate on politics, it just hasn't happened. Hell, it's been a long time since anyone has brought up a "new" argument against me, so it would be naive of me to assume anyone will, but I still throw my hat into the ring from time to time just in case. This was one of those times.
edit
It was actually after reading this that new arguments (that is, ones I haven't heard before) stopped coming up.
Good link! I'll have to read that. The reading list... it just wont stop...
I've never lost a debate on politics, it just hasn't happened.
Understanding that your debating is adversarial by default and that mine is collaborative by default, and understanding that you probably don't mean that in quite the way I'm about to interpret it:
If I never 'lost' a debate then I'd be really worried. An astrologer once assured me that his predictions were 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Watching him then make a few 'perfect' predictions made it clear to me and everyone else in the room that he had simply crippled his ability to honestly appraise his success rate.
What made it hard, and actually impossible, for him to realise this was that so many clients were pleased with his services. I demonstrated to him and everyone else how meaningless this is by giving them a little instruction on what to look out for as I talk to a random girl and then proceeded to do a 90 minute 'consultation' with the random girl from the crowd. People couldn't stop laughing when I eventually told her that it was a trick and she responded with "No. I don't think you're confident enough about your gift."
The astrologer said that that was just a trick but his gig was the real deal. Unfortunately, some people did fall for that but others realised that he was doing the same thing as me but just not as mindfully.
The fact that it's possible to fool so many others either deliberately or unintentionally, and also to fool ourselves unintentionally is the reason why I'm cringing at that statement.
Perhaps it's something to be worried about, but it is so.
I don't base my arguments on theories displaced in the future. Everything I talk about is based on current facts that are immediately verifiable/falsifiable.
Besides, my method isn't based on imposing a political ideology. I'm not a communist or a democrat or anything of that sort. My method is one of debunking the ideologies of others and I've yet to come across an ideology that works just as well (let alone better) than the free market.
If I understand what you mean then I think you're describing your M.O. incorrectly. I can illustrate this most easily by comparing myself with yourself as an example because we're using the same strategy in different battles.
I try to be a good Scientific Skeptic and I think you try to do the same thing. I wouldn't say either of us manages it at all times because I don't think anyone does. We all have our lapses and we need to count on those who love us enough to embarrass us with "Honey, you're wrong and the evidence is right there so whether you accept it or not, everyone else will know." :D
None of the religions satisfy the burden of proof placed on them by Scientific Skepticism which is why I don't believe any religious claims. The word for that is an Atheist. No religious ideology.
You're arguing that none of the political ideologies satisfy the burden of proof placed on them by Scientific Skepticism which is why you don't believe any political ideological claims. I'm not sure if their's a suitable word to describe the position "No political ideology" (maybe A-statist or Astatist?).
And yes, that's a good characterisation of political ideologies you make with the phrase "theories displaced in the future". Political ideologies do take the flavour of "We can and we should have a future world like such and such which in order to reach we'll need to compromise on this or that."
But the thing with religious ideologies is that they provide ready made answers to real world questions so, as an Atheist, what are my answers to these questions? ... Humanism!
I'd describe Humanism as "morality without mythology" and Secular Humanism as "morality without mythology goes para-political". By 'para-political' I mean that Secularism (the separation of church and state) isn't a political ideology as such but a concept which you attach to other political ideologies.
You're analogue of Secularism is "the separation of market and state" but you're also an Anarchist meaning that you claim that all the actually important functions that a state provides can be provided by the market without a need for anything external to the market.
Hm. I've just had a day to think about my comparison of your ideological grievances and my own and have a little more to add.
For all of the liabilities that religions bring, they do have some benefits which an Atheist must acknowledge and at least attempt to provide rational alternatives for. The main advantages of religions that I can see are these:
God: an entity which decides and hands down the law and occasionally makes changes or provides new laws.
Theologians: a community of experts who interpret the law in the most difficult of cases.
Priests: a community of overseers who ensure the law is obeyed.
Temples: community centres providing a range of needed goods and services not being provided elsewhere.
So now we have something like:
God --> The State
Theologians --> Ethicists
Priests --> Judges
Temples --> Various charitable organisations
I think a democratic state is an imperfect but rational and morally superior alternative to God. I'm curious, in a stateless society, where would the laws come from? (assuming there would be any laws at all) If you abolished the state, who would enforce the ban and prevent any future state organisation gaining control?
I've yet to come across an ideology that works just as well (let alone better) than the free market.
Depends on what you mean by 'works'. To borrow some cell biology, dollars are basically the stem cells in the economy. You can convert dollars into any commodity and you can also convert some commodities back into dollars. Whereas, all other resources are specific resources, the dollar is the universal resource. Everyone needs to use up some of the universal resource in order to maintain their literal survival and ensure their personal safety. Any resources left over is their actual economic power, their free ability to dollar vote and influence the market.
People use their economic power:
1. to 'work': to provide goods/services which others need for survival/security;
2. to 'entertain': to provide goods/services which others do not need but do desire;
3. to 'play': to purchase goods/services to satisfy desires;
4. to 'invest': to purchase instruments which over time generate more dollar votes than used to purchase them.
The problem with this set-up is the long-term shifts in economic power:
1. At the very bottom you have the 'dying': those who are not able to meet their survival/security needs;
2. Next come the 'survivors': those who are able to survive but cannot afford to then provide any goods/service to others;
3. The 'providers' are those who can afford to provide goods/services from which they can generate more dollar votes;
4. The 'players' are those who are able to meet their needs and then do not work, do not entertain, but do play. Their many purchase is of investment instruments which generate dollar votes for themselves but do not provide any goods/services either needed or simply desired.
5. At the very top are the 'Scrooges': those who do not provide any goods/services, do not play but plough all of their dollar votes into dollar vote generating instruments.
Ultimately, you end up with a society where the least useful members of it (players and Scrooges) are also the most influential. Of the two groups, the least interesting (Scrooges) are the more influential.
A society ruled by useless people is pretty bad but one ruled by the dullest useless people is even worse.
Besides, my method isn't based on imposing a political ideology.
I'm afraid you're views do constitute a stance equivalent to a political ideology in the same way that my Humanism, though not a religion, is recognised by the UN as a non-religious life stance equivalent to a religion and is to be afforded all of the same rights and privileges extended to religions.
Political ideologies as I understand them consist of:
1. a theory of human nature (i.e. individual psychology and behaviour);
2. a theory which extrapolates from this the general character of humanity;
3. and in light of this, a prescriptive theory of ethics which tells us what humanity should be like;
4. and finally, a plan for getting us there.
You have a theory of human nature, you extrapolate to humanity's general characteristics, you prescribe ethics and you have a plan you think will get us there. I don't see how this isn't a political ideology.
Moreover, your theory of human nature isn't supported by the known psychological evidence which invalidates your extrapolation to humanity. Your ethics may or may not survive a collision with the psychological evidence but, given these points, your plan is not justified. I would have to say the same of all political ideologies.
What we need is a scientifically valid and ethically considered political stance. A number of ideologies have started off in that vein but they all fail because scientific knowledge expands and influences our ethical considerations whereas ideologies are... ideological. What we real need is a scientifically valid and ethically considered political stance which also has the ability to expand with science and be influenced by ethics.
My way is of NO politics. The only theory of human nature I have is that typically people base their actions on their own rational self interest, but I don't make it a rule because I know there are exceptions. This is an observation, NOT an ethos.
I also prescribe no "should" on anybody. I see what works in most cases, for some it doesn't so I won't say everyone needs to conform to me, I don't say anyone needs to conform to me for that matter.
I also don't subscribe to any ethics. Morals are simply your personal prefferences super imposed as rules.
The only ideology you can define me by is I believe in non-belive.
If there's a problem, naturally whomever takes issue with my stance will question me into realizes any flaw, assuming they're competent.
Well, it's pretty important that you get competent criticism in debate just as it's important to get competent proof readers in writing. There's nothing worse than having a mistake overlooked by everyone and then to proceed to make substantial decisions you wouldn't have made if the mistake hadn't been overlooked.
Well, historically that's really where taxes originated. Campaigns were typically fought by able men from within a tribe who received no pay but were entitled to a share of plunder. If the number of men were not enough then the tribal leader would need to hire paid mercenaries. If the leader could not fork the bill himself then he would have to take contributions from traders. Over millennia, this informal arrangement morphed into the formal tax arrangement between governments and citizens where funds are required to maintain a professionalised military, even through peacetime, as well as provide for a variety of other administrative and public policy making activities.
But it's not the levying of taxes which characterises a government. It's being responsible for the defence and administration of a nation. If a government decided that it was not going to tax anyone but was going to raise all of it's funds from profits made by companies it owns then it would still be a government because it would still be responsible for the defence and administration of a nation.
A governments power doesn't flow from it's ability to raise taxes but rather it's power is in being able to make policy and enforce them. It's from already having power that a government is then able to consider levying taxes as a way of funding it's activities.
Ok. How about this: I can't agree that every possible form of government conceivable would have to raise taxes in order to be a recognisable government. However, I'll agree that most (if not all) governments today raise some of their funds through taxes. It's an historically contingent observation. It isn't intrinsic to the concept.
Even if you don't want to use it and you want to use a non-state service, you'll have to pay both.
You know what. I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to allow people to opt-out of paying for public services they don't want to use. Take the fire department for example. If someone chooses to opt-out and instead wants to use a non-state service they should be able to do this and not pay the part of tax budgeted for the fire department. They should be able to opt-back in just by starting payments of that tax again. Hm. Waiting for your next pay cheque while your home is on fire would be a real bummer.
But it's easy to do that with the fire department but what about things like city traffic calming measures designed to improve air quality in residential areas? I don't see how you're going to opt-out of that... unless you were prepared to carry your own privately supplied O2 and understood that you would be immediately arrested for theft if you ever took your mask off.
Oh dear. I can think of a number of grizzly scenarios around air quality. If someone's O2 container failed then would police have to protect every one else's property (the clean air) from being stolen by preventing them from breathing?
I think opt-outs should be allowed just so that people can see for themselves the ensuing disasters and death tolls for people who are as imprudent as to actually opt-out. But who knows, some things may be worth opting out of in the end. I guess only by allowing it and then doing a statistical review of the practical consequences for a large number of people can answer whether you should opt-out or stay in even if you purchase a similar non-state service.
I disagree that non-state services just work better. I think some things like the development of entertainment are better as commercial services but other things like public libraries are better as a free state services rather than a commercial service seeking a profit.
I disagree with the second part too but it's also a very testable claim. My favourite kind. We just need to find a case somewhere in the world of a state service with an opt-out and then see if that's looking like it's causing the collapse of not just that government but the collapse of the concept of government in that country.
I'm sure there is such a case and I'm also pretty sure that it's not causing the collapse off anything. We'd probably find something very mundane like the department providing that service becoming a little better organised rather than riots on the streets. That's my expectation.
Look at it like this, there are only 2 reason for government services.
1. To direct money towards things people otherwise wouldn't pay for.
2. To gain control over the money flow towards what people DO want to pay for.
With "1." the problem is obvious. If there is little to no demand from the public for whatever it is the government is now making them pay for, then it is an economic burden.
With "2." the problem is also obvious. If people are naturally paying for the service willingly, then there is no reason for the government to step in, unless the goal is to simply get a slice of the pie, so to speak.
But the situation gets even worse. When the government starts taxing for things that have low demand, or redirecting the cash flow for things with high demand they begin forcing people whom otherwise wouldn't pay for this hypothetical service to pay for it.
A split in society is created. Now the public fights amongst itself, each side trying to get the most votes so that the government will redirect the cash into the things THEY want. they blame each other for their problems, instead of the ones pulling the strings.
How stupid is this! This whole problem would vanish if people were simply allowed to pay for the things they want on an individual level, but for a state program to exist, they must tax everybody. If they only taxed the people who already wanted to pay people would realize they don't need the state.
They'd realize more gets done without the government keeping a portion of the money.
1. To direct money towards things people otherwise wouldn't pay for.
Yes. And that's a good thing. Everyone wants functioning infrastructure but no one wants to be be the one to pay for it. With taxes everyone has to pay.
(An idea follows. I'm sure it's been thought of and studied before.)
Perhaps what irks people the most is that they know they're paying for something they were hoping to get for free. There's this guy I know who takes a similar stance on taxes as you do. He insists he shouldn't have to pay any taxes for anything and yet his usage of the public library vastly outstrips the number of books he could purchase if he didn't have to pay taxes. I get the feeling that if the library was run as a charity open to all, he'd be one of the big users who never makes a donation i.e. a free-loader.
But rather than waste too much time condemning obviously parasitic behaviour, let's try for a solution. What if the library didn't actually take any donations from the public? There would be no difference between him and everyone else. But where are the donations coming from? Well, how about a ladies shoe store whose sole shareholder is the public library? All profits get used to maintain and expand both the shoe store and the public library. In this way, people are paying for something they want to pay for (the shoes) and they're getting something they need but don't want to pay for (free access to books).
But now you'll complain that he's the biggest user of the library and yet he's not buying any ladies shoes so the ladies are paying for his free-loading. Okay, so what if there are now several stores each selling a different type of good/service that he's sure to be buying at some of the stores and indeed everyone would be buying at some of the stores in order to obtain goods/services they do want to pay for.
How about expanding the charitable arm. Instead of just providing a library, what if it also provided a school, public baths, a park, a museum, garbage collection, etc.? So now you have this huge charitable corporation where the corporate arm provides goods/services people actually want to pay for and the charitable arm provides goods/services which people don't want to pay for but still do need. It could operate on a national scale and compete fairly with other corporations for the profits to maintain and expand.
Such a charitable corporation could take over much of the work currently done by a state. It could even provide for enforcing the rule of law provided the laws are drawn up by way of a reasonable democratic process. This charitable corporation would, for all intents and purposes, be a state funded not by taxes but by commercial profits.
You're very quick to say wrong on these points. I'm beginning to think you're reading my comment with the mind-set it's wrong and just making up reasons that fit your belief.
I take your point. I would probably suspect the same thing if someone found fault with every sentence of an argument I had made. The mindset I've started from, if you want to call it a mindset, is that claims of fact need to be actually true.
It is true that traditional economics postulates that economic agents are rational agents who will converge on the optimal product. But the empirical studies done by behavioural economists to find out how true this really is show that, not only is this false, but that it is absurdly false.
I'm afraid it's not my fault if you didn't know this. However, I would encourage you to read around this topic just because some of the studies are hilarious. They make you think "ZOMG! But that's really stupid. Why do people do that? Even really clever people."
It is true that traditional economics postulates that economic agents are rational agents who will converge on the optimal product. But the empirical studies done by behavioural economists to find out how true this really is show that, not only is this false, but that it is absurdly false.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Please clarify.
It hasn't happened in the U.S. as far as I know, but all that proves is that no one pushed the state that far, not that the state wouldn't do it.
Ok. Reading your explanation, I think it's a reasonable possibility in the US that someone convicted of tax fraud would actually be imprisoned and if they tried to escape prison that they would be killed. But that just speaks badly of the US rather than every government in existence and every government which could possibly exist. The US probably does need to muster up the political will for prison reform.
However, I don't agree that individuals who break the law of a nation with impunity should go unpunished. If the fraud is of such a grand scale and so egregious that a court of law decides a bit of prison time is necessary, then so be it. Even though I think that prison should be a punishment of last resort where all other approaches have failed.
I'm beginning to understand that your grievance is not with government in general but the US government in particular. US law appears to have a number of barbaric provisions.
Ok. Reading your explanation, I think it's a reasonable possibility in the US that someone convicted of tax fraud would actually be imprisoned and if they tried to escape prison that they would be killed.
I gotta tell ya, you're the first person I've debated on this site to even entertain the thought.
No one else would even acknowledge this.
Anyway...
I've yet to hear of a government that won't imprison/kill (if it comes to that) you for not paying it. This is probably because any government not willing to do these things didn't get paid and thus collapsed.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I take issue with all governments, I talk mostly about the U.S. only because it is the most relevant government to the people I talk to.
Just to clarify, I think it is significant to note why this fraudster would get killed. It would be because he was a fugitive. The US does kill fugitives but I think many countries avoid actually killing fugitives, unless they are armed, strongly preferring instead to apprehend them again. I hope you don't think I'm imagining governments handing down direct death penalties for not paying taxes.
Not true. Rent is a completely voluntary system. You agree on a price when you move in, if you don't want to live there anymore you can leave. Taxation is something you "owe" the government for just existing on land they claim, even though most of it is vastly unused.
You don't seem to appreciate that the tax you pay for residing in a country, any country, is the analogue of the rent you pay for residing in a house. If you don't want to live in a house because the rent is too high and you're not prepared to pay it then you can leave. Similarly, if the you don't want to pay the taxes in a country then you can leave. I don't think there's anyone stopping you in either case. However, if you insist on staying in a house without paying rent then the owner should be able to compel you to pay the going rate or pay for your stay up to now and then leave. The national analogue of that would be if you refuse to pay taxes then you should have the owed taxes taken from you and then you're either deported or put in prison.
The other piece of the puzzle you're missing is the sense that public property is and public funds are jointly owned by the entire citizenship. If the US government isn't actually acting faithfully for the interests of it's citizens then it is perhaps a little corrupt. On the other hand, if it is acting faithfully but is failing to make this abundantly clear to it's citizens then it's not corrupt but it's just not very good at PR. That's an important distinction: actual corruption vs. public perception of corruption.
You need to pay rent, otherwise the owner just wont let you live in the apartment, or whatever the property is. If you don't pay, you just don't get to live there.
You don't need taxation though. Homes can be built without the government taking a slice of the pie, the government doesn't actually supply you with anything other than the land... which it only claimed so that it can charge you for living on it.
And if you don't want to pay the government, it isn't a matter of simply not getting government services, they'll actually punish you for it. Isn't that a bit odd?
Public property is an illusion. If everyone owns a plot of land, no-one does. When someone says "public property" they're really talking about government property.
It's called public property, yet the state is the only one with any real power over it.
I LOVE how you always seem to bring things up after the fact, but still act as though it's something I should have just "known". XD
I was using the word corruption as it is in the dictionary because all you said was "corruption". Now you mean "political corruption"?
Well, Okay. Let's see what some of the alternatives to political corruption I might have meant:
"Is a government absent of police corruption possible?"
"Is a government absent of corporate corruption possible?"
"Is a government absent of data corruption possible?"
"Is a government absent of linguistic corruption possible?"
"Is a government absent of corruption (video game) possible?"
No. I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. "Political corruption" still seems like the most germaine form of corruption to a question about "government".
Although, michey5321 did ask me to clarify what definition I meant. He writes:
"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)."
Hm. Even though he asks for a definition, his parenthetical comments indicate that he really did "just know" that I meant political corruption. He was more interested in the specific definition of political corruption I was going go with and the scope of my considerations. Fairly reasonable question, I thought.
Yeah, the problem with political corruption is that it assumes the validity of the state and focuses on corruption other than the structure of government itself.
I've been focusing on the later, to which the only form of corruption is general corruption. Simply the way the dictionary defines corruption.
Since the question only says "corruption" I decided to interpret it as general corruption because it's the very structure of the state makes it a corrupt entity.
I'm not sure. I guess it depends on how your dictionary defines general corruption. I'm not even sure what general corruption is. I've always taken corruption to mean political corruption unless I'm speaking on a specialised topic, like on data storage, where the specialised definition of corruption is more likely to be what is meant.
How does your dictionary define general corruption?
You're last three paragraphs pretty much seal the deal. I'm now convinced the US government is a pretty dodgy character indeed.
However, you've made no progress with equating all government with corruption. A government having zero officials who are misusing their legislated powers for illegitimate private gain is a government which is not at all corrupt.
What I think you'll need to do is disentangle your ideas about governments in general from your ideas about the US government because not all governments are like the US government. Also, you might find it helpful to think on what it means for something to be owned by more than one individual and what might be the fairest ways to resolve disagreements about what should be done with the commonly held property. You might first think about a married couple and their home, then three brothers and their business, How about a whole family or group of families? A neighbourhood, a town, a region and eventually a whole state?
How would you resolve disagreements about what should be done with the commonly held property of a bunch of states united as a republic forming "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". The words seem so hollow given your comments on the US government.
So, if you personally consider dishonesty and theft immoral, then government is corrupt. If you don't, then it's not.
I'm a moral nihilist, so I wouldn't necessarily use the word corrupt, but if you're a moralist and you consider theft and dishonesty immoral, then government is corrupt.
As I've said, I'm an anrcho-capitalist. Any problem caused by the government can be solved by abolishing it.
Ok. Maybe I'm also being a bit harsh on you. But I do mean to get at a real answer rather than merely take an opinion poll. I would appreciate your future contributions but please do justify the positions taken. And certainly do raise objections if I or anyone else make any mistakes. Like I said earlier, collaborative debates aren't about winning but about coming to a better understanding.
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.
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'?
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.
In the last point you do make some interesting observations. I think you're being a bit dismissive of 'common people' who are really just normal people. But even 'just jobs' can be designed to promote honesty or badly designed and encourage rampant dishonesty. You've converted a very large-scale problem down to an individual-scale problem. I think there's some mileage here but I'm not sure where to start yet. Ok. Thanks for the post.
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.
If the majority of the people of the population are not smart, is it not the job of the government to educate them to a certain extent, because no matter how much education is available, the majority of the population must be inferior to some; for instance, if the average IQ of a person in a country is 140, he would be only average, if the smarter few have an IQ of 160+, would you still consider these 140 IQ individuals to be not particularly smart? And if the average person's IQ is 70, and the smarter few have the IQ of 110, would these smarter few be smart?
Even if the government wishes to retain control over the majority of the population, it must educate at least some people to be superior than the rest. (BTW, an IQ of 70 or lower is consider to be retarded.) But if the majority of the population is retarded, the nation will in due time collapse; however, if the majority of the population has the IQ of 110, the government must have people with higher IQs in charge, otherwise the people will not obey the government, which would then have to use force; and since no one in command is smarter than the commanded, nothing can be accomplished.
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.
Are the positions not jobs? Is the job of a general not war? Is the job of a teacher not teach? Is the job of the politician not to represent his people and satisfy their wants and needs (in a Representative Democracy)? These jobs should be specialized knowledge that only a few possess so that they may do their jobs? And how did common people even enter positions of power? If you are just as smart and just as successful as your neighbor, would you allow him to control you? If inferior members of society are placed in power so that the majority can control them, would the majority not in formal power then be in control?
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.
If all the common people care about are immediate wants and needs, and ignore tomorrow, is it not the job of the government then to change their perception by first explanation, education and logic, then (if the first option failed) by mean of force? In this second option, would it still be corruption of the government to 'course correct' what the people fail to see/do? But if all the government and the people of the nation care about are immediate pleasures, then the people allow the corruption to take place, and the end result is destruction of the system of governance and death or enslavement of its citizens by the hands of foreign threats.
Lastly, did the people not set up the system of government and relinquish their control to a certain extent so that they may enjoy certain pleasures of today and have the government take care of them tomorrow? After all is it not the duty of the government to establish a stable economy, create an armed force for defense, and allocate resources of the land and people accordingly to remain in homeostasis for as long as possible (which ought to end when a more powerful force take over or depletion of resources)? If the population of the nation failed to elect officials that may carry out these tasks and fulfill the role of government, is it the fault of the government or the fault of the people corruption occurred?
If the majority of the people of the population are not smart, is it not the job of the government to educate them to a certain extent, because no matter how much education is available, the majority of the population must be inferior to some; for instance, if the average IQ of a person in a country is 140, he would be only average, if the smarter few have an IQ of 160+, would you still consider these 140 IQ individuals to be not particularly smart? And if the average person's IQ is 70, and the smarter few have the IQ of 110, would these smarter few be smart?
You need to look at bell curve distributions and the definition of IQ.
Suffice to say, by definition, the common person will have an average (normal) intellect of 100 on the IQ scale. It is also the case that raising the population's overall intellect so that they score on average 140 on current IQ tests would require some sort of eugenics program to raise the distribution of intelligent people, which is largely an inherited trait.
The point wasn't about this, however, merely that normal people aren't very deep thinkers and have very small concerns, hence the ease of corruption.
Even if the government wishes to retain control over the majority of the population, it must educate at least some people to be superior than the rest. (BTW, an IQ of 70 or lower is consider to be retarded.) But if the majority of the population is retarded, the nation will in due time collapse; however, if the majority of the population has the IQ of 110, the government must have people with higher IQs in charge, otherwise the people will not obey the government, which would then have to use force; and since no one in command is smarter than the commanded, nothing can be accomplished.
The government is run by many people, not merely the heads, but the bureaucrats, law enforcement, and local politicians. Most people who occupy these positions have a common intellect. They aren't big thinkers, and it's more like a job to them, or a way to support their family.
Are the positions not jobs? Is the job of a general not war? Is the job of a teacher not teach? Is the job of the politician not to represent his people and satisfy their wants and needs (in a Representative Democracy)? These jobs should be specialized knowledge that only a few possess so that they may do their jobs? And how did common people even enter positions of power? If you are just as smart and just as successful as your neighbor, would you allow him to control you? If inferior members of society are placed in power so that the majority can control them, would the majority not in formal power then be in control?
A job is something you use to merely support your life. It isn't your passion, nor is it something you have a crusading or incorruptible spirit towards. It's merely a means to keep you existing.
A career is something you chose to dedicate many years towards. It's something you probably like and want to make a mark in.
If all the common people care about are immediate wants and needs, and ignore tomorrow, is it not the job of the government then to change their perception by first explanation, education and logic, then (if the first option failed) by mean of force? In this second option, would it still be corruption of the government to 'course correct' what the people fail to see/do? But if all the government and the people of the nation care about are immediate pleasures, then the people allow the corruption to take place, and the end result is destruction of the system of governance and death or enslavement of its citizens by the hands of foreign threats.
I believe I said that governments are made up of people like this. If a population is full of normal people then it stands to reason that normal people will make up the brunt of government.
A government that is resistant to corruption needs a population of scholars, intellectuals, people who have high principles and lofty goals. This way legislation has more care paid to it, more thought is put behind actions.
Lastly, did the people not set up the system of government and relinquish their control to a certain extent so that they may enjoy certain pleasures of today and have the government take care of them tomorrow? After all is it not the duty of the government to establish a stable economy, create an armed force for defense, and allocate resources of the land and people accordingly to remain in homeostasis for as long as possible (which ought to end when a more powerful force take over or depletion of resources)? If the population of the nation failed to elect officials that may carry out these tasks and fulfill the role of government, is it the fault of the government or the fault of the people corruption occurred?
It's not a matter of fault. It's more a matter of the shoes not fitting the job. I read that as an example, when the PATRIOT Act was passed, most of the senators did not even read through the entire document. This is an example of what I'm talking about.
The point wasn't about this, however, merely that normal people aren't very deep thinkers and have very small concerns, hence the ease of corruption.
At the dawn of our kind, say the homo erectus species, primary concerns are food, water, and safety. Since there was no refrigerator they had to hunt every day and their preys are also predators that can kill them, so they generally plan only one day at a time. But not everyone can hunt, so they started specializing their jobs, the hunters hunt and gatherers scour the land for whatever they may need to trade amongst each other. Now the average homo erectus can think two days ahead. Time progresses. Move on to the medieval era, here people are civilized, each person has a job to do. The job of the shoe maker is to make shoes, the job of the hunter is to hunt, the job of the farmer is to forage, the job of the fisherman is to fish. Here, lets say the average homo sapien can think one week ahead. Fast forward to Benjamin Franklin discovering electricity, then to Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb. With all the advancements in technology and information available, are people still only able to think a brief period of time ahead, or just of immediate wants and needs?
The government is run by many people, not merely the heads, but the bureaucrats, law enforcement, and local politicians. Most people who occupy these positions have a common intellect. They aren't big thinkers, and it's more like a job to them, or a way to support their family.
I can see how the IQ thing might make you think I want smart people in office, well it wouldn't hurt, but all I am saying is that persons of better caliber than the general public ought to be elected. I meant superior should be placed in power. (Not to say we should have a superior race or anything of that nature.) For instance, you own a basketball team, would you prefer Michael Jordan or Michael Jackson on your team?
A job is something you use to merely support your life. It isn't your passion, nor is it something you have a crusading or incorruptible spirit towards. It's merely a means to keep you existing.
A career is something you chose to dedicate many years towards. It's something you probably like and want to make a mark in.
I've never really differentiated jobs and careers because anything you do ought to be worth doing, and anything worth doing is worth doing right. If there is no passion in a job, why remain there, what needs does it fulfill? I can understand a college student taking a job at McDonald's, but an executive-type office job isn't much of a job, you can consider it a career. A job/career that requires a significantly greater skill set than flipping patties would require lots and lots of training and experience to achieve these skills. Any person who acquires all these skills but hate the 'job' they do with these skills must be a glutton for pain.
I believe I said that governments are made up of people like this. If a population is full of normal people then it stands to reason that normal people will make up the brunt of government.
In a population of average people, the above average will rule. In a population of below average people, the average will rule. In a population of only above average people, no one will rule and they all disperse to different populations. In a population of only below average people, another population will come and control them. In a population of only average people, one of two things can occur: they will do as the superior people or as below average people.
I refer now to the Hawk-Dove game, or chicken of game theory. In a population of hawks, it is better to be a dove. In a population of doves, it is better to be a hawk. In a population of only one or the other, the opposite will emerge in time. In a population of fifty-fifty, hawks will become the majority.
In no occurrence have I ever seen in history or modern time is one person equal to another. A person born into poverty is not equal to the person born into great wealth. A person born blind is not equal to a person born deaf. A handicap person is not equal to a non-handicap person. A man is not equal to a woman. We all have different skill sets, psychological mind sets, physiological and anatomical make ups. So I must disagree with you on the 'population is full of normal people part'.
A government that is resistant to corruption needs a population of scholars, intellectuals, people who have high principles and lofty goals. This way legislation has more care paid to it, more thought is put behind actions.
Can't argue much here. A person who only thinks is half complete, a person who only does is half complete. Therefore a person of intellect must do as well, this one is complete. As history has demonstrated, no army respects a king that does not know how to fight. Sparta would have kneeled to Athens if the Athenians can fight up to par with Spartan. A person who thinks and not do is just as loss as the person who does but not think. Why heed the words of a man who does not empathize with you?
It's not a matter of fault. It's more a matter of the shoes not fitting the job. I read that as an example, when the PATRIOT Act was passed, most of the senators did not even read through the entire document. This is an example of what I'm talking about.
Most college professors don't read the papers they have to grade. If I give you one hundred documents to read each day, each documents have seventy-five pages written in Times New Roman font size twelve, how many can you read? During the passing of the Patriot Act, as a nation, the United States was in a state of confusion. Most, if not all, citizens demand immediate results. The pressure of creating results trumps the need to fully understand the process to achieve these results.
Let's look at conflict escalation. Suppose you and I are playing the dollar auction game. The highest bidder gets a hundred dollars but the second highest bidder also pays. How much would you bid for the hundred dollars?
Here, lets say the average homo sapien can think one week ahead. Fast forward to Benjamin Franklin discovering electricity, then to Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb. With all the advancements in technology and information available, are people still only able to think a brief period of time ahead, or just of immediate wants and needs?
Yes, the majority lack good future planning.
Any person who acquires all these skills but hate the 'job' they do with these skills must be a glutton for pain.
Maybe, but it's a common practise.
In a population of average people, the above average will rule. In a population of below average people, the average will rule. In a population of only above average people, no one will rule and they all disperse to different populations. In a population of only below average people, another population will come and control them. In a population of only average people, one of two things can occur: they will do as the superior people or as below average people.
Which still misses the important fact that there are many government seats to fill, and the best and brightest will still gravitate towards the sciences and engineering. The bottom line is that for my argument's sake, government is made up of the people that it rules over. A few IQ points here and there aren't really important.
Most college professors don't read the papers they have to grade. If I give you one hundred documents to read each day, each documents have seventy-five pages written in Times New Roman font size twelve, how many can you read? During the passing of the Patriot Act, as a nation, the United States was in a state of confusion. Most, if not all, citizens demand immediate results. The pressure of creating results trumps the need to fully understand the process to achieve these results.
It's still an issue of incompetence no matter the excuses made.
Let's look at conflict escalation. Suppose you and I are playing the dollar auction game. The highest bidder gets a hundred dollars but the second highest bidder also pays. How much would you bid for the hundred dollars?
I don't bid, besides this it's a matter of incompetence. Normal people cannot cope with the workload, even above-average people have difficulty, therefore we need exceptional people.
Even with all our technological advancements the majority of the population cannot plan for the future but instead focus mainly on their immediate wants. If this is the case then the popular believe that the children/teenagers of today are more advance than their parents is false and ipso facto they are at best just the same as their parents. So for the last few decades there has not been progression but perhaps only decay or stagnation.
Maybe, but it's a common practise.
I strongly urge you to read Seneca's On the Shortness of Life, well just the first half of it because in the second half he gets biased and promotes philosophy a bit too strongly.
Which still misses the important fact that there are many government seats to fill, and the best and brightest will still gravitate towards the sciences and engineering. The bottom line is that for my argument's sake, government is made up of the people that it rules over. A few IQ points here and there aren't really important.
Efficiency is often misunderstood. So let me give this last part of my average, above average, and below average concept (something I was trying to avoid). In a population which exists all three types of people, the outcome will be a majority of below average people, a few average people, and even fewer above average people. Here the average will rule and the above average will disconnect themselves. The number of above average people is directly dependent on the number of average people and indirectly related to the number of below average people. If the population increases in its number of below average people the number of above average people will decrease. Why is this? Efficiency. It does not require above average people to deal with below average people.
In a race of three matches, one must pitch his worst horse against the enemy's best, his average horse against the enemy's worst, and his best horse against the enemy's average; this way he is guaranteed to win.
If the government is full of average people it is because the majority of the population is below average. There is no need for above average people, thus they privatize themselves.
One last thing on this part, is political science not a science?
I don't bid, besides this it's a matter of incompetence. Normal people cannot cope with the workload, even above-average people have difficulty, therefore we need exceptional people.
I bid one cent, and since you're not bidding I make $99.99; my payoff is 99.99 and your payoff is zero. Thanks for not bidding and changing the game, this is the easiest game I've ever won; if only more people are like you, I would be rich.
Okay let's use the American public education grading system to determine competence, or lack thereof. A, B, C, D, F; A's are for students who understand everything taught, pass every test, and complete every assignment; B's are given to students who do not fully understand everything taught, pass most tests and complete most assignments; C's are given to students who understand only parts of everything taught, pass some tests and complete some assignments; D's are given to students who understand bits and pieces of everything taught, pass a few tests and complete a few assignments; F's are given to students who don't understand anything taught, don't pass any test and don't complete any assignment. A stands for excellent, B for Above Average, C for Average, D for below average, F for unsatisfactory.
In what sense does only understanding parts of what was instructed to the students okay to be average? So an average member of society need not understand every aspect of the concepts presented to him/her, complex or simple. Suffice to say dumb is the average American, some intelligence is their politician. Is this really what you're getting at? or does the C students wand the B students to have A student results?
In my family, A is average, B is below average and anything below this means failure. Maybe it's time to raise the standards a little in the rest of the country, starting with ourselves.
Can I suggest you both split up your posts so that each post corresponds to a single argument for Yes or for No to the question. Also, when supporting or disputing an argument, make each separate reason a separate post. You'll find that it makes it easier to come to terms on some of the points and therefore tease out exactly the specific points you're both really disputing. I assure you, it works!
If the government is full of average people it is because the majority of the population is below average. There is no need for above average people, thus they privatize themselves.
One last thing on this part, is political science not a science?
Soft science, but you missed my assumptions.
If you have a population hierarchy like that in our democracy, there will be seats of power in excess quantity of what the above average can fill compared towards the average. Add to this the simple fact that the intelligentsia are drawn towards academics and sciences, and most certainly not in pursuit of military careers, and you have a situation where many average people will fill up these positions. It's even worse when you consider the personality types drawn towards these positions. The very intelligent have a tendency not to be interested in military duty and rank climbing. Neither are they interested in the political social game.
This explains why we see some intelligent people in government and military, but a majority of average people.
In what sense does only understanding parts of what was instructed to the students okay to be average? So an average member of society need not understand every aspect of the concepts presented to him/her, complex or simple. Suffice to say dumb is the average American, some intelligence is their politician. Is this really what you're getting at? or does the C students wand the B students to have A student results?
What I'm saying is that The C Americans tend to vote for and elect others like themselves, because of the "everyman/common man" image that is successful in politics, a few Bs and very rarely As. In fact the As are more interested in Physics, Mathematics, Archaeology, etc. than pandering to the C Americans by playing a game of "I'm just like you" followed by "my opponent is a communist."
In my family, A is average, B is below average and anything below this means failure. Maybe it's time to raise the standards a little in the rest of the country, starting with ourselves.
I think it is the nature of society. You will always have a few As, extra Bs and a whole lot of Cs, even if the standards for a C become that of an A.
This is why I think corruption is unavoidable, there will always the less intelligent who feel inclined to take short cuts, or sleaze by.
For the sake of simplification I shall heed the advice to break this discussion into parts.
If you have a population hierarchy like that in our democracy, there will be seats of power in excess quantity of what the above average can fill compared towards the average.
"Sun Tzu said: The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers." (The Art of War, 5:1, translated by Lionel Giles, 1910.) Base on this I argue, there need not be more men in politics than needed, because it is not a matter of dividing up the seats of power but the allocation of the persons controlled by existing seats and the citizens at large. A problem may be the size of the US, 200+ million people, we may need more men in politics. But I ask you is it easier to find capable men or remove marginal seats?
Add to this the simple fact that the intelligentsia are drawn towards academics and sciences, and most certainly not in pursuit of military careers, and you have a situation where many average people will fill up these positions.
Ah, the tragedy of the commons (Garrett Hardin, 1968), but more in reverse. Well, sort of. In our situation, the profitable positions of power are like the green pastures of limited resources and the intelligentsia herders who are not going for these pastures, but instead turn towards academics and sciences, broad deserts with even fewer resources and most end up poor. Don't even try to say it's a passion and not about the money, sure they get paid little money but money is always in the equation as it makes the world go round.
It's even worse when you consider the personality types drawn towards these positions. The very intelligent have a tendency not to be interested in military duty and rank climbing. Neither are they interested in the political social game.
This explains why we see some intelligent people in government and military, but a majority of average people.
So the intellects continue to allow the less intelligent or even the unintelligent control their lives. This reminds me of the high school hierarchy (ah, good times). The most deceptive are always the most popular, and the geeks and nerds, well, anyone whose gone to public schools in the States or watched teen flicks knows. Not to say the popular aren't/weren't smart or the losers are/were. Personality wise, the more aggressive/competitive would end up in positions, not necessarily more important, but, lets just say, that require more socialization than the shy geek in chem class. Of course if you pick on the geek too much he'll try to slip arsenic in your water when you're older.
Although, I'm still a wee bit curious as to why the geeks only 'grow a pair' in the movies but not man up in reality.
Surely the more intelligent must realize those in power control their lives, to some extent, high school hierarchy or politics.
Take taxes for instance, say you grossed one million dollars, you're single, no medical bills, independent (not business owner), not really any deductions; the government takes $103,791.75 plus 35 per cent above $357,700 or $224,805 (0.35($1,000,000 - $357,700 (or $624,300))), which equates to roughly one-third of your income. Oh I almost forgot, that's just federal income tax, State tax depends on your state. And then there's also other taxes for owning stuff, buying stuff, selling stuff, and other ones too. So depending on how much you own, buy, sell, and other activities, but lets not focus on these for the sake of simplicity, you may have to pay up half, or more, of your gross. Really?, smart people can't do the math and decide maybe, just maybe, it's best to place themselves in power.
(This tax rate is for 2010, and subject to change in 2011, and again in 2013 as far as I know. Also note there was no major taxes before the Great Depression like in capital income, or investments. Ergo, dividend income was free of tax prior to Great Depression, and in 2013 it's 43.4 per cent. Food for thought.)
But I ask you is it easier to find capable men or remove marginal seats?
I gave you an answer a while ago. With our large population, we need a large number of seats. However at the same time, intellectuals tend to steer away from politics. All you're asking for is to find those that are interested, but we still must remember that in a democracy these men must be voted in.
Well, sort of. In our situation, the profitable positions of power are like the green pastures of limited resources and the intelligentsia herders who are not going for these pastures, but instead turn towards academics and sciences, broad deserts with even fewer resources and most end up poor. Don't even try to say it's a passion and not about the money, sure they get paid little money but money is always in the equation as it makes the world go round.
Actually that's way off. The intellectuals avoid politics because it is a social game full of deceit and sleazy people, and always has been. For whatever reason it's easier for academics to adopt the mindset of integrity and being above personal bias in information that is to be reported. These people who are needed most to clean up a dishonest system, want the least to do with it precisely because it needs a cleanup.
So the intellects continue to allow the less intelligent or even the unintelligent control their lives. This reminds me of the high school hierarchy (ah, good times). The most deceptive are always the most popular, and the geeks and nerds, well, anyone whose gone to public schools in the States or watched teen flicks knows. Not to say the popular aren't/weren't smart or the losers are/were. Personality wise, the more aggressive/competitive would end up in positions, not necessarily more important, but, lets just say, that require more socialization than the shy geek in chem class. Of course if you pick on the geek too much he'll try to slip arsenic in your water when you're older.
This can be summed up very well by a famous quote:
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
Charles Darwin
Surely the more intelligent must realize those in power control their lives, to some extent, high school hierarchy or politics.
I'm more interested in building or programming my latest project than enslaving or hurting our deceptive leaders. I'm sure that many intelligent people feel the same way. Conquest just isn't as interesting or feasible as a personal project.
Take taxes for instance, say you grossed one million dollars, you're single, no medical bills, independent (not business owner), not really any deductions; the government takes $103,791.75 plus 35 per cent above $357,700 or $224,805 (0.35($1,000,000 - $357,700 (or $624,300))), which equates to roughly one-third of your income. Oh I almost forgot, that's just federal income tax, State tax depends on your state. And then there's also other taxes for owning stuff, buying stuff, selling stuff, and other ones too. So depending on how much you own, buy, sell, and other activities, but lets not focus on these for the sake of simplicity, you may have to pay up half, or more, of your gross. Really?, smart people can't do the math and decide maybe, just maybe, it's best to place themselves in power.
So the choice is: take on an army that can immolate a nation, and owns trillions of dollars, or play a game of deception and base building, all in the grand scheme of becoming... the same as your enemies.
Or simply pay your legal extortioners off and hope that the money does some good, while taking solace in the fact that you still live very comfortably.
I gave you an answer a while ago. With our large population, we need a large number of seats. However at the same time, intellectuals tend to steer away from politics. All you're asking for is to find those that are interested, but we still must remember that in a democracy these men must be voted in.
Actually that's way off. The intellectuals avoid politics because it is a social game full of deceit and sleazy people, and always has been. For whatever reason it's easier for academics to adopt the mindset of integrity and being above personal bias in information that is to be reported. These people who are needed most to clean up a dishonest system, want the least to do with it precisely because it needs a cleanup.
Just to be on the same page; our population is just too large for less seats than there currently is, and the intellects don't care at all for politics; the exact people you say we need to be in power don't want to be there and aren't even remotely interested. The ones that are in power are, more or less, incompetent, but they're the only ones that want to be there.
Set aside the current politicians for now. The intellects, and I quote "avoid politics because it is a social game full of deceit and sleazy people, and always has been." Furthermore these academics have adopted the mindset, supposedly, of integrity and as a result are above personal bias in the information they report. And it is this same integrity, this wholeness and honesty, that make these people the desired candidates to amend a flawed system, but they do not want to fix it, and the reason they do not want to fix it is the very fact it is in need of fixing.
What you wrote makes perfect sense by the way. Sydney Harris said: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, but the perpetual human predicament is that the answer soon poses its own problems." To avoid generating problems you chose to become part of the current problems. History backs you up. Galileo Galilei is the reason Christopher Columbus sailed to America, which resulted in the endangered Native American people (that if they're a species of animal would have to be placed on the endangered species list) and all the other problems that followed fast and followed faster.
Also, no persons or groups of people are needed in this world. A mother isn't what a baby needs, a care giver is; and just about any person can fill this role, good or bad.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
Maybe to academics and other intellects economics, game theory and other social sciences aren't sciences, but to the rest of the world they are. Your Darwin quote has nothing to do with high school hierarchy or much other social applications really. Use it in a religious debate though.
If you want to use hard science, I can comply. Geeks and hot girls in high schools and colleges are like Seligman and his dogs (the girls being Seligman). Wait, does the results of his experiment constitute as science or just snafu?
I'm more interested in building or programming my latest project than enslaving or hurting our deceptive leaders. I'm sure that many intelligent people feel the same way. Conquest just isn't as interesting or feasible as a personal project.
Are conquests not personal projects?
I never said anything about hurting anyone (well except for the arsenic thing, but that's neither here or there, and has nothing to do with the leaders). Not that you care, but the highest achievement of 'hurting someone' is to allow this person to hurt himself/herself.
So the choice is: take on an army that can immolate a nation, and owns trillions of dollars, or play a game of deception and base building, all in the grand scheme of becoming... the same as your enemies.
Refer to the Harris quote.
Or simply pay your legal extortioners off and hope that the money does some good, while taking solace in the fact that you still live very comfortably.
Paying off an executioner requires trust in both parties. Pay up front and nothing stops the executioner from killing you; a promise to pay later will only delay your death; the moment you pay he'll kill you to cover up his corruption; refuse to pay and he'll do his job which is kill you; blackmail him and he'll just torture you 'till you fess up then kill you. Regardless of what you do, the executioner is going to kill you. So make your peace with death and write a will. Prisoner's Dilemma.
Any person with money but no real power is just a fool with money--a girl's best friend.
What I'm saying is that The C Americans tend to vote for and elect others like themselves, because of the "everyman/common man" image that is successful in politics, a few Bs and very rarely As. In fact the As are more interested in Physics, Mathematics, Archeology, etc. than pandering to the C Americans by playing a game of "I'm just like you" followed by "my opponent is a communist."
It's actually not that hard to play the game of "I'm just like you", call it conning, manipulation, or whatever you want, it gets the tasks it was used for done. But it's actually a lot more than simply 'I'm just like you'; the first step is 'I like who you are', then it's 'I'm just like you', followed by 'Your secrets are safe with me', and last but not least 'I'm perfect for you' (Robert Hare, Snakes in Suits, 2002). Sexual politics, office politics, or even government politics, it gets the job done.
The study of human nature and its applications are way too undervalued. And just about every person has an endgame, even the 'common slob'. (Yep, have kids and grow old counts as an endgame.) Playing the 'I'm just like you' game would really help. Why do intellects choose not to study this is beyond me. Morals, or lack thereof, in its applications?, please tell me no.
It's actually not that hard to play the game of "I'm just like you", call it conning, manipulation, or whatever you want, it gets the tasks it was used for done. But it's actually a lot more than simply 'I'm just like you'; the first step is 'I like who you are', then it's 'I'm just like you', followed by 'Your secrets are safe with me', and last but not least 'I'm perfect for you' (Robert Hare, Snakes in Suits, 2002). Sexual politics, office politics, or even government politics, it gets the job done.
I never thought it was difficult or ever ineffective. I just don't like it, and I'm sure that many academics who employ integrity throughout their work and life are deeply resentful of it.
The study of human nature and its applications are way too undervalued. And just about every person has an endgame, even the 'common slob'. (Yep, have kids and grow old counts as an endgame.) Playing the 'I'm just like you' game would really help. Why do intellects choose not to study this is beyond me. Morals, or lack thereof, in its applications?, please tell me no.
It's beneath someone who works in higher pursuits, I believe.
I can't speak for all intellectuals, but I can make a hunch that that the kind who I believe need to be in politics to stem corruption, find the game petty after they've dedicated their lives to solving the great puzzles and mysteries of life.
I never thought it was difficult or ever ineffective. I just don't like it, and I'm sure that many academics who employ integrity throughout their work and life are deeply resentful of it.
I assure you living life in the morally gray area is much more fun. Unless you feel that you must answer to a higher power upon your death or a strict set of personal moral guidelines restricts you from having a little fun in this manner.
It's beneath someone who works in higher pursuits, I believe.
No one is above doing something. Given the right circumstances any person can be forced to do what they don't want. Use your imagination, don't just limit it to politics or psychological manipulation. Just as no one is above a beating, and I mean no one.
I can't speak for all intellectuals, but I can make a hunch that that the kind who I believe need to be in politics to stem corruption, find the game petty after they've dedicated their lives to solving the great puzzles and mysteries of life.
There are only two types of people in life, the one that believes in the afterlife and the one that doesn't. Not much to say about the first because they all have different views; and of the latter I believe can be summed up in two quotes--the first from Rene Descartes: I think, therefore I am; and the second from Oscar Wilde: There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it. Life is really what you make of it. I for one am much more interested in the great mystery of the Dow Jones Industrial Average than figuring out what gravity really is. Oh have you figured it out yet, last I check we only know of its existence and what it does?
I think it is the nature of society. You will always have a few As, extra Bs and a whole lot of Cs, even if the standards for a C become that of an A.
Thank you so much for the "even if the standards for a C become that of an A" part.
You mean to tell me that if all, or most (say eighty per cent), American students will start to earn A's, fully understand all concepts taught, pass all tests and complete all assignments, for the next decade, and we raise the standards of public education so that A's become the new average, then come up with a new grading system, and result in a time when no one will watch that idiotic show "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader" because the answer is "yes", when Americans can finally make a better car than Japan, when the one-fifth of Americans who now cannot locate the US on the map (sad but true) can, and the facts in the book The Dumbest Generation by Mark Bauerlein no longer holds true, we, the United States of America, are still going to be in the same conditions as we are now?
This is why I think corruption is unavoidable, there will always the less intelligent who feel inclined to take short cuts, or sleaze by.
Finally, short cuts are good. Applications: reading/skimming textbooks, not doing homework (or just most) in college because they only count between ten and thirty per cent, test out of classes, investments, hire a lawn care service, and so much more.
You mean to tell me that if all, or most (say eighty per cent), American students will start to earn A's, fully understand all concepts taught, pass all tests and complete all assignments, for the next decade, and we raise the standards of public education so that A's become the new average, then come up with a new grading system, and result in a time when no one will watch that idiotic show "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader" because the answer is "yes", when Americans can finally make a better car than Japan, when the one-fifth of Americans who now cannot locate the US on the map (sad but true) can, and the facts in the book The Dumbest Generation by Mark Bauerlein no longer holds true, we, the United States of America, are still going to be in the same conditions as we are now?
You should read what I said again.
Variation always exists within a population, and it follows from this that even if you raised the intelligence of each citizen by fifty points, you would still have gaps between the brightest, bright, and new average which is actually where the brightest were before.
If you found ways to make everyone exceptional for a generation, the next generation would be people who are that capable on average and vastly better when exceptional.
These gaps in intelligence would allow for the ultra-intelligent to exploit and manipulate the intelligent.
However it must be said that the first condition of my argument would probably vanish. The population would be more capable at running government, it's just that the scene would remain similar due to one group exploiting another.
Finally, short cuts are good. Applications: reading/skimming textbooks, not doing homework (or just most) in college because they only count between ten and thirty per cent, test out of classes, investments, hire a lawn care service, and so much more.
I've often found that in a competition with one who takes short cuts, I come out the victor over them.
Variation always exists within a population, and it follows from this that even if you raised the intelligence of each citizen by fifty points, you would still have gaps between the brightest, bright, and new average which is actually where the brightest were before.
However it must be said that the first condition of my argument would probably vanish. The population would be more capable at running government, it's just that the scene would remain similar due to one group exploiting another.
I never said there lacked variation in society, or want this variation to disappear. We must have variation to compare things and concepts. Raising the overall intelligence of everyone would enable better understanding and appreciation of current things. And though it may solve current problems it does generate new issues. By increasing the average lifespan in the States causes of death such as infections is decreased but give rise to cardiovascular diseases and cancers. But before new problems arise, society as a whole would experience little to no problems for a short while. Is this short while not enough to stir action and change?
These gaps in intelligence would allow for the ultra-intelligent to exploit and manipulate the intelligent.
If in the current society the common in power exploit the common not in power, and in the advanced society the ultra-intelligent exploit the merely intelligent, then by law of nature, if we are to compare the "lowest" members of society to the bottommost species on the food chain, no matter what situation we are in, exploitation is inevitable. Thus we all must embrace the fact inferior people always stand to be exploited, and superior people will always exploit. And each person is best to know his/her place in the world and accept destiny.
George Orwell wrote "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" which not only applies to Animalism/Communism, but to every society/forms of government. No matter what may occur humans can no more escape their predator/prey instinct than they can their own skin.
The best option then is for those with power to always use and manipulate those without power, and those without power should always obey as they can do no better in any society.
Thus to halt corruption, we must allow corruption to take place fully; when all is corrupted, none is corrupted.
Almost forgot to add an example to prove I was wrong. Martin Niemoller gave the following speech on January 6, 1946:
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Science and history has clearly demonstrated that those in power should always exploit the weak, and the weak must accept their fate. I am now conviced corruption is the way we ought to live. Simply give into corruption and it will disappear.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
