[dimreepr]

imatfaal, on 20 December 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

Mine was a moral argument / definition - the movement from moral to amoral is exactly that. being corrupt/corruption is, for me, a process that entails a "movement" from one state to another, and any definition that seems to require no "movement" from the person being judged as corrupt is lacking. I think it is too easy to define corrupt merely as that with which I disagree - using that definition is a devaluation of our ability as humans to make ethical moral judgments. I can, I believe, make a choice between system A and system B; I favour one over the other through reasoning I view as ethical or moral. I can also differentiate between two entities X and Y existing within either of those two systems, X firmly believes in the principles of her system, whilst Y merely pays lip service to them. Your mentioning of Plato is apposite, as I am really looking at ideal definitions and circumstances.

I agree that power does corrupt - and absolute power even more so. power doesn't necessarily make a persons decisions morally wrong it makes the decisions less moral; it can cause the person to value personal motives and career over societal progress and community values.

For me corruption is the enrichment of oneself in the knowledge that this act will impoverish others

[imatfaal]

dimreepr, on 21 December 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

For me corruption is the enrichment of oneself in the knowledge that this act will impoverish others

Surely that's Capitalism.

Corruption must have a moral connotation - ie it is the decision to enrich oneself when one's office or position dictates that other ends should be more desirable. ie a businessman who drives a hard bargain and uses all his charm to persuade a supplier into giving him a price that is far too cheap is not corrupt - but a council official who accepts gifts and kickbacks to pay a price that is far too high is corrupt

[JustinW]

Quote

Surely that's Capitalism.

Corruption must have a moral connotation - ie it is the decision to enrich oneself when one's office or position dictates that other ends should be more desirable. ie a businessman who drives a hard bargain and uses all his charm to persuade a supplier into giving him a price that is far too cheap is not corrupt - but a council official who accepts gifts and kickbacks to pay a price that is far too high is corrupt

Your analogy seems spot on, but surely it doesn't just apply to capitalism. Communism and socialism are just as bad, so why the prejudice towards capitolism. Unless you enjoy authority dictating what you do with your own property.

[imatfaal]

JustinW, on 21 December 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Your analogy seems spot on, but surely it doesn't just apply to capitalism. Communism and socialism are just as bad, so why the prejudice towards capitolism. Unless you enjoy authority dictating what you do with your own property.

Of course it does. Capitalism when practised properly is the use of capital to secure the means of production and retain for the capitalist the surplus from the workers labour - if you pay the workers the marginal revenue of the work they produce you don't make a profit. Communism when practised properly allows workers the fruits of their labour. Socialism realises that the means of production are not in the hands of the state and that excess is being creamed off by the capitalists and addresses this by a redistribution of wealth through taxation.

In the real world people are corrupt and this means that Communism and Socialism can be easily subverted (must be subverted ?) and the best intentions go awry - Capitalism is less easily subverted as it has no founding moral principle, its founding principles are more realistic and base.

Your presumption that private property is the founding morality and inescapable is axiomatic and not provable. western neo-classical liberalism is by far the most successful system so far, but eastern versions with very different underpinnings are about to challenge it massively. it is very hard to find within history a long term debtor culture that has been successful, and the great western industrial powers are now all debtors to the "developing" economies of the east and middle east.

And yes I do prefer to pay taxes and receive the benefits that accrue within a society.

[JustinW]

Quote

Of course it does. Capitalism when practised properly is the use of capital to secure the means of production and retain for the capitalist the surplus from the workers labour - if you pay the workers the marginal revenue of the work they produce you don't make a profit.

Still doesn't explain how that corrolates with a capitalistic government. You're talking about private buisness and workers not getting a marginal pay. If the worker recieved a marginal pay the company would have a heck of a time funding it's own growth. So with any dip in the market you would see companies fail in mass. My argument on this was the relation on government corruption between the different ideologies.

Quote

Communism when practised properly allows workers the fruits of their labour.

I don't get your meaning here.

Quote

Socialism realises that the means of production are not in the hands of the state and that excess is being creamed off by the capitalists and addresses this by a redistribution of wealth through taxation.

This was the reason for my comment about private property. How much freedom are you willing to give for security? I also enjoy some of the benifits provided through taxation and believe in a taxation for certain services. But adopting a government based off of such would indeed, like you said about communism, let best intentions go awry.

Quote

Your presumption that private property is the founding morality and inescapable is axiomatic and not provable.

Maybe not provable, but it is the best model in my point of view to secure the freedom for the people that live under it. It's provides a means of making your own decisions , good or bad, that one must deal with.

Quote

western neo-classical liberalism is by far the most successful system so far

I would say that this is just as unprovable as what I said about capitalism. I would have to read a few examples and even then I believe it would be highly debatable.

Quote

it is very hard to find within history a long term debtor culture that has been successful

Successful to what end?

[Sergeant Bilko]

Justin, you seem to be hijacking this thread with a right wing bias towards some excellent answers, all of which have been explained with great lucidity. The OP is talking about corruption, and how it is caused. You seem to have taken exception to the fact that a poster has suggested that corruption is possible in capitalism (our existing system) without adding to your premise that the evil left wing (socialism and comunism) are even more susceptible.

Please take you right wing claptrap off to the politics forum where you will find plenty of George Bush wannabees who will agree with you wholeheartedly.

[JustinW]

Quote

Please take you right wing claptrap off to the politics forum where you will find plenty of George Bush wannabees who will agree with you wholeheartedly.

Please feel free to join the conversation Bilko. It has slightly turned toward corruption among different political ideologies. I may be wrong, but it seems I may have said something to make you angry...awww. How unfortunate. If others think that I have high-jacked this thread, please let me know and I'll stop, but the first line in the retort of Bilko says it all for me. Taking a crack just because my answers weren't liked.

[Sergeant Bilko]

JustinW, on 22 December 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

Please feel free to join the conversation Bilko. It has slightly turned toward corruption among different political ideologies. I may be wrong, but it seems I may have said something to make you angry...awww. How unfortunate. If others think that I have high-jacked this thread, please let me know and I'll stop, but the first line in the retort of Bilko says it all for me. Taking a crack just because my answers weren't liked.

O dear, Justin please dont mix sadness up with anger, and please excuse my forthrightness in asking you to take your postings to the correct forums. You answers were liked, by someone, somewhere. They were just off topic. In an earlier submission I made a suggestion that the definition of corruption may depend upon your moral, and may I add political viewpoint. I think that your some of your postings have indeed reinforced that view in so far as you seem to suggest that making money is more important than anything else as it is the lifeblood by which you live. A position which seems wide open to the potential for corruption in itself. That is the enrichment of the self however achieved, whatever the consequences is all that matters.

[JustinW]

Quote

O dear, Justin please dont mix sadness up with anger, and please excuse my forthrightness in asking you to take your postings to the correct forums. You answers were liked, by someone, somewhere. They were just off topic. In an earlier submission I made a suggestion that the definition of corruption may depend upon your moral, and may I add political viewpoint. I think that your some of your postings have indeed reinforced that view in so far as you seem to suggest that making money is more important than anything else as it is the lifeblood by which you live. A position which seems wide open to the potential for corruption in itself. That is the enrichment of the self however achieved, whatever the consequences is all that matters.

Bilko,
How was anything I said off topic? Have you even read the thread? The OP was about power and money making people corrupt. I believe that polititions and the ideological status of governments and markets fit in with power/money. Not to mention the fact that I wasn't the one to bring up capitalism in the first place. Maybe I don't articulate well enough sometimes to explain my views in a way that is fully understandable. I wasn't in any way trying to say that making money is more important. I was trying to say, with my right wing claptrap, is that solutions have their own consequences and all positions are open to corruption. You seem to be misleading yourself as to my opinions and ideology. I think you should go back and read the thread before you start making assumptions and telling people to get out of the forum. Now I'm off topic.

[Sergeant Bilko]

JustinW, on 22 December 2011 - 07:06 PM, said:

Bilko,
How was anything I said off topic? Have you even read the thread? The OP was about power and money making people corrupt. I believe that polititions and the ideological status of governments and markets fit in with power/money. Not to mention the fact that I wasn't the one to bring up capitalism in the first place. Maybe I don't articulate well enough sometimes to explain my views in a way that is fully understandable. I wasn't in any way trying to say that making money is more important. I was trying to say, with my right wing claptrap, is that solutions have their own consequences and all positions are open to corruption. You seem to be misleading yourself as to my opinions and ideology. I think you should go back and read the thread before you start making assumptions and telling people to get out of the forum. Now I'm off topic.

See you on the Politics forum.