Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Political Corruption

This post has 6 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 155
MedicalMencken Posted: Fri, Sep 28 2007 1:45 PM

     That politicians tend toward corruption is virtually axiomatic; given a literal monopoly on the legitimate use of force and total control and ownership of the court system, governments and the people who run them are disturbing free to invade the freedoms of their citizenries with impunity. However elevated in legal and personal privileges above the common man, no politician can escape his essential humanity. The politician, like every other man, is also susceptible to temptation, to the urge to abuse power for personal gain, and most significantly, to Lord Acton’s famous dictum: “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The incessant reports to be found in any newspaper, any day of the week, implicating a politician in some sort of scandal have long since lost their power to stun and horrify the public. It is not merely unsurprising, but indeed expected that men with so much unchecked power would constantly succumb to the urge to use it for personal benefit.  Throughout human history, every man of any sensibility has always regarded his rulers with deep suspicion, distrust, and usually contempt.
    For a recent example of why this sentiment is still justified, one only need look to the management of the war currently ongoing in Iraq.  From the very beginning, our government has intentionally, purposefully, and self-servingly deceived the American populace about virtually every aspect of the war. A common charge against our government is that it “lied us into war,” referring to the fact that the ostensive justification for war was mutated from a defensive effort to disarm Saddam to a humanitarian mission to bring democracy to Iraq. The government has spurned keeping “death counts” of the Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the occupation to keep people ignorant of the full magnitude of the instability in the country caused by our invasion. And of course, everyone remembers the government lying to the family Pat Tillman about the circumstances of his death in order to avoid any embarrassing fallout.
    And there is no indication that the government has grown either a conscience, or weary carrying out these heinous tricks against the public. Only yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was accused of concealing the level of corruption within the government of Iraq in an effort to make our new troop surge seem more successful than it has really been. What’s worse, Rice might even have tried to cover up the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians by US armed forces to further sanitize our military image. The Presna Latina reports, “Rice encouraged officers from the security firm Blackwater to cover up the murder of eleven Iraqi civilians to preserve the image of the diplomatic corps.”
    There is but a single solution to this shameful, grotesque, and criminal behavior by those who purport to be the “leaders of the free world.”  They all must be thrown out. Immediately. Furthermore, it is imperative that the United States make a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The war is already lost, and with it, our national dignity and the camaraderie of the international community.  It’s high time we stopped tolerating such manifestly absurd, criminal, and downright sleazy behavior by our country’s politicians. One of the much-touted virtues of our democratic political system is that it is supposed to hold politicians accountable to the will of the people. But if we prove unable or just unwilling to evict the loathsome, demented, and dangerous men and women that currently infest our government, then this theory must be forever discarded as false. The stakes couldn’t be higher; the freedom of every man, woman, and child hang on the result.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 633
Points 11,275
Torsten replied on Mon, Oct 1 2007 11:16 AM

MedicalMencken:
That politicians tend toward corruption is virtually axiomatic; given a literal monopoly on the legitimate use of force and total control and ownership of the court system, governments and the people who run them are disturbing free to invade the freedoms of their citizenries with impunity. However elevated in legal and personal privileges above the common man, no politician can escape his essential humanity. The politician, like every other man, is also susceptible to temptation, to the urge to abuse power for personal gain, and most significantly, to Lord Acton’s famous dictum: “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The incessant reports to be found in any newspaper, any day of the week, implicating a politician in some sort of scandal have long since lost their power to stun and horrify the public. It is not merely unsurprising, but indeed expected that men with so much unchecked power would constantly succumb to the urge to use it for personal benefit.  Throughout human history, every man of any sensibility has always regarded his rulers with deep suspicion, distrust, and usually contempt.
I wouldn't say this is limited to politicians. It certainly includes decisionmakers of any kind as well. I'm thinking here of people making purchasing or contractural decisions in the business and corporate world. That is something that I've observed in work and business situations as well. The difference is just that private and corporate sector corruption does not get the same exposure then political corruption would get. A bank or corporate enterprise is to much concerned about its public image, so that corruption inside its rank and file doesn't get exposed that often.

Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,175
Points 17,905
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
It also doesn't pay a corporation to keep corrupt elements though, does it?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 1
Points 5
Peter4 replied on Wed, Oct 3 2007 1:50 AM

MedicalMencken:
That politicians tend toward corruption is virtually axiomatic  ...  free to invade the freedoms of their citizenries with impunity.

Excellent topic, MM, because corruption is increasing in every aspect of public life.

For three years now I have been living in a country which is world-renowned for corruption: Thailand.

Observing the effects of corruption, every day, at every level of the society, has been a fascinating lesson in applied human action.

I've observed that corruption allows individuals to be very resourceful in finding ways to avoid state power.

 

Corruption has the effect of significantly crippling the state. 

Anything which hampers the power and reach of the state is a good thing. 

As a result of widespread corruption, the state here is incapable of accomplishing much. 

Likewise, it is incapable of doing much harm.

 

On first arriving here, I was somewhat worried about how I would live with the corruption.

But, after 3 years of experience, it is clear that a rather corrupt state is quite convenient for everyday life, once you understand the costs/prices of getting things done. 

 

Inquisitor:
It also doesn't pay a corporation to keep corrupt elements though, does it?
In theory, right, corruption doesn't pay to a profit-seeking company.

Ah, but what about in practice?

As a former business consultant I observed countless cases of corruption, most of it petty, but some major.

Based on that, I disagree with Inquisitor's premise.

 

I hold that corruption exists, therefore it doesn't pay to evade the fact, especially in a profit-seeking company.

A company that tries to root out all corruption will have a very difficult job of it.

The costs of trying may well be greater than the benefit of succeeding.

On the other hand, a company that accepts the fact of corruption, and finds ways to manage it, is likely to achieve a more cost-effective result in that area. 

 

-- Peter 

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 633
Points 11,275
Torsten replied on Wed, Oct 3 2007 3:38 AM

Inquisitor:
It also doesn't pay a corporation to keep corrupt elements though, does it?

Not in my opinion. It doesn't pay the government, associations and firms to have corruption inside its ranks or to deal with that kind of people. Not ion the long run at least. But then I wondered why so many corporation have people in trusted positions that are actually corrupt to the core. Perhaps it seems to pay them in the beginning. Or perhaps they got someone by the balls.

Corruption needs to be defined more clearly. But I'd say it can occur everywhere were people with weaknesses have the power to make decisions over the allocation of resources or damages.

Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,175
Points 17,905
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Peter, I don't disagree with what you've said. Trying to minimize/manage corruption is indeed far more realistic a goal than completely eliminating it. Torsten, that crossed my mind as well - when we say "corruption", what is meant specifically? It's a rather vaguely defined notion.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 633
Points 11,275
Torsten replied on Wed, Oct 3 2007 10:19 AM

Inquisitor:
that crossed my mind as well - when we say "corruption", what is meant specifically? It's a rather vaguely defined notion.
When speaking of corruption, the speed cop giving not giving a ticket, because he got a hundred Rand as a "bribe" comes to mind. Another scenario would be the official that asigns a tender, because he got a "kick back" from one of the bidders. In principle it is violating an obligation, because one received favours from another party involved. The key terms are obligation to make a decision complying with certain requirements and favours that may be of financial or anyhow pleasant nature. The obligation, can be to a state, certain laws and duties or simply to an employer.

So their must be at least two parties involved in an exchange. Usually there would be a decision maker and a party that is interested in a certain kind of decision by this decision maker. Of course this decision maker can work for the government or for a private company or for any other kind of institution. Practically corruption leads to problems, because that way service of less value gets prefered over service of higher value.

Here is the definition of "transparancy international":

How do you define corruption?
Transparency International (TI) has chosen a clear and focused definition of the term: Corruption is operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain. TI further differentiates between "according to rule" corruption and "against the rule" corruption. Facilitation payments, where a bribe is paid to receive preferential treatment for something that the bribe receiver is required to do by law, constitute the former. The latter, on the other hand, is a bribe paid to obtain services the bribe receiver is prohibited from providing.... http://www.transparency.org/news_room/faq/corruption_faq 


 

Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS