The debate "Corruption is a very disgusting thing" was started by
November 5, 2016, 8:39 pm.
34 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
RogueAmerican posted 2 arguments, Blue_ray posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
RogueAmerican, neveralone, Radhikadhawan, Nemiroff, Blue_ray, Marvelgirl2002, TheTrueScotsman, north, stucks11, GodisGod, metheonlyme, Eruptionz, harshita, allyssa, Rajat, Ematio and 18 visitors agree.
TheExistentialist and 6 visitors disagree.
If you read my argument below, you'll have your answer...
how can somebody even disagree with that.
because i'm happy, clap along if you feel like a room without a roof......
I figured this was such a universally agreed upon topic that I'd at least try and poke at it.
History also shows us the neopatrimonialism is not necessarily the outcome of all corruption. Again, I'm not arguing for a neopatrimonialism. I'm arguing for a limited form of corruption to subvert not all protective bureaucracy just some and only in some cases. So if a company sees an opportunity to ship goods overseas for a massive profit, they may grease the wheels to get favorable trade deals and maybe some earmarked money to get to production faster than they normally would.
Companies needing to import certain raw materials may lobby congress to exempt their goods from high tariffs which could lead to more manufacturing jobs and in turn more export.
"Bribes" may also be issued by special groups. Mountain bikers, for example aren't allowed in wilderness areas due to the restriction of "mechanical advantage" for access. This was originally meant to prevent motorized access in designated wilderness areas. Mountain bikes have been shown to in a few studies to cause no more harm than foot or equestrian traffic. Lobbying congress to allow mountain bikes in wilderness areas can bypass the Forest Service and other governing bodies (wilderness areas are a bureaucratic nightmare due to the various federal agencies involved). This in turn would increase user days and encourage tourism leading to a net positive with very little draw-back.
Honestly i prefer this to anything else. I have nothing to prove of myself.
They may be done faster but to no predictable end. History dictates that corruption often ends to neopatrimonialism and discord. Not to mention the basis of corruption: disregarding public interest for selfish game wherein duty dictates servitude.
just for the hell of it, I'll play devil's advocate....please bear with me since this is not really an argument I believe in, but I think it can be interesting non the less....here it goes:
Corruption is not inherently bad. In fact, corruption can actually be beneficial. When we talk about corruption we have to talk about degrees of corruption. Obviously, a government completely owned by foreign interests or business interests is a bad thing. Complete corruption is not a likely scenario in established countries; it's a symptom of developing countries. So I'll forgo arguing for a completely corrupt government and instead will focus on limited corruption. I'll also not argue for foreign actors corrupting a government since that's also too obviously "bad".
By limited corruption I'm referring to a system which has a limited quid-pro-quo acceptance. This would be lobbyists taking certain government officials on trips, for dinners, giving them gifts, etc.... for votes, favors, or skipping some bureaucracy. Essentially I'll argue for system not unlike the US and the corruption we have in our government.
So; let's talk about some of the benefits of limited corruption:
1) you can get things done faster
- by skipping the bureaucracy of government economic opportunities can be seized, infrastructure built, and legislation passed much faster than an over-regulated system focused on weeding out corruption, fairness, procedural correctness, and transparency. This leads to a development-friendly system that offers strong actors an advantage to seize new opportunities quicker than in non-corrupt systems.
2) Corruption can be a method of allocating resources in a stressed system
- in a system with limited resources and access, corruption can be a method of rationing. If healthcare is in short supply, access to government officials, government services, etc... corruption can be a method of allocating those resources without the whole system grinding to a halt.