Corruption

[kidd]

We are know that rampant corruption is bad for the country and government. There's no buts about it. But, just want to ponder about the following.

Is there any government in the world that has no corruption at all?

Is it important that there's absolutely no corruption in a government or a little bit of corruption is ok?

Should the eradication of be the number 1 priority of a government or other things like improving the livelihood of the citizens?

[Snafu3721]

I am not sure if you ever played the game Tropico.

If you believe the engine is a fair portrayal of real life, then you'll see why corruption is definitely "needed"

Much like the original Marxist idea of communism, a world w/o corruption can't possibly exist in our chaotic world full of entropy (and physics has proven nothing ever escapes entropy). It takes more effort to be orderly than corrupt. Hence, we're theoretically always in a cycle of disorder-- and in the human societal condition, that is known as corruption.

[wkeej]

Government is made up of people. So, there is a chance for corruption. Since it is impossible to prevent it, we should reduce it. For those who are caught, give them heavy jail sentences as a pre-emptive measure.

[Snafu3721]

I semi-disagree with that

But let me caveat what I say next with this statement-- What I say now is not a reflection of what I may personally condemn or condone, but it's my logical and intellectual opinion.

I don't think we should always try to reduce corruption or hand out heavy punishment for those that are. In running a government or any society, sometimes we must overlook ideals. If a corrupt official likes to squander money on illegal (according to his country's laws) gambling, drugs, and debauchery but runs his government extremely efficiently and has provided the highest social prosperity in history... then why punish him? Just because we want to set an example of what is supposed to be morally correct? But what if there is no one else who can run the country like this leader can?

There are also 3rd world countries where the system probably wouldn't even work without corruption. We can't use higher living standards to impose moral ideas onto people who are in a different socio-economic development phase.

In these matters, I believe the ends justify the means.

[Banh Mi]

Wonder how effective the old Spartan warrior society is. Every man is a soldier and goes through the same training as every other man before he can become a politician when he's past his fighting prime.

[Snafu3721]

Don't know what kind of impact that would have on corruption. But I'm sure it probably still exists in ancient Sparta

[Banh Mi]

Yeah, just hard to imagine. When every one lead a basic austere life without luxery and had the crap beaten out of them since a young age. What would a corrupt official do? There's almost nothing really to spend on, Spartan currency is made of heavy iron that discourages people from accumulating wealth. Food is not made to taste good, there are no entertainers. There's almost no temptation.

[Snafu3721]

Very true...

Perhaps it's a system that best discourages corruption by truly trying to create a fully integrated society. Should anyone behave in a corrupt manner, there isn't much to gain.

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.

[Trien Chieu]

I don't think we should always try to reduce corruption or hand out heavy punishment for those that are. In running a government or any society, sometimes we must overlook ideals. If a corrupt official likes to squander money on illegal (according to his country's laws) gambling, drugs, and debauchery but runs his government extremely efficiently and has provided the highest social prosperity in history... then why punish him? Just because we want to set an example of what is supposed to be morally correct? But what if there is no one else who can run the country like this leader can?

This is the most stupidest thing I ever heard of. Great officials deserve reasonable high salary (few hundred thousand dollars a year) and benefit and should be praised for their good works, nothing more. If they squander money on illegal gambling, drugs, and debauchery then they deserve harsh harsh punishment just like average citizens who commit the same crime regardless of how efficient they run the government.

[kidd]

Yeah, just hard to imagine. When every one lead a basic austere life without luxery and had the crap beaten out of them since a young age. What would a corrupt official do? There's almost nothing really to spend on, Spartan currency is made of heavy iron that discourages people from accumulating wealth. Food is not made to taste good, there are no entertainers. There's almost no temptation.

Will people in this kind of society has the motivation to succeed? Will such society progress? I wonder.

[Snafu3721]

This is the most stupidest thing I ever heard of. Great officials deserve reasonable high salary (few hundred thousand dollars a year) and benefit and should be praised for their good works, nothing more. If they squander money on illegal gambling, drugs, and debauchery then they deserve harsh harsh punishment just like average citizens who commit the same crime regardless of how efficient they run the government.

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.

[Snafu3721]

Will people in this kind of society has the motivation to succeed? Will such society progress? I wonder.

That's the same question I am wondering...

[Banh Mi]

Will people in this kind of society has the motivation to succeed? Will such society progress? I wonder.

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.

[kidd]

Wonder how effective the old Spartan warrior society is. Every man is a soldier and goes through the same training as every other man before he can become a politician when he's past his fighting prime.

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.

Succeed and progress in what? What is really worth striving for and who determines that?

The progress I'm referring to is all round progress. Art and science and other knowledge. Technological advances.

[Banh Mi]

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.

What wealth did they take? Or luxeries did they enjoy? As far as I understand, the fought and conquered so much to not be overshadowed by their neighbours. They never did anything as extravagant as Alexander, Genghis Khan or the Roman Empire. Or boast about any riches they plundered. They faired about as well as a small city could in Greece. They fought off the Persians, they were the only city that resisted the bullying of Alexander. And eventually they fell like every other ancient society. But considering all that, they did pretty well. I don't think they did any worse than any other city, never really being conquered during their prime years.

The progress I'm referring to is all round progress. Art and science and other knowledge. Technological advances.

And why is that worth striving for? Are people with technology art, science and knowledge anymore superior or happy to people without?

[kidd]

What wealth did they take? Or luxeries did they enjoy? As far as I understand, the fought and conquered so much to not be overshadowed by their neighbours. They never did anything as extravagant as Alexander, Genghis Khan or the Roman Empire. Or boast about any riches they plundered. They faired about as well as a small city could in Greece. They fought off the Persians, they were the only city that resisted the bullying of Alexander. And eventually they fell like every other ancient society. But considering all that, they did pretty well. I don't think they did any worse than any other city, never really being conquered during their prime years.

Well, that's what historians said. One of the reason they fell was because of corruption when they were exposed to the many luxuries and wealth that other countries they conquered has. You can check up their history in the net.

[Banh Mi]

Sounds like you're talking about the Macedonians than the Spartans.

[kidd]

And why is that worth striving for? Are people with technology art, science and knowledge anymore superior or happy to people without?

Why is it not worth striving for? It's the advancement in this area that build civilization. All these luxuries you currently enjoyed (computers, cars, advance medical care etc) are because of technological advancement.

Are people with technology art, science and knowledge anymore superior or happy to people without?

The dignified Spartans sure thought so since they succumbed to the products of technology art, science and knowledge when they were exposed of it.

Art, science, technology and knowledge advance a society. Indus, Chinese, Egypt, Mesopotamia civilization grew because of technological advances.

On happiness. No, people with technology art, science and knowledge is not more superior and happy than those without, because happiness is very subjective and up to the individual.

[kidd]

Sounds like you're talking about the Macedonians than the Spartans.

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.

[Banh Mi]

The dignified Spartans sure thought so since they succumbed to the products of technology art, science and knowledge when they were exposed of it.

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?

Art, science, technology and knowledge advance a society. Indus, Chinese, Egypt, Mesopotamia civilization grew because of technological advances.
Why is it not worth striving for? It's the advancement in this area that build civilization. All these luxuries you currently enjoyed (computers, cars, advance medical care etc) are because of technological advancement.

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?
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?