Government corruption--is it? (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 7:35 am

I was reading this, and it prompted me to think about corruption and governmental power. A case has been made and remade over the years for bribery as a form of "acceptable" corruption in governments where the officials were poorly paid and often overworked. This has been the traditional philosophy in much of South America: you paid to encourage the wheels of bureaucracy to turn more quickly. Some governments have even enshrined this, believing that it's up to the wealthy to in effect pay civil servants to do their jobs. This was acceptable. (Paying them *not* to do their jobs--to look the other way, while crimes were committed--was not acceptable.) Obviously this doesn't apply to Shenyang, but it got me thinking.

I'm curious at what level you feel that corruption becomes intolerable in government. Do you believe bribery is permissable? Or perhaps a necessary evil? Or do you feel that lobbying, complete with international junkets for government officials, is an act that should be made a felony? Should government officials be held to a tougher standard than the rest of us? How would you restructure the laws, whatever your view?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 4:10 pm

Originally posted by fable
I'm curious at what level you feel that corruption becomes intolerable in government. Do you believe bribery is permissable? Or perhaps a necessary evil? Or do you feel that lobbying, complete with international junkets for government officials, is an act that should be made a felony? Should government officials be held to a tougher standard than the rest of us? How would you restructure the laws, whatever your view?

I think that if one is open to corruption on any level then it can be exploited. One could quite happily say that one persons corruption gave a green light to further corruption.

Government officials are meant to be peers of the public, if they are seen as corruptable then it doesn't exactly set a good trend. It is exactly that kind of behaviour that leads to dissafection from governments that is felt so strongly by the youth.

Fable, how obvious is the average governments corruption is it known by most of the public?

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 5:16 pm

I think bribery is essential to any successful government and culture, it lets the rich buy power and the poor can rot while the rich get richer and they get poorer. Seems intrinsically fair when the wealthy can buy off democracy and the poor are left out, dont you all agree?

If you didn't catch my sarcasm, I think that bribery and corruption at any level castes suspiscion and mistrust on a governments abilities and its ethics.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 5:41 pm

I think that any sort of corruption cannot be controlled, and it will eventually get worse and worse, until its as corrupt as the things stated in the article.

Note: thats one thing the press is rather good for. It sometimes exposes small things of corruption, preventing it from getting worse. Thats why, say, there is more corruptiong in China then in North America.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 6:38 pm

Interesting obsidian, you mention your statement to be sarcastic. As I read it, I thought you were right on.

As long as the world revolves around money, such will corruption run rampant in government affairs. As twisted as it is, I support it. Corruption in governments has worked this far. Think about everything that goes unnoticed or uncovered, only a smidge of governmental corruption goes public. Personally, I find the world of politics to be a pretty dark place, however, my opinion is a bit uneducated and is built more on my general distrust for politicians.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Mon Aug 12, 2002 7:47 pm

Interesting, @Ned. Perhaps we won't eventually kill ourselves if we try to maintain this current lifestyle, instead of trying to change it. Perhaps.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 1:29 pm

I think that there is too much pressure on politicians to live a puritanical life of ascetic(sp?) virtue...see the hysteria around Clinton having 'relations' with Lewinski, or whatever he did

. However, I believe that beyone being'good' or 'bad', politicians need to act upon the will of the people. It is rmearkable how easily this is forgotten...Politicians are just there because it is inconvenient to have everyone vote on everything, but they are meant to follow the peoples will absolutely, and not push any agenda whatsoever for themselves...That is why politicians should not accept bribes. It shows that they are working for a private agenda, and thus taking power away from The People...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 2:37 pm

@Ned

On a world that thrives to make the next big score it is impossible to root out corruption. While in some forms it is almost innocent in some forms it is horrific. In the great pro American theory one could just do something about it, try to change it from the inside. I would but alas I am a geek, not a Politician. I fix computers, not society.

Every society is full of corruption in my opinion. It's a question of if there is, but how much.

Thug

Nygma · Post by **Nygma** » Tue Aug 13, 2002 9:58 pm

Frogus, you brought up Clinton and the Lewinski incident. I think that is a good illustration of why corruption in any form cannot be tolerated.

Two things. The first, I heard some people at that time voicing the opinion that Clinton's private life should not be judged. I disagree, because once someone is placed into government office (s)he is no longer his(her) own person. When he was elected, Clinton ceased to be just Bill Clinton, and became The President of the United States. He now had the ability to wield executive power of the country's governement, he spoke for the country, he represented the country, in a way he became the country. With the job came certain expectations, valid ones, such as he needs to represent the country honorably and not embarrass it. And the image of the President getting a job while on the phone to another head of state is a embarrassment to the USA. (You don't think that image crossed the mind of every head of state Clinton shook hands with?) To add perjury to that, to stand before the nation and flat-out lie to the electorate after swearing to tell the truth, was worse. Tough job, but that's why presidents and kings get all the perks they do. It's not as though the job were forced on most of them.

The second thing was, in my mind, validation of what I said above. Shortly after that incident, Clinton ordered a missile strike on Sudan and Afganistan. Besides the fact that that incident interrupted the K-State - Nebraska game when Michael Bishop was trying to answer Nebraska's opening score with the 'Cats in the red zone

, it also raised a lot of questions. Why? Was that a valid strike? Some actually speculated it was to divert attention from the Lewinski matter. We everyday Americans had no idea. We are not privy to intelligence matters, for obvious reasons. Which makes it all the more important that we can trust our elected officials to act honorably and morally. They act for us, in place of us, often with our blind trust.

Some might say that is naive and unrealistic, but it should definitely be the model to strive for.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Aug 14, 2002 12:52 am

Originally posted by Nygma
Frogus, you brought up Clinton and the Lewinski incident. I think that is a good illustration of why corruption in any form cannot be tolerated.

You can refer to that as moral turpitude, but it's not corruption. Nobody was being paid in any fashion to perform or not perform a specific task. What Clinton did above has also been done before by countless serving presidents, right back to Thomas Jefferson (who nearly got into a duel as a result--see Henry Adams' History of the Presidency for the years 1804-1814).