6 ms·

Why do we still ignore it? 1. Mass media is owned by wealthy people, who do not want other people to question how they amassed that wealth, so corruption is no

Why do we still ignore it? 1. Mass media is owned by wealthy people, who do not want other people to question how they amassed that wealth, so corruption is not a widely discuted problem. As long as it doesn't touch everyone personally, it will stay this way. 2. Changing it requires organising. That "organising" is typically called government. It's pretty hard to install a whole new government. Reinstalling government in too slow manner will just reinfect newly elected officials with corruption and won't rid of the disease. 3. After changing government, there are still many wealthy people who will try to corrupt new government. Preventing that requires whole new system of governance, but it is not invented yet. 4. Hard to find THE perpetrators. Too many officials and too many corrupters, which do not make big universally regarded as bad moves. They corrupt little-by-little aka boiling the frog. Many wealthy people and officials are not actually corrupted, we just don't know which are.

lasereyes136 5y ago
I would add that for many people that try to change the Government from within end up becoming what they start out fighting against just to be in the process.
- yetihehe 5y ago
  Exactly. That's how point 2 works (exchanging too slow).
  - mantas 5y ago
    Even if you install 100% new government, it's likely that some of the new people will arrive to same old conclusions sooner or later. Corruption is just too natural consequence of someone managing resources without being directly affected by outcomes.
    - yetihehe 5y ago
      Yeah, that's why I wrote several points. They are ALL working at once which results in hard to beat corruption. Fixing just one point will not help.
      - recursivedoubts 5y ago
        They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good. But the man that is will shadow The man that pretends to be.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Transparency, and hence able to checked by others, is the only solution I can see.
- recursivedoubts 5y ago
  Here is what happens: people with appetites (easily blackmail-able) are promoted from early on and given access to resources like campaign funds and seats at the table. Morally strong people are shunned and elbowed out, or seduced. Then it becomes a game of "Well, play ball and keep getting the gravy, or don't and we show and tell." This is why we have the Denny Hasterts of the world: empty-suit nobodies who come out of nowhere to become speaker of the house, then are disappeared in a puff of hushed-up scandal when they are no longer useful or can't keep a lid on their appetites. It's ridiculous that this isn't discussed in the education system. Even if it isn't intentional (it is) at some level stupidity becomes indistinguishable from malice.
  - lukebuehler 5y ago
    I used to hear this but not believe that people would be groomed so brazenly. Then I saw it happen before my own eye in several global organizations (not government), now I believe, as you do, that this is one of the greatest sources of corruption: the corrupt work hard to raise people behind them who are just as corrupt, if not worse, because they can be controlled.
- d_tr 5y ago
  Or they end up quitting in disappointment and disgust or not bothering to begin with.
- DennisP 5y ago
  And those who don't usually get kicked out. I used to know a couple former state senators who played key roles in getting a prominent state senator of the opposite party convicted for corruption. They immediately lost support of their own party and were voted out. One of them was badly frightened in the process and dropped out of the public eye entirely. They had a lot to say about the workings of our legislature, including that the conflict between parties was largely a sham, and that if you wanted to stay in office, you participated in the quiet deals by which they all divided up the spoils.
meragrin_ 5y ago
> Preventing that requires whole new system of governance, but it is not invented yet. The system has nothing to do with it. It is the people.
- yetihehe 5y ago
  Yeah, I call "system of governance" the entirety of rules that are enforced between people. Just people without serious system of governance are called "a mob". People are the hardware for governance, but like computer without operating system, people without governance system don't do much besides being there.
pibechorro 5y ago
The answer is to limit the concentration of power. That is the Libertarian argument, if there is no lever to pull, there wont be corruption issues with people fighting over that lever. Instead, order should arise naturally as an emergent system from the ground up, always voluntarily with mutual benefit and never under the threat of force. A small corrupt goverment is always better than a massive corrupt goverment, and all systems of control eventually corrupt.
- Kuinox 5y ago
  That's doesn't solve it. In France there is a lot of corrupted mayors, even in small villages/cities, it's hard to limit make the power less concentrated, you need accountability and making harder to be corrupted without being caught immediatly.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Limiting the opportunities for corruption is definitely important. The libertarian approach goes at it from another angle: limiting the damage that corrupt politicians can do, by limiting their authority over the rest of us. Seems to me that both approaches can work in tandem.
    - Kuinox 5y ago
      It doesn't works that's well, you often end up with bureaucracy nonsense.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  I’ve always felt that this perspective entirely ignores that government is not the only source of extant power and that “order should arise naturally as an emergent system from the ground up always voluntarily with mutual benefit” is woefully idealistic (and functionally impossible) as we are not operating from a clean slate. There are already powerful people/entities that will take immediate advantage of governmental reduction in power to increase their own without any consideration of consent and/or mutual benefit. As an idea, sure - it’s lovely; but, if enacted, I don’t see how it doesn’t lead to something akin to feudalism. I’d even go so far as to suggest that it has the feeling of an ideological strategy by the already powerful to get the average person to ‘unilaterally disarm’ their own collective power. I’d love to be proved wrong, of course.
boringg 5y ago
I think you have some valid points however you also have one massive bias running through your statement: That the route of all corruption is wealthy people. I see you have found your scape goat to the problem. Wealthy people are just people - and there are many people who are not wealthy who are incredibly corrupt and more willing to take on the corruption risk. However it's much more convenient to paint wealthy people as the problem with the system then ascribe the problem to human nature as a whole or systemic problem.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  Maybe, corruption by peasants doesn't have that much impact compared to corruption en masse via wealthy people in the place where he lives? However, I do acknowledge that corruption is not just caused by wealthy people. The place where I live people have to do corruption if they want to live average quality life because the salary is so low. With the current salary, if they work honestly, they can't even afford a house for 15 years.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    You're conflating the people who commit the corrupt acts with the people who pay for the corrupt acts. Corrupt acts typically require some sort of payment, enough payment that it's worth the risk, so it would need to be significant relative to the salary. The poorer you are, the cheaper it is to get you to do a corrupt act. The wealthier you are in comparison, the cheaper it is (relative) to get someone to do a corrupt act. But to your point, it takes two to tango, the person paying for the corruption and the person carrying out the corruption. I think the OP's point is the wealthy are the ones paying for it and asking for the deeds to be done. Having said that, there are other types of corruption like CYA coverups we see in the news from police departments and justice systems. The Breonna Taylor grand jury result comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor
  - yetihehe 5y ago
    > Maybe, corruption by peasants doesn't have that much impact compared to corruption en masse via wealthy people in the place where he lives? Exactly yes. "Peasant's" just don't have enough money to meaningfully bribe someone. > With the current salary, if they work honestly, they can't even afford a house for 15 years. Wow, that seems like a nice place to live. I built a house (started in 2019, finished this year) with credit for 30 years, but I earn about twice the average in my country. Building it was the cheaper option, it was projected to be worth 50% more after building, now it's worth twice more.
giantg2 5y ago
This comment focuses heavily on wealthy people. There is also the potential for "normal" people in that new government to be corrupted by power or the chance to make extra money. At least in my experience, the local level politicians are more likely to be corrupt. Like city planners, district attorneys, etc. Their pay is lower so they are more likely to look for ways to make extra money. Or they might be doing improper things not for money, but for ideology/power (ie they might have joined despite the lower pay to make a difference, but they think they are doing the right thing even if breaking the rules). Like magistrates ignoring the law to rule against someone, or police and the DA holding a known incorrect charge against someone. Etc Just wanted to point out that it's not all rich people, that many times it starts out as normal or poor people who want what they never had, and to never return to being poor. Although, those people may be more likely to bebecome rich since they're playing outside the system, not paying taxes, etc.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > Like city planners Where I live, the planners are widely considered to have been corrupt for decades. Planners are ordinary, medium-salary bureaucrats, dealing with hugely-valuable property and hugely-wealthy businessmen. Once the rot has set in, it seems to be really hard to remove it.
sfe22 5y ago
As long as we have automatic rulers (countries with automatically powerful government) corruption will be there. Basically corruption is profitable so that is why it happens. If we had democracy, it will go down significantly, because is is not profitable to corrupt the majority. You have to offer them more than the damage you will do to them with your actions, which is unprofitable, and maybe not corruption at that point since you made a deal with the “to be harmed” people, not their ruling minority.

lasereyes136 5y ago

I would add that for many people that try to change the Government from within end up becoming what they start out fighting against just to be in the process.

yetihehe 5y ago
Exactly. That's how point 2 works (exchanging too slow).
- mantas 5y ago
  Even if you install 100% new government, it's likely that some of the new people will arrive to same old conclusions sooner or later. Corruption is just too natural consequence of someone managing resources without being directly affected by outcomes.
  - yetihehe 5y ago
    Yeah, that's why I wrote several points. They are ALL working at once which results in hard to beat corruption. Fixing just one point will not help.
    - recursivedoubts 5y ago
      They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good. But the man that is will shadow The man that pretends to be.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Transparency, and hence able to checked by others, is the only solution I can see.
recursivedoubts 5y ago
Here is what happens: people with appetites (easily blackmail-able) are promoted from early on and given access to resources like campaign funds and seats at the table. Morally strong people are shunned and elbowed out, or seduced. Then it becomes a game of "Well, play ball and keep getting the gravy, or don't and we show and tell." This is why we have the Denny Hasterts of the world: empty-suit nobodies who come out of nowhere to become speaker of the house, then are disappeared in a puff of hushed-up scandal when they are no longer useful or can't keep a lid on their appetites. It's ridiculous that this isn't discussed in the education system. Even if it isn't intentional (it is) at some level stupidity becomes indistinguishable from malice.
- lukebuehler 5y ago
  I used to hear this but not believe that people would be groomed so brazenly. Then I saw it happen before my own eye in several global organizations (not government), now I believe, as you do, that this is one of the greatest sources of corruption: the corrupt work hard to raise people behind them who are just as corrupt, if not worse, because they can be controlled.
d_tr 5y ago
Or they end up quitting in disappointment and disgust or not bothering to begin with.
DennisP 5y ago
And those who don't usually get kicked out. I used to know a couple former state senators who played key roles in getting a prominent state senator of the opposite party convicted for corruption. They immediately lost support of their own party and were voted out. One of them was badly frightened in the process and dropped out of the public eye entirely. They had a lot to say about the workings of our legislature, including that the conflict between parties was largely a sham, and that if you wanted to stay in office, you participated in the quiet deals by which they all divided up the spoils.

meragrin_ 5y ago

> Preventing that requires whole new system of governance, but it is not invented yet. The system has nothing to do with it. It is the people.

yetihehe 5y ago
Yeah, I call "system of governance" the entirety of rules that are enforced between people. Just people without serious system of governance are called "a mob". People are the hardware for governance, but like computer without operating system, people without governance system don't do much besides being there.

pibechorro 5y ago

The answer is to limit the concentration of power. That is the Libertarian argument, if there is no lever to pull, there wont be corruption issues with people fighting over that lever. Instead, order should arise naturally as an emergent system from the ground up, always voluntarily with mutual benefit and never under the threat of force. A small corrupt goverment is always better than a massive corrupt goverment, and all systems of control eventually corrupt.

Kuinox 5y ago
That's doesn't solve it. In France there is a lot of corrupted mayors, even in small villages/cities, it's hard to limit make the power less concentrated, you need accountability and making harder to be corrupted without being caught immediatly.
- DennisP 5y ago
  Limiting the opportunities for corruption is definitely important. The libertarian approach goes at it from another angle: limiting the damage that corrupt politicians can do, by limiting their authority over the rest of us. Seems to me that both approaches can work in tandem.
  - Kuinox 5y ago
    It doesn't works that's well, you often end up with bureaucracy nonsense.
germinalphrase 5y ago
I’ve always felt that this perspective entirely ignores that government is not the only source of extant power and that “order should arise naturally as an emergent system from the ground up always voluntarily with mutual benefit” is woefully idealistic (and functionally impossible) as we are not operating from a clean slate. There are already powerful people/entities that will take immediate advantage of governmental reduction in power to increase their own without any consideration of consent and/or mutual benefit. As an idea, sure - it’s lovely; but, if enacted, I don’t see how it doesn’t lead to something akin to feudalism. I’d even go so far as to suggest that it has the feeling of an ideological strategy by the already powerful to get the average person to ‘unilaterally disarm’ their own collective power. I’d love to be proved wrong, of course.

boringg 5y ago

I think you have some valid points however you also have one massive bias running through your statement: That the route of all corruption is wealthy people. I see you have found your scape goat to the problem. Wealthy people are just people - and there are many people who are not wealthy who are incredibly corrupt and more willing to take on the corruption risk. However it's much more convenient to paint wealthy people as the problem with the system then ascribe the problem to human nature as a whole or systemic problem.

cute_boi 5y ago
Maybe, corruption by peasants doesn't have that much impact compared to corruption en masse via wealthy people in the place where he lives? However, I do acknowledge that corruption is not just caused by wealthy people. The place where I live people have to do corruption if they want to live average quality life because the salary is so low. With the current salary, if they work honestly, they can't even afford a house for 15 years.
- Clubber 5y ago
  You're conflating the people who commit the corrupt acts with the people who pay for the corrupt acts. Corrupt acts typically require some sort of payment, enough payment that it's worth the risk, so it would need to be significant relative to the salary. The poorer you are, the cheaper it is to get you to do a corrupt act. The wealthier you are in comparison, the cheaper it is (relative) to get someone to do a corrupt act. But to your point, it takes two to tango, the person paying for the corruption and the person carrying out the corruption. I think the OP's point is the wealthy are the ones paying for it and asking for the deeds to be done. Having said that, there are other types of corruption like CYA coverups we see in the news from police departments and justice systems. The Breonna Taylor grand jury result comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor
- yetihehe 5y ago
  > Maybe, corruption by peasants doesn't have that much impact compared to corruption en masse via wealthy people in the place where he lives? Exactly yes. "Peasant's" just don't have enough money to meaningfully bribe someone. > With the current salary, if they work honestly, they can't even afford a house for 15 years. Wow, that seems like a nice place to live. I built a house (started in 2019, finished this year) with credit for 30 years, but I earn about twice the average in my country. Building it was the cheaper option, it was projected to be worth 50% more after building, now it's worth twice more.

giantg2 5y ago

This comment focuses heavily on wealthy people. There is also the potential for "normal" people in that new government to be corrupted by power or the chance to make extra money. At least in my experience, the local level politicians are more likely to be corrupt. Like city planners, district attorneys, etc. Their pay is lower so they are more likely to look for ways to make extra money. Or they might be doing improper things not for money, but for ideology/power (ie they might have joined despite the lower pay to make a difference, but they think they are doing the right thing even if breaking the rules). Like magistrates ignoring the law to rule against someone, or police and the DA holding a known incorrect charge against someone. Etc Just wanted to point out that it's not all rich people, that many times it starts out as normal or poor people who want what they never had, and to never return to being poor. Although, those people may be more likely to bebecome rich since they're playing outside the system, not paying taxes, etc.

denton-scratch 5y ago
> Like city planners Where I live, the planners are widely considered to have been corrupt for decades. Planners are ordinary, medium-salary bureaucrats, dealing with hugely-valuable property and hugely-wealthy businessmen. Once the rot has set in, it seems to be really hard to remove it.

sfe22 5y ago

As long as we have automatic rulers (countries with automatically powerful government) corruption will be there. Basically corruption is profitable so that is why it happens. If we had democracy, it will go down significantly, because is is not profitable to corrupt the majority. You have to offer them more than the damage you will do to them with your actions, which is unprofitable, and maybe not corruption at that point since you made a deal with the “to be harmed” people, not their ruling minority.