4 ms·

I dispute that corruption is inevitable and propose that its origins lie the violation of a foundational moral at the heart of most religions: In Christianity,

I dispute that corruption is inevitable and propose that its origins lie the violation of a foundational moral at the heart of most religions: In Christianity, this is the commandment: Thou shall not steal. In Buddhism, the precept is more explicit: Do not take that which has not been freely given. If we live in a society where the majority of people are willing to violate this rule by directing the state to steal from those who have more and redistribute to those who have less, those who are being robbed will naturally seek to find a means to defend themselves and their families from the predation of the majority. Being outnumbered, they do not have the votes to defend themselves at the polls. Naturally, they will use the resources they do have. They can bribe those who are tasked with committing the theft. This is entirely rational. No matter how many prohibitions against corruption are erected, those who are being preyed upon will seek to defend themselves and there will always be people willing to help them, especially in exchange for cash. The origin of corruption lies in the decision to violate the prohibition against theft. The violation of the prohibition against theft creates a need for bribery which would not otherwise exist. When a need is created, market forces will move to ensure the need is met. One way to create a society free of corruption is for the majority to voluntarily commit to the prohibition against theft and to enforce the prohibition against those who choose to violate it. I would further propose that this could lead to a more general replacement of zero sum games with positive sum games. This, in turn, would serve to further accelerate the rate of innovation and thus speed the rate at which all,human needs are met. When trust is strengthened, instead of seeking to meet our needs at the expense of each other, we are naturally more willing to work together to solve the larger problems which afflict us all.

yuliyp 9y ago
This theory would make sense if bribery were a practice only practiced by the rich. It is not. Even civil servants who are not being taxed disproportionately would accept bribes, and even the poor would give them (as the benefit of the bribe outweighs the cost). Unless your argument that it's the perception of being stolen from that would cause someone to be willing to engage in corruption. This feels nearly like a tautology. Everyone can find some way in which they feel victimized/punished by society (or rationalize their way into feeling such).
- alexryan 9y ago
  Fair. I was referring to how corruption most probably "originates" in a system that is theoretically free of corruption. I suspect that you are absolutely correct that the perception of victimhood is the trigger which compels individuals to feel morally justified in violating moral systems. My intuition is that once the moral foundations of an institution have been corrupted, then the corruption tends to spread like a disease until the entire system collapses. The question that interests me is: How do we build a system which is resilient to corruption?
Fnoord 9y ago
> If we live in a society where the majority of people are willing to violate this rule by directing the state to steal from those who have more and redistribute to those who have less I don't know about your ancestors, but we've lived the past millennia in societies where the regents rule over the masses in various forms. Mostly, those in power over those lacking that power, and who want to keep it that way. Money grants power. Therefore, the rich are powerful. More powerful than the poor. An example where you can see all of this in practice is Europe's colonial history. Furthermore, wealth is currently vastly unfair distributed. So what I quote from you, those tax laws you're likely referring to, don't make up for that. They don't fix that, not in the slightest; it isn't their goal either. > Being outnumbered, they do not have the votes to defend themselves at the polls. Outnumbered? Where exactly? On the contrary, right-wing Christians & liberals (European definition, not United States definition) together apparently defined as conservatives are steadily in control in the United States, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Germany. Occasionally a party like the Democrats (US), Labour (UK), PvdA (NL), or SPD (DE) get in control but they're quite on the right end of the left-wing spectrum. The only exception is the far right-wing nationalism which is on the rise. Examples are Trump (US), UKIP (UK), PVV (NL), AfD (DE). You can draw many examples for other countries & parties, such as France, Austria, Belgium, and many, many more. If you speak about absolute numbers then see my comment about unfair distribution of wealth. My explanation of corruption is far more simple: it is white collar crime. With crime in general, if people get away with being selfish (risk of getting caught), get no or low punishment when caught (lack of repercussions), and they're unhappy with their possessions & wage (equality, happiness) then it will occur more often. White collar crime, or corruption are no exception to this.
- alexryan 9y ago
  "unfair distribution of wealth"? What is wealth? If you offer me something that meets my needs, I will feel grateful and offer you something in exchange for it. You have earned that wealth. If you are really good at meeting the needs of others, then you will be better at earning wealth. There is nothing unfair about that. You do not deserve to be looted and I would defend you from the looters. It is true, that amongst the looters some are significantly more successful in their looting than others. They attain power and use that power to further their looting. There is no disputing that. I agree with you. I am simply suggesting that generalized looting is not a solution which will ever yield a corruption free system because looting itself is the problem. There is plenty of evidence from the past hundred years to support that conclusion.

yuliyp 9y ago

This theory would make sense if bribery were a practice only practiced by the rich. It is not. Even civil servants who are not being taxed disproportionately would accept bribes, and even the poor would give them (as the benefit of the bribe outweighs the cost). Unless your argument that it's the perception of being stolen from that would cause someone to be willing to engage in corruption. This feels nearly like a tautology. Everyone can find some way in which they feel victimized/punished by society (or rationalize their way into feeling such).

alexryan 9y ago
Fair. I was referring to how corruption most probably "originates" in a system that is theoretically free of corruption. I suspect that you are absolutely correct that the perception of victimhood is the trigger which compels individuals to feel morally justified in violating moral systems. My intuition is that once the moral foundations of an institution have been corrupted, then the corruption tends to spread like a disease until the entire system collapses. The question that interests me is: How do we build a system which is resilient to corruption?

Fnoord 9y ago

> If we live in a society where the majority of people are willing to violate this rule by directing the state to steal from those who have more and redistribute to those who have less I don't know about your ancestors, but we've lived the past millennia in societies where the regents rule over the masses in various forms. Mostly, those in power over those lacking that power, and who want to keep it that way. Money grants power. Therefore, the rich are powerful. More powerful than the poor. An example where you can see all of this in practice is Europe's colonial history. Furthermore, wealth is currently vastly unfair distributed. So what I quote from you, those tax laws you're likely referring to, don't make up for that. They don't fix that, not in the slightest; it isn't their goal either. > Being outnumbered, they do not have the votes to defend themselves at the polls. Outnumbered? Where exactly? On the contrary, right-wing Christians & liberals (European definition, not United States definition) together apparently defined as conservatives are steadily in control in the United States, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Germany. Occasionally a party like the Democrats (US), Labour (UK), PvdA (NL), or SPD (DE) get in control but they're quite on the right end of the left-wing spectrum. The only exception is the far right-wing nationalism which is on the rise. Examples are Trump (US), UKIP (UK), PVV (NL), AfD (DE). You can draw many examples for other countries & parties, such as France, Austria, Belgium, and many, many more. If you speak about absolute numbers then see my comment about unfair distribution of wealth. My explanation of corruption is far more simple: it is white collar crime. With crime in general, if people get away with being selfish (risk of getting caught), get no or low punishment when caught (lack of repercussions), and they're unhappy with their possessions & wage (equality, happiness) then it will occur more often. White collar crime, or corruption are no exception to this.

alexryan 9y ago
"unfair distribution of wealth"? What is wealth? If you offer me something that meets my needs, I will feel grateful and offer you something in exchange for it. You have earned that wealth. If you are really good at meeting the needs of others, then you will be better at earning wealth. There is nothing unfair about that. You do not deserve to be looted and I would defend you from the looters. It is true, that amongst the looters some are significantly more successful in their looting than others. They attain power and use that power to further their looting. There is no disputing that. I agree with you. I am simply suggesting that generalized looting is not a solution which will ever yield a corruption free system because looting itself is the problem. There is plenty of evidence from the past hundred years to support that conclusion.