Corruption

[kidd]

I'm not saying it's not worth striving for. I'm asking why is it any more worthwhile than producing strong people who are content with a simple hard working life. But the bottom, so what if it advances society, how is it superior? By what measure do you judge it with?

So, why is producing people who are content with a simple hard working life more worthwhile and superior than producing a society with science and technology? By what measure do you judge it with?

Please don't say you never say Spartan society is more superior. You think it's the best.

Lets say for example I think the best society is one that produces strong able warriors who don't need much to get by and applauds honour, doesn't indulge in extravagance. Therefore I think Spartan society is the best there is.
But someone else thinks that a society that has cars electricty and internet is the best there is. So they think Western Society is the best there is.
Is there anyone that's right? Why can't a society live without art science and luxery?

If there's no right and wrong and everyone has their own opinion and everyone is right, why do you keep grilling me on my value and opinion?

You ask me what's worth striving for. I replied with all round progress with art, science and technological advances. Never once did I say warrior grooming is not good. I just prefer all rounder. But, that's not good enough for you. You continue to question my preference on technological advances and knowledge. So, I give you example of why I think technological advances is worthwhile. But, no, it's still not good enough for you. You have to keep grilling me on it. What the hell is that? Have I grilled you on why you think Sparta society is superior (please don't say you don't think so. You think it's the best).

You think Sparta is the best doesn't mean everyone has to. I don't think Sparta is the best and I gave my reasons. Why can't you just accept that instead of going 'who is to judge?' when the one who is doing the most judging is you?

What is really worth striving for and who determines that?

I determines that, you determine that.
You determine that honor, dignity, being a warrior is worth striving for. So, you think Sparta is the best.
I determines that knowledge is all fields i.e. art, science, technology is worth striving for. So, to me, Sparta is not the best. But, you seem not to be able to accept that I think Sparta is not the best.

[Banh Mi]

So, why is producing people who are content with a simple hard working life more worthwhile and superior than producing a society with science and technology? By what measure do you judge it with?

Please don't say you never say Spartan society is more superior. You think it's the best.

I think it's a good way to live, but not better or worse than any other way. What I said before was an example.

If there's no right and wrong and everyone has their own opinion and everyone is right, why do you keep grilling me on my value and opinion?

You ask me what's worth striving for. I replied with all round progress with art, science and technological advances. Never once did I say warrior grooming is not good. I just prefer all rounder. But, that's not good enough for you. You continue to question my preference on technological advances and knowledge. So, I give you example of why I think technological advances is worthwhile. But, no, it's still not good enough for you. You have to keep grilling me on it. What the hell is that? Have I grilled you on why you think Sparta society is superior (please don't say you don't think so. You think it's the best).

You didn't say you believe art science and progress was worth striving for. You answered my question with another question. That's why I asked you to clarify. You didn't say, 'I think art science and progress is a good thing to strive for'.
Instead, it appeared to me that your argument was Spartan society was not successful because they didn't have art science and progress. So I'm asking why must society to have all that to be successful. Weren't they successful enough already.

You think Sparta is the best doesn't mean everyone has to. I don't think Sparta is the best and I gave my reasons. Why can't you just accept that instead of going 'who is to judge?' when the one who is doing the most judging is you?


I determines that, you determine that.
You determine that honor, dignity, being a warrior is worth striving for. So, you think Sparta is the best.
I determines that knowledge is all fields i.e. art, science, technology is worth striving for. So, to me, Sparta is not the best. But, you seem not to be able to accept that I think Sparta is not the best.

Because you answered my questions with another question instead of clarifying anything. And you speak in absolutes. So I'm asking isn't it all relative. And you get crazy defensive and indignant.

[kidd]

You didn't say you believe art science and progress was worth striving for. You answered my question with another question. That's why I asked you to clarify. You didn't say, 'I think art science and progress is a good thing to strive for'.
Instead, it appeared to me that your argument was Spartan society was not successful because they didn't have art science and progress. So I'm asking why must society to have all that to be successful. Weren't they successful enough already.

When I made that statement/question about success/progress/temptation, what I mean was, without such temptation, will people gain knowledge, invent new things to make their life better?

So, you ask what is worth thriving for? So, I answered art, science, technology, which built civilisation. But, that's not good enough. You keep grilling me.

Because you answered my questions with another question instead of clarifying anything.

I already clarified, only you didn't accept.

And you speak in absolutes. So I'm asking isn't it all relative.

I gave my opinion on what I view as worthwhile.

[kidd]

And you get crazy defensive and indignant.

Sorry about that. I admit that I was defensive and indignant in my latest post because I don't like being grilled and you kept on grilling me after I have already given my answers.

I should have just taken your questions as rhetorical questions.

[Banh Mi]

They were sincere questions. I think it's just miscommunication.

[kidd]

They were sincere questions. I think it's just miscommunication.

Yeah. . I'll reread your comments later and answer according to topic.

[Trien Chieu]

That's assuming an IDEAL society Trien Chieu.

Yes, a truly "Great" official should have good salary and be praised only for their good works. But that's not the reason many get into politics now is it? And not every official gets paid well enough.

And I'd like to ask, how much experience do you have dealing with officials or anything poli sci related in various countries? Have you seen how things are really done in parts of China? Vietnam? Indonesia? Hong Kong? Do you know how the movie industry works in asia? Or how raw materials such as copper/coal/iron ore works out here?

Believe me, be glad that corruption doesn't always mean it's worse off for the general people. It's an innate social human condition. In a large enough group, there will always be some that succumb to greed. Be thankful when that greedy bastard is actually intelligent and ambitious enough to provide benefits to the society he/she is running while skimming a bit of the top.

_____________________________________________

Another simpler example might make my point--

I am a CEO of my company. I make 100 million dollars profit margin every year but I like to expense some of my personal spending (let's say 3 million a year) onto my company's account (such as an affair with a mistress, or my personal trip to Vegas). But the next most capable and moral employee in the company will only generate 50 million dollars every year. Should they kick me out because I'm corrupt? I am actually making every employee in my company wealthier, I am paying more overhead for my company, and I make more for the stock holders.

Do you know why the standard of living and quality of life in countries like China, VietNam and Indonesia is not, perhaps never will be, as good as countries in the west?? It's not because of their citizens aren't as intelligent nor working as hard, it's because of their corrupted system. Corruption had caused many many powerful dynasty collapsed. The leaders of the country/corporations should set as a good example for the rest to follow. If he/she violate the rules then he/she should be punish accordingly. Snafu3721, I would rather have a slightly less capable but moral leader to run the country than a more capable but corrupted leader to run a country. A less capable but moral leader may not advance the country as fast but the country would be more stable under him/her than the more talented but corrupted one.

[kidd]

Snafu3721, I would rather have a slightly less capable but moral leader to run the country than a more capable but corrupted leader to run a country. A less capable but moral leader may not advance the country as fast but the country would be more stable under him/her than the more talented but corrupted one.

That might not be necessary true. A leader can be moral, but, still make the wrong decisions that is detrimental to the well being of the country.

[kidd]

That said, it was a small society. Maybe corruption breeds itself on larger more prosperous populations, which would be much more tempting for human greed.

I wonder what was the corruption level of China during Chairman Mao's rule when China was really a communist country and not communist by name only.

When I read about the Spartan society, it reminded me of communist China where government rule the life of it's citizen strictly and no one was allowed to be rich.

[Snafu3721]

Do you know why the standard of living and quality of life in countries like China, VietNam and Indonesia is not, perhaps never will be, as good as countries in the west?? It's not because of their citizens aren't as intelligent nor working as hard, it's because of their corrupted system. Corruption had caused many many powerful dynasty collapsed. The leaders of the country/corporations should set as a good example for the rest to follow. If he/she violate the rules then he/she should be punish accordingly. Snafu3721, I would rather have a slightly less capable but moral leader to run the country than a more capable but corrupted leader to run a country. A less capable but moral leader may not advance the country as fast but the country would be more stable under him/her than the more talented but corrupted one.

I have included HK in my example btw, which has a Western standard of living. I should also include Korea in there as well. And if you truly believe there is no corruption going on in the Western societies, I don't know what to say.

And you know why these countries don't have the same living standard? It's not completely due to corruption. There are a lot of reasons why a country remains "undeveloped". You really think having a moral leader (who may be less capable) would change 3rd world countries into Westernized nations?


You apparently want a less capable leader who is more moral, I don't have to agree. But you shouldn't go around saying other people's opinions are stupid.

[Snafu3721]

I wonder what was the corruption level of China during Chairman Mao's rule when China was really a communist country and not communist by name only.

When I read about the Spartan society, it reminded me of communist China where government rule the life of it's citizen strictly and no one was allowed to be rich.

I don't think Mao ever wanted a true Marxist communism. He actually wanted to get in power by appealing to the preoletariat bysaying he was "for the eqaulity of all". Since some of the KMT at the time were basically raping and pilaging the poor, Mao naturally got the support of the commoners. Then after Mao got in power, we all know about the great purge...It seems to be a Chinese phenomenon where someone comes into power, then declares themselves "supreme ruler" and then kills a bunch of people he feels would be a threat (Zhu Yuan Whang is a great example)

If I remember correctly, it was either Mao himself or another significant figure who said to Russia "do not confuse our communism with yours"
And many historians used to say that China's communism is to Russia's like margerine is to butter

[JamesG]

Do any of you regard being a chronic liar to be a form of corruption or just a character flaw? I've noted that many politicians can speak an outright lie on national TV without batting an eye.

[Banh Mi]

I think being corrupt is just abusing the power you've been given and using your position to your own benefit at the detriment of the system. So I view lying separately. Dishonesty is just abusing the trust people give you, which is inherent in everyone, not just people of power.

[JamesG]

Maybe the real problem is the electorate being too lazy, uninvolved or unwilling to hold their elected officials to a higher standard than the average person. We get what we deserve.

[Ken Cheng]

That might not be necessary true. A leader can be moral, but, still make the wrong decisions that is detrimental to the well being of the country.

Jimmy Carter was probably one of the most ethical men to ever serve as President of the U.S. Personally, I would trust President Carter with almost anything. Nonetheless, his presidential administration was not successful and sadly, that was partially the result of his being *too* good and ethical a man.

[Trien Chieu]

It is effective as long as they are not exposed to outside glitter. The fall of Sparta was because of their very strict citizenship rule (which decreased their number very much) and corruption. The more they conquered, the more they were exposed to outside luxuries and wealth and they began to covert it.

No, I'm talking about the Spartans. The topic I read was about the decline and fall of Sparta and corruption was one of the cause. The Spartans were also human. They were not incorruptible.

But, I guess the Spartan system was affective in curbing corruption since the Spartans only became corrupt when they were exposed to outside luxury. So, if the government kept a close door policy and kept the society small, corruption will be minimum.

To be fair, the Spartans were not the only one that were exposed to all the luxuries and became corrupted. For example, Ancient China was also exposed to all the outside luxuries just as much as the Spartans was and I don't think it was any less corrupted than the Spartans at any particular time.

[Trien Chieu]

Succeed and progress in what? What is really worth striving for and who determines that?
They had the motivation to become strong able warriors that could defend their people and home. Is there an absolute definition of success? Even now people still admire Spartan society and it's warriors. But fame is probably no better a definition of success than anything else.
It was a unique society that produced unique results. It's cliche to refer to the battle of Thermopylae, but it still stands a good example. All the 300 Spartan hoplites were willing to hold the line knowing they were going to die. Soldiers sent to bring message home of defeate refused to leave the field. Instead they sent all the other Greek soldiers home. How many kings are willing to send soldiers home while he himself stays to die?
It produced dignified people. I'm sure I'm romanticising alot. But I don't see any other society come close. I wouldn't be worthy to be a Spartan citizen, but if I could, I would be proud to be one.

I think it's totally depending on your family status. People would prefer such system if their family is belong the the low/slave/ghetto class. On the other hand, if your family is all powerful, then I think most people prefer ancient China/Vietnam/ect system where family connection can help you immensely.

[Trien Chieu]

That might not be necessary true. A leader can be moral, but, still make the wrong decisions that is detrimental to the well being of the country.

I agree that leaders with ethic can make wrong decision but I still prefer them over the corrupted ones.

Jimmy Carter was probably one of the most ethical men to ever serve as President of the U.S. Personally, I would trust President Carter with almost anything. Nonetheless, his presidential administration was not successful and sadly, that was partially the result of his being *too* good and ethical a man.

Yeah, I would still rather support leaders like Jimmy Carter over someone who is more capable like Bo Xilai.

[pannonian]

Can you provide some examples? Spartans are notorious for their austere and simple lifestyle. Their law forbids anyone from building a house using anything more than a saw and an axe to discourage excess. Every profession was outlawed except being a soldier. How exactly do they incorporate wealth and luxery?

The Spartan system revolved around a warrior class called the peers, who had formed the ruling class. Entry into the peers required physical accomplishment, moral accomplishment (although their sense of morals differed from ours), and the payment of dues, effectively a membership fee. If you were once expelled from the peers for whatever reason, you could never rejoin. The peers dedicated their entire lives to training for war, sometimes with outsiders, but mostly with the helot (slave) class.

The Spartans fought the Peloponnesian war with Athens over ideological differences and encroaching spheres of influence. The two sides were fairly well balanced in their different ways, so Persia took the opportunity to fund first one side and then another, to keep both sides fighting or to achieve gains. As Athens tended to be expansionist, this meant a larger share of Persian funding for Sparta, furthered by a personal friendship between the Spartan leader Lysander and the Persian prince Kyros the Younger. The richly funded Spartans overwhelmed the Athenians. Meanwhile, the influx of wealth into Spartan society and a greater appreciation of what wealth could buy led to the process of the rich becoming richer and more exclusive, as wealth gravitated to a few at the top. With fewer peers able to pay their dues, the warrior class declined in numbers, to the point where a single battle with heavy losses of peers could cripple Spartan society.

That battle came at Leuctra, where the Spartans were beaten by Thebes with the loss of 400 peers and one of their kings. 400 seems a trifling number, but by that time that represented a large proportion of all peers in Sparta, possibly between half and a third, a far cry from past times when they could field thousands of peers in a single battle. With the Theban army standing guard until they could build strong enough walls, the helots were freed and founded a rival city to Sparta, and the Spartans were never able again to dedicate their lives to war, sustained by their helots.

[Dirt]

Corruption brought down the KMT. Corruption will bring down the CPC.