By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thranx on 29 June 2013
Edit Thread
nuckles87 said:
thranx said:
Mr Khan said:

I disagree. I believe the source of abuse stems from politicians' ability to cash in and cash out. The "in" is generally illegal now (lavish gifts from lobbyists, bribes, kick-backs), but the "out" also lures in those who are less daring, and really, even those who aren't all that corrupt (namely highly paid consultant or analyst positions with their special interest of choice. The guy who used to be my congressman before his district was eliminated after the census, he moved to Florida to lobby for Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield). With the knowledge that you can live like a king off of one company's patronage for the rest of your life after you retire from politics, you're going to help them out.

My belief is that few people care about "power" in the abstract sense, especially as we've corraled politicians' abilities to really abuse power in the classical sense (compared to the frivolities of modern-day tyrants like the Kims of North Korea), and that the real temptation comes from their ability to secure financial gain.


there would be no need for lobbying if the government didnt have the power to control people like it does. the wealth that flows from politicians in the form of lobbying, or gifts, come from the power that they hold over people. no need to buy that power with gifts if it wasn't there to buy. the best way to solve this is to have a small government that doesn't over see every aspect of life or tax its citezens too much.


You're right. If the government were small and impotent, there would be no need for lobbying. Powerful corporations could just rape the land and do whatever they please like they did in the good ol' 19th century. Libertarian paradise, that.

http://studyindenmark.dk/news/denmark-once-again-worlds-least-corrupt-country

Denmark spends over 50% of its GDP on government services. It's also the least corrupt country in the world. It's got high taxes, lots of oversight of the private sector, and a huge number of social services. The government is VERY powerful there, yet no allure for corruption? Kind of pokes a massive, gaping hole in that theory of yours. The people of Denmark are also quite happy, by the way, its economy is very healthy, and even during the height of the Great Recession its unemployment was quite low (last I checked it was below 5%). Funny thing is, most of the least corrupt countries are also leftist, big government countries. I'm not sure about Singapore, though.

Now I'm not saying that big government = less corruption, as statistics don't bare that out, but it doesn't hurt either.

just because i dont want the government hand in everything does not mean there is not a place for mediation of problems between companies and people. Its very easy for a small country to keep its government in control as its a small nation. very different for the size of the US popultaion. is denmark a part of the EU? how have you guys been with dealing with the added oversight from far away places? what will happen over time as your feds (the EU) slowly take more and ore power from you guys, what than happens when they take your money to help the poor in another country in the EU, pehaps poor that really dislike you. what if they than let those in other counttries in the EU start to make tax policy for you, where your at, and enviromental policies. That is what will happen. Its already started with the EU. The best way to stop corruption is to have small local governments that deal with issues, not people over 300 miles away that have never stepped foot n your state, county, or city. Just to add, i believe denmark is feeling the first issues with imigration also, a big problem in the US is the merging of all different kinds of people, many euopean coutnries do not have that issue as they do not have open borders. Denmark and the US are not very comparable, vastly different sizes, and vastly different popultion varieties, and a massive difference in land mass.