3 ms·
Corruption is always caused by government doing more than what it should be doing. To illustrate from your examples, if a government does sanitation and therefo
by dpatru 16y ago
Corruption is always caused by government doing more than what it should be doing. To illustrate from your examples, if a government does sanitation and therefore has a cushy job for the director of sanitation, this is a breeding ground for corruption. The solution is to get the government out of the sanitation business. Let this function be carried out by privately competing sanitation companies.
Likewise, if a government seeks to prevent people from using drugs, this is a breeding ground for corruption. The solution is get government out of the drug prohibition business.
- sgift 16y agoThe bottom line of your argument seems to be: No government, no corruption. Which is more or less correct, but not really helpful: Without any government you have to pay the guy with the gun or he'll shoot you in the head (no one there to hinder him). Different? Sure. Better? I'd say no.
- dpatru 16y agoAs long as there are thieves and robbers, people will always need protection. And protection, unless you do it yourself, usually has to be paid for. Thus your statement, "you have to pay the guy with the gun" is true without the qualification of "without any government." In most ordered societies today, the man with the gun is government and if you don't pay him, he will take away your property and liberty, though usually not your life. Corruption arises when government, i.e. the man-with-the-gun-who-must-be-paid, goes beyond protecting property and, abusing its power, begins infringing on liberty. As long as the police stick to preventing robbery, forcible rape, and other assaults on liberty and property, corruption is not a problem. It is only when they begin interfering with the free market, for example, trying to prevent the exchange of pot between willing sellers and willing buyers, that corruption arises. If the government would stick to protecting liberty and property, there would be (practically) no corruption because the overwhelming majority of people support laws protecting liberty and property. The bottom line of my argument is: no abuse of government power, no corruption. This is helpful because it clarifies the legitimate role of government in practice. Corruption and widespread law breaking become symptoms of an abuse of government power. The cure is to rein in the abuse of government. Without this understanding, the natural tendency of politicians is to fight corruption by making it worse: by increasing government abuse of power, e.g., the war on drugs.
- AlexMax 16y ago"As long as the police stick to preventing robbery, forcible rape, and other assaults on liberty and property, corruption is not a problem. It is only when they begin interfering with the free market..." What happens when a company grows so rich and powerful that it can influence your supposedly small government to protect company interests with new laws that have nothing to do with protecting liberty and property?
- loewenskind 16y agoI think you're using circular logic here. I.e. your definition for "corruption" sounds like it probably has the word government in it [1]. What do you call a conspiracy among companies to stifle the market with no government intervention? [1] In which case, of course there can be no corruption without government, apparently leading you to the bizarre conclusion that no government = no corruption.
- jbarham 16y agoConsidering that Somalia is ranked the most corrupt country in the world and hasn't had a functioning government in 20 years, the complete absence of government is obviously not a cure for corruption.