Hey, guys!
So, I'd be interested in what you think about the idea that corruption is mostly a good thing, in about the same sense that sweatshops are a good thing? That is, that the corruption is not a root of the problem, but that it's a consequence of stupid and senseless laws? Corruption usually means that those laws aren't being consistently enforced. If there are many stupid and senseless laws, it's better if they are not enforced consistently than if they are enforced. Eliminating the corruption, without addressing the root of the problem (the senseless laws), is likely to make things worse, rather than better.
For example, it would probably be better if the senseless drug laws weren't enforced in the US (if it were slightly more corrupt), than if, as it is today, that 3% of its population is in prisons or in jails.
Similarly, if China were less corrupt, GitHub and English Wikipedia would get blocked there, because they don't obey China's rules, and that would cause a lot of economic damage. Now they aren't blocked because big companies need them there.
And God knows what terrible things might happen if Croatia gets less corrupt, but has the same laws. Many more people would end up in jail. Today, many people use illegal drugs, the government knows about it, but it doesn't do anything about it. If it were less corrupt, it would put those people in jail.

(December 10, 2019 at 7:03 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Hey, guys!
So, I'd be interested in what you think about the idea that corruption is mostly a good thing, in about the same sense that sweatshops are a good thing? That is, that the corruption is not a root of the problem, but that it's a consequence of stupid and senseless laws? Corruption usually means that those laws aren't being consistently enforced. If there are many stupid and senseless laws, it's better if they are not enforced consistently than if they are enforced. Eliminating the corruption, without addressing the root of the problem (the senseless laws), is likely to make things worse, rather than better.
For example, it would probably be better if the senseless drug laws weren't enforced in the US (if it were slightly more corrupt), than if, as it is today, that 3% of its population is in prisons or in jails.
Similarly, if China were less corrupt, GitHub and English Wikipedia would get blocked there, because they don't obey China's rules, and that would cause a lot of economic damage. Now they aren't blocked because big companies need them there.
And God knows what terrible things might happen if Croatia gets less corrupt, but has the same laws. Many more people would end up in jail. Today, many people use illegal drugs, the government knows about it, but it doesn't do anything about it. If it were less corrupt, it would put those people in jail.

What you're describing isn't corruption, but law breaking.  Corruption can be better thought of as 'gaming the system' for personal gain.  This always (over time) causes far more economic damage than the sort of illegal activity you describe.

Boru

At first I would agree, but thinking about the situation in Croatia or Romania, FlatAssembler may be referring to small corruption. Small corruption is what he described but without mentioning the 'tipping', a process in which you pay a police officer 10 bucks to forgive your speeding, or the public servant to rush your papers, or the ER doctor to move you up the waitting line, this kind of corruption.

Small corruption may seem harmless but it hits the poor hard, given that they don't have the financial power to partake as well as other social classes putting them into a clear disadvantage. Not related to small corruption, it is worth noting that U.S. corruption may be described as clientelism while Central and Est European corruption will be best described as a kleptocracy.

(December 10, 2019 at 7:57 am)notimportant1234 Wrote: At first I would agree, but thinking  about the situation in Croatia or Romania, FlatAssembler may be referring to small corruption. Small corruption is what he described but without mentioning the 'tipping', a process in which you pay a police officer 10 bucks to forgive your speeding, or the public servant to rush your papers, or the ER doctor to move you up the waitting line, this kind of corruption.

Small corruption may seem harmless but it hits the poor hard, given that they don't have the financial power to partake as well as other social classes putting them into a clear disadvantage. Not related to small corruption, it is worth noting that U.S. corruption may be described as clientelism while Central and Est European corruption will be best described as a kleptocracy.

But he isn't describing that.  He's talking about skirting the law or not enforcing the law.  While both of these are illegal, they aren't - in and of themselves - corrupt practices.

Suppose a cop searches a car and finds an amount of weed that is just over the legal limit. If he tells the driver, 'Don't travel with this again.  Go straight home, and try to be smarter', he hasn't enforced the law.  If he pockets the weed and says, 'Give me $100 and we'll forget about this', that's corruption.

Boru

You can find a silver lining on anything from a toothache to genocide but neither corruption nor sweatshops are “mostly a good thing”.

I think the OP is trying to hard to think outside the box. Some things need to stay in the box.

(December 10, 2019 at 8:05 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But he isn't describing that.  He's talking about skirting the law or not enforcing the law.  While both of these are illegal, they aren't - in and of themselves - corrupt practices.

Suppose a cop searches a car and finds an amount of weed that is just over the legal limit. If he tells the driver, 'Don't travel with this again.  Go straight home, and try to be smarter', he hasn't enforced the law.  If he pockets the weed and says, 'Give me $100 and we'll forget about this', that's corruption.

Boru

 
You are right, it fitted the picture so I speculated a bit.

(December 10, 2019 at 7:17 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 10, 2019 at 7:03 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Hey, guys!
So, I'd be interested in what you think about the idea that corruption is mostly a good thing, in about the same sense that sweatshops are a good thing? That is, that the corruption is not a root of the problem, but that it's a consequence of stupid and senseless laws? Corruption usually means that those laws aren't being consistently enforced. If there are many stupid and senseless laws, it's better if they are not enforced consistently than if they are enforced. Eliminating the corruption, without addressing the root of the problem (the senseless laws), is likely to make things worse, rather than better.
For example, it would probably be better if the senseless drug laws weren't enforced in the US (if it were slightly more corrupt), than if, as it is today, that 3% of its population is in prisons or in jails.
Similarly, if China were less corrupt, GitHub and English Wikipedia would get blocked there, because they don't obey China's rules, and that would cause a lot of economic damage. Now they aren't blocked because big companies need them there.
And God knows what terrible things might happen if Croatia gets less corrupt, but has the same laws. Many more people would end up in jail. Today, many people use illegal drugs, the government knows about it, but it doesn't do anything about it. If it were less corrupt, it would put those people in jail.

What you're describing isn't corruption, but law breaking.  Corruption can be better thought of as 'gaming the system' for personal gain.  This always (over time) causes far more economic damage than the sort of illegal activity you describe.

Boru

I thought "corruption" means basically whenever a government breaks its own laws.

---

(December 10, 2019 at 8:05 am)CarveTheFive Wrote: You can find a silver lining on anything from a toothache to genocide but neither corruption nor sweatshops are “mostly a good thing”.

I think the OP is trying to hard to think outside the box. Some things need to stay in the box.

What do you mean sweatshops are not a good thing? If people in those countries had better options, they wouldn't go work to sweatshops. I like what Flaubert (I think that was him) wrote: "Pulchritudo vitae in vico, ea videtur solummodo a poetis, ea non videtur a hominibus in vicis.".

I miss the days in the USA when democrats and republicans in congress got together in smoke-filled rooms to hash out cynical compromises so both could get as much of what they wanted as possible, and then vote in secret so their constituencies couldn't hold them accountable for their votes. At least they were working together and the president couldn't ruin their careers if they didn't vote the way he wanted.

(December 10, 2019 at 10:25 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I miss the days in the USA when democrats and republicans in congress got together in smoke-filled rooms to hash out cynical compromises so both could get as much of what they wanted as possible, and then vote in secret so their constituencies couldn't hold them accountable for their votes. At least they were working together and the president couldn't ruin their careers if they didn't vote the way he wanted.

I am not sure what you mean. Corruption in America has been increasing, rather than decreasing, right? I mean, that's at least my perception, as a Croatian who happens to know something about American politics.

Probably not. Just like people imagine that we're living in a more murderous time whenever a killing spree goes down - we confuse the extraordinary blip of a criminal administration for business as usual nowadays.