JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,753
- 2,220
Corruption is a grey scale quality that is not simply black and white in nature.
All politicians, all statesmen, all rulers of various nations/empires/leagues have some degree of curruption. Even George Washington had some plausible ulterior motives to the revolt he led in that he was in debt to a great many English bankers.
So do we throw out the very notion of government for fear that no matter what we do with it it will eventually come to ravage our homes, families and communities?
Or is there some tolerable level of 'corruption' that is not only permissable but even beneficial to society and the nation?
Since the state is by nature predisposed to coruption since it is composed of corruptable mankind, the first principle to maintaining low levels of corruption would be to minimise the governments role in our lives as much as is practical. There are necesary roles for a gaovernment that a nation sufferes from if they are absent effective government, as our Founding Fathers discovered with the Articles of Confederation, and then set up our current Constitutional Republic.
Secondly the principle of subsidiarity would keep the level of government activity down to the lowest level of control possible, and the more local a government is the quicker people normally are to keeping it from being overly rapacious.
Thirdly, the question of what exactly corruption is needs to considered. Philosophers have said that a good thing done is more virtuous if it is done for no personal gain, and that may be true, but that does not go to say that a good thing done for personal gain is evil or wrong.
In a practical matter we cannot expect our politicians to handle the considerable power that they do and derive no personal gain from it. That would require Saints, not normal men, and politicians are nothing if not normal or worse when it comes to their public morality.
So what is the difference between an acceptable form of personal benefit pursued by our political class and that which is not acceptable?
If the so-called corruption is beneficial to the public in whole or largest part with no direct harm to anyone, then why should we prevent it much less punish it? If a Senator puts an earmark into a bill that would have an interstate built near some property he owns but this interstate would bring commerce and jobs to several counties, then far more benefit from it than only the Senator, so why would we punish him for such a thing? Why should we punish our politicians when they do good simply because it is not wholey virtuous?
On the contrary, to proscribe such things is to give more power to a vindictive and more corrupt leadership who can then use overly tightened rules to purge from their ranks those that they consider troublesome or maybe even to eager to defend the public interest in general.
So I am wondering what others think on this topic.
What is the level of tolerable corruption? I put five broad assertions here that I think are plausible responses.
Not only
All politicians, all statesmen, all rulers of various nations/empires/leagues have some degree of curruption. Even George Washington had some plausible ulterior motives to the revolt he led in that he was in debt to a great many English bankers.
So do we throw out the very notion of government for fear that no matter what we do with it it will eventually come to ravage our homes, families and communities?
Or is there some tolerable level of 'corruption' that is not only permissable but even beneficial to society and the nation?
Since the state is by nature predisposed to coruption since it is composed of corruptable mankind, the first principle to maintaining low levels of corruption would be to minimise the governments role in our lives as much as is practical. There are necesary roles for a gaovernment that a nation sufferes from if they are absent effective government, as our Founding Fathers discovered with the Articles of Confederation, and then set up our current Constitutional Republic.
Secondly the principle of subsidiarity would keep the level of government activity down to the lowest level of control possible, and the more local a government is the quicker people normally are to keeping it from being overly rapacious.
Thirdly, the question of what exactly corruption is needs to considered. Philosophers have said that a good thing done is more virtuous if it is done for no personal gain, and that may be true, but that does not go to say that a good thing done for personal gain is evil or wrong.
In a practical matter we cannot expect our politicians to handle the considerable power that they do and derive no personal gain from it. That would require Saints, not normal men, and politicians are nothing if not normal or worse when it comes to their public morality.
So what is the difference between an acceptable form of personal benefit pursued by our political class and that which is not acceptable?
If the so-called corruption is beneficial to the public in whole or largest part with no direct harm to anyone, then why should we prevent it much less punish it? If a Senator puts an earmark into a bill that would have an interstate built near some property he owns but this interstate would bring commerce and jobs to several counties, then far more benefit from it than only the Senator, so why would we punish him for such a thing? Why should we punish our politicians when they do good simply because it is not wholey virtuous?
On the contrary, to proscribe such things is to give more power to a vindictive and more corrupt leadership who can then use overly tightened rules to purge from their ranks those that they consider troublesome or maybe even to eager to defend the public interest in general.
So I am wondering what others think on this topic.
What is the level of tolerable corruption? I put five broad assertions here that I think are plausible responses.
Not only
