7 ms·

Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish.

by davidp 12y ago

deanclatworthy 12y ago
This is the argument I hear every time, and completely glosses over my last sentence. People have been trying successfully for thousands of years to stamp out corruption. It's a part of human nature. In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption. It's not about accepting the practice of corruption, it should of course be punished when proven. It's about accepting that it's human nature. You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. People have been doing these things since the dawn of our existence. I found some interesting reading around this subject [1]. > Earlier Enlightenment-era thinkers looked to society to bring structure and civilization in order to restrain naturally corrupted mankind from chaos. In 'The Confessions', as in his other works, Rousseau takes an opposing view. He asserts that man begins in a pristine, uncorrupted state at birth, and gradually becomes corrupted through the assertion of society upon the individual. The true state of nature, says Rousseau, is uncorrupted Whether you believe society corrupts the uncorrupted human mind, or that humans are born corrupted is up to you. I believe that no matter what, corruption is part of us, and part of being in a society. [1] http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Identity_and_the_Origin_of_Human_Corruption http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Iden...
- mootothemax 12y ago
  You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. FYI, crime rates including murder and robbery have been falling sharply for the last 20 years: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-s...
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    But those things will never go totally away is his point.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- roel_v 12y ago
  Sorry to be that guy, but your argument is totally flawed because it's such a blatant example of the black/white fallacy. The order of magnitude difference in corruption between different countries makes it obvious that it is possible to combat corruption, just as the sharp decline in all sorts of crime across pretty much the whole Western world shows that it is possible to combat other sorts of crime too.
  - deanclatworthy 12y ago
    You say it yourself. The "order of magnitude" is different. It's still present everywhere and always will be. Even places like Iceland, one of the least corrupt societies in the word has corruption: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iceland http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iceland Show me a single case of any society having never had corruption.
    - Retra 12y ago
      What you are arguing is either wrong or tautological. What is the relevance of the fact that nobody can get rid of all corruption? How do you even know it's a fact, except by some appeal to history? You might as well be arguing that humans can't possibly fly because up until 1903 nobody had. "The Write brothers will surely fail! Show me a single case of anybody having ever flown." Corruption is an extremely difficult problem to combat. But what reason do you have to say that it can't be solved? Maybe you should produce an example of some corruption for which there can be no possible manner of correcting. The ease and at which you've adopted this attitude of cynicism and helplessness is not making the world a better place, nor does it provide an example of good decision-making or maturity. It's classic FUD.
      - mahranch 12y ago
        > How do you even know it's a fact, except by some appeal to history? Does nature create perfect humans? If your answer is anything but yes, then it's a fact that corruption is a part of nature, much like thunderstorms or a sun rise. > But what reason do you have to say that it can't be solved? Because it's inherent to our nature. Can you stop people from loving one another? Do you think that's possible? If your answer is anything but "Yes", then you have your answer on corruption. It's exactly the same thing. Trying to eliminate something that humans have been doing since our existence isn't something that can be solved with naive optimism. The answer isn't to eliminate, but to mitigate and minimize its effects. It's very similar to the war on drugs. You're never going to stop people from doing drugs, so you work to minimize their usage - legalize it and regulate it so you can minimize the damage.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption. The person who is offered the gift says "thank you, that is very kind, but I am unable to accept gifts." You then have a register of gifts. Anyone who is offerdd a gift notes that in the register.
  - SixSigma 12y ago
    Locks are for keeping honest people out.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      And for increasing the expected cost for dishonest people to get in -- in the case of literal locks, by increasing the time and effort required to get in and the probability of being detected in the process (the variation in the quality and expense of locks is all about this second function, not about the function of keeping honest people out.) Similarly with anti-corruption regimes -- they not only keep honest people from engaging in prohibited practices, but also generally include features designed to detect and punish defectors. While these obviously aren't 100% reliable, they are intended to increase the expected cost of defection.
  - deanclatworthy 12y ago
    But what about those corrupt people that want to accept the gifts? And who is going to enforce this policing of the gift registrar?
    - lmm 12y ago
      It makes it very easy to charge them for accepting the gifts once we find out.
baddox 12y ago
Recognition of the existence of a thing is not equivalent to approval of the thing.
mootothemax 12y ago
Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish. Here's a page that lists the different levels of access you get for donating to the UK's ruling political party: https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx There are so many ways to give influence via political donations, and the problem is just as you wrote: nobody gives a damn!. I don't know how to solve the problem, any realistic chance of cleaning up politics seems to be an impossible task.
mahranch 12y ago
> Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish. Humans are inherently corrupt. You're never going to have a morally perfect society. It just can't happen. It's like asking the sun not to rise in the morning. Nature is not perfect so humans can't be perfect either. Flaws will appear. Believing that corruption can be stomped out is as naive as believing in Santa Claus. Once you accept corruption, you can work to minimize and mitigate its effects. Which is the goal since you can never, ever eliminate it.

Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish.

by davidp 12y ago

Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish.

This is the argument I hear every time, and completely glosses over my last sentence. People have been trying successfully for thousands of years to stamp out corruption. It's a part of human nature. In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption. It's not about accepting the practice of corruption, it should of course be punished when proven. It's about accepting that it's human nature. You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. People have been doing these things since the dawn of our existence. I found some interesting reading around this subject [1]. > Earlier Enlightenment-era thinkers looked to society to bring structure and civilization in order to restrain naturally corrupted mankind from chaos. In 'The Confessions', as in his other works, Rousseau takes an opposing view. He asserts that man begins in a pristine, uncorrupted state at birth, and gradually becomes corrupted through the assertion of society upon the individual. The true state of nature, says Rousseau, is uncorrupted Whether you believe society corrupts the uncorrupted human mind, or that humans are born corrupted is up to you. I believe that no matter what, corruption is part of us, and part of being in a society. [1] http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Identity_and_the_Origin_of_Human_Corruption http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Iden...

mootothemax 12y ago
You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. FYI, crime rates including murder and robbery have been falling sharply for the last 20 years: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-s...
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  But those things will never go totally away is his point.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
roel_v 12y ago
Sorry to be that guy, but your argument is totally flawed because it's such a blatant example of the black/white fallacy. The order of magnitude difference in corruption between different countries makes it obvious that it is possible to combat corruption, just as the sharp decline in all sorts of crime across pretty much the whole Western world shows that it is possible to combat other sorts of crime too.
- deanclatworthy 12y ago
  You say it yourself. The "order of magnitude" is different. It's still present everywhere and always will be. Even places like Iceland, one of the least corrupt societies in the word has corruption: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iceland http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iceland Show me a single case of any society having never had corruption.
  - Retra 12y ago
    What you are arguing is either wrong or tautological. What is the relevance of the fact that nobody can get rid of all corruption? How do you even know it's a fact, except by some appeal to history? You might as well be arguing that humans can't possibly fly because up until 1903 nobody had. "The Write brothers will surely fail! Show me a single case of anybody having ever flown." Corruption is an extremely difficult problem to combat. But what reason do you have to say that it can't be solved? Maybe you should produce an example of some corruption for which there can be no possible manner of correcting. The ease and at which you've adopted this attitude of cynicism and helplessness is not making the world a better place, nor does it provide an example of good decision-making or maturity. It's classic FUD.
    - mahranch 12y ago
      > How do you even know it's a fact, except by some appeal to history? Does nature create perfect humans? If your answer is anything but yes, then it's a fact that corruption is a part of nature, much like thunderstorms or a sun rise. > But what reason do you have to say that it can't be solved? Because it's inherent to our nature. Can you stop people from loving one another? Do you think that's possible? If your answer is anything but "Yes", then you have your answer on corruption. It's exactly the same thing. Trying to eliminate something that humans have been doing since our existence isn't something that can be solved with naive optimism. The answer isn't to eliminate, but to mitigate and minimize its effects. It's very similar to the war on drugs. You're never going to stop people from doing drugs, so you work to minimize their usage - legalize it and regulate it so you can minimize the damage.
DanBC 12y ago
> In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption. The person who is offered the gift says "thank you, that is very kind, but I am unable to accept gifts." You then have a register of gifts. Anyone who is offerdd a gift notes that in the register.
- SixSigma 12y ago
  Locks are for keeping honest people out.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    And for increasing the expected cost for dishonest people to get in -- in the case of literal locks, by increasing the time and effort required to get in and the probability of being detected in the process (the variation in the quality and expense of locks is all about this second function, not about the function of keeping honest people out.) Similarly with anti-corruption regimes -- they not only keep honest people from engaging in prohibited practices, but also generally include features designed to detect and punish defectors. While these obviously aren't 100% reliable, they are intended to increase the expected cost of defection.
- deanclatworthy 12y ago
  But what about those corrupt people that want to accept the gifts? And who is going to enforce this policing of the gift registrar?
  - lmm 12y ago
    It makes it very easy to charge them for accepting the gifts once we find out.

baddox 12y ago

Recognition of the existence of a thing is not equivalent to approval of the thing.

mootothemax 12y ago

Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish. Here's a page that lists the different levels of access you get for donating to the UK's ruling political party: https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx There are so many ways to give influence via political donations, and the problem is just as you wrote: nobody gives a damn!. I don't know how to solve the problem, any realistic chance of cleaning up politics seems to be an impossible task.

mahranch 12y ago

> Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish. Humans are inherently corrupt. You're never going to have a morally perfect society. It just can't happen. It's like asking the sun not to rise in the morning. Nature is not perfect so humans can't be perfect either. Flaws will appear. Believing that corruption can be stomped out is as naive as believing in Santa Claus. Once you accept corruption, you can work to minimize and mitigate its effects. Which is the goal since you can never, ever eliminate it.