Jaime Mogollón Michilot

Economic Student,

This conversation is closed.

How we can fight the corruption in developing nations?

In most of this nation, corruption have an economic and social dimension. What we can do for decrease the corruption. Mr. Mather have an interesting solution. What do you think?

  • Alan H

    • +3
    Oct 7 2013: Why are we worrying about stopping corruption in other countries when we cannot solve the problem in our own country? Same goes for hunger, homelessness, poverty, etc. Maybe the only way to solve it is to stop focusing on other countries' problems and solve ours first.
  • thumb
    Oct 18 2013: Changing education systems, restructuring the business and economics, transparency...yada yada yada. I wouldn't classify those as 'solutions', but rather as 'tools' for decreasing high levels of corruption. After all, I think the main problem is not in the current political situation of the nations or their history, but rather the problem is the individualistic nature of human beings. Although I have to admit that the political situation and the history of the country (along with other factors) do play a big role in the 'rise' of corruption levels, but my point is that they are not the sole reason for the existence of corruption in the first place. The sole reason for the existence of corruption (as I said) is the individualistic nature of human beings.
    Did somebody ask the question: If you are working in a developing country and you have to choose between what's morally right and providing money/resources for yourself/your family...what would you do? In times of turbulence would you care more about the others than you would care for yourself? Maybe some people would...but the truth is that in any country on this planet not 100% of the people will do that.
    So yes, corruption can be decreased, but never eradicated. That's just something I feel should be mentioned in this conversation...
  • thumb
    Oct 8 2013: possible solutions:

    1) change leaders/revolution (western input into developing nations)
    2) massive influx of foreign aid & education
    3) restructuring the education, business, economics and finance sectors
    4) resettling individuals into "non-poverty stricken zones"
    5) settling a large magnitude of large investments into developing nations
    6) managing and moderating corrupt governments
  • Oct 6 2013: Corruption is everywhere from pin to ship. What I feel towards corruption is that it cannot be prevented but can be cured and minimized overtime, that also can be possible when people with strong desire against corruption comes forward and participate in system, obviously one can’t clean the dirt by talking about it.
    Education plays an important role too, teaching ethics and morale to younger generations is vital. People must be educated about the power of voting, choosing leaders with good credentials. NGOs(Non- Governmental Organizations) must come forward to educate people about voting.
    Next year we have General Elections in our country, and that certainly help us, as this time there are around 100 million new voters, who are certainly adamant against corruption, and this time people are more aware than the previous times.
  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +2
    Oct 6 2013: Transparency is one way to prevent corruption.

    Corruption grows best at dark and shady places and where the 'power of decision' is concentrated in just a view individuals.

    By eliminating the growing conditions for corruption, it will therefore decline accordingly.

    Transparency towards the public, 'power of decision' towards the public, the majority of the people. This would be a good start to fight corruption and 'direct democracy' a good choice to get it going.

    • thumb
      Oct 10 2013: Cool idea ... but how can you achieve transparency? The press as the public x-ray machines are controlled by those who benefit from corruption.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: Transparency is an ongoing process and for it to work, it needs certain conditions and criteria.
        Public media plays an important part in this process. When it is controlled, it needs to be freed again, as otherwise it doesn't work.

        Usually media is controlled by a corrupt minority to control the majority in their fashion and therefore it takes longer and is more difficult for the majority to free itself again. Yet there is good news. The old centralized structure of media is shifting. Today, many people are able to access the Internet which enables them to gain independent information and to publish their information. This decentralization is very hart to control by a corrupt minority, which is one of the reason, why some nations censor the Internet. Yet censorship only decelerates freedom, it is incapable to stop it.

        Just don't expect change to happen over night. Unite with others who have already woken or which are beginning to question their media. Share your information, reveal corruption, cast light in shady places. And more importantly, be patient and persistent.

        But if you live in a society in which the majority of the people are corrupt, you may consider to seek a better place, as the chances for change are to low for your lifetime.
        • thumb
          Oct 22 2013: I like your suggestion. However, not all people suffering acutely from the consequences of corruption have the option of moving to a different place. And if we consider that the entire world is corrupt ... how can we get to another planet?
      • thumb
        Oct 22 2013: I know, I think this becomes a question of the lesser of different evils. And I am afraid that our lifetime won't cover the option of another planet as well.
    • Oct 11 2013: I don't think transparency is much of a solution. Look at the US and its surveillance issues; yes, maybe their relationship with some countries has become strained, but nothing serious has happened as a result and they haven't been made to face any serious consequences. Another example is the Zimbabwean government, whose actions are well-known to the world at large but which has yet to be overthrown or even hindered in some way. Those are just two examples, but there are a number in recent history.

      Power of decision toward the public is also no solution. Most of the Arab countries adhere to this idea because it's actually a part of Muslim custom in a sense, yet there is continuous strife in these areas even after there have been uprisings to overthrow corrupt governments.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: Look at the direction of the US surveillance program, actually at any surveillance program serving just a view. That got nothing to do with transparency regarding corruption.

        Does your county has a surveillance program`If yes, try to ask to get the latest data run on the biometric data of the president of your nation. Or of the officer in charge of the police. How likely would it be for you to get this data? Or even for the major of your town, or for your neighbor?

        I would be surprised if this information was given to you, so where is transparency here?
        • Oct 11 2013: I'm sure my country does, but I have a very corrupt government so it wouldn't surprise me. It also wouldn't surprise me if I was told I couldn't get this data, for the same reason.

          Like you say, there is no transparency. But this isn't my point; my point is that once these things are made transparent, once rights have been violated, very little to nothing is done. That is corruption.
      • thumb

        Lejan .

        • +1
        Oct 11 2013: I think our understanding about 'transparency' is different.

        When I ask for more transparency to prevent corruption within a government, I don't ask for surveillance programs, neither for the political representatives, nor for the citizens.

        Surveillance is borne by the wish 'to control' and the wish to control is born by 'fear'. And as we all know, fear has never been a good adviser.

        When I talk about 'transparency', I mean, that the process in which decisions are made is open and its reasons explained, so that it becomes easier to identify faulty explanations and reasons.

        And I don't stop there, I go even further. Corruption only works if the people who make decisions are just a view. And there is doesn't matter if those 'view' have been elected democratically or not. The fact, that they are just view is the risk in itself. So to prevent corruption of a view efficiently, one got to increase the number of the people involved in the final decision.

        An evil minded company may have enough budget to bribe a view politicians, yet what if there were hundreds of them, thousands, even millions? Do you think there was a budged big enough to bribe a whole nation?

        For really small nations, maybe, but not for any average sized one.

        So how do we get hundreds, thousands and millions of politicians? By getting the people directly involved in any, I repeat, ANY, decision in their very own affairs. This does not exclude a representative structure, by no means, yet the representative structure alone can not make any decision. This system is called direct democracy, and would be a good start to fight corruption.
  • Oct 3 2013: Oh my! I live in Brazil where the corruption is our infection since the begin when Portugal colony .We live under a democracy but, the politicians are the major problem, are they? Incredible corruption we are living more than 500 years . I don´t know which we can do. The people are maintained by a protectionism fake ; the poor people receive some money and they believe that the politician are good for them. It´s a big problem that I can´t see solution.
    • Oct 5 2013: I don`t think the main problem is politicians or other people but the regime.You said that you are living under a democracy,but still exist severe corruption.So maybe it is not the problem of the country`s system? My answer is no.Good systems make evildoer dare not do evil,while bad systems force the good to do evil.As far as i know Brazil is far from being a democratic country.is there a strong and independent justice system? Everyone has their right to select the leaders of the country? They have sufficient right to demonstrate?Freedom of speech?
  • Oct 2 2013: I am living in china ,a developing country and a big corruption nation.Why the situation is so bad here ? I think the fundamental reason is because we are not a democratic country,where people here have no freedom of speech,no freedom of demonstration,no general election and so forth which are the effective measures to monitor the government.
  • thumb
    Oct 21 2013: There is corruption because people let those who are in government do the corruption. If the people will just fight against corruption there will be no corruption. We should watch and be always aware what's going on with our government. People should choose to process things legally rather than paying those who are in charge to have a quick and easy process. We should hate and despise corruption!
  • Oct 21 2013: The root of the problem is the people....If people don't resort to corruption to find a way for them to achieve their goal, there wouldn't be this issue at all....Education is the best way forward...But, we shouldn't aim to educate grown up about it, it will be wastage of resources...A country who really wants to eradicate corruption should start from scratch with their kids in schools - it should be a long term strategy which will only bear its fruit when those kids are running the country...yes it is a long time to wait, yes, in the meantime the economy will still be affected, but at least the economy is preparing the future to be corruption free....and we will see a betterment in many men's and women's living standard...

    But again, is corruption something that can be eradicated at 100%? It is a difficult question to answer as mankind is a striving community, always out to get the best out of every situation - may be the aim shouldn't be to eradicate corruption but to find a way to use corruption for it to favor the whole community??

    The whole strategy should be devise in 2 parts, firstly education and secondly, to use corruption in a positive way...How to go about to do that is the big question?!!!!
  • Oct 13 2013: Self sufficiency. Grow your own food and make your own energy in as small a community as possible then trade with each other (timebanks). Take the government out of the loop.
  • Oct 6 2013: Most developing countries do not have right to information act/law which the developed countries have. Strong state institutions can curb corruption like the judiciary.
    One persian poet and scholar sheikh Saadi said
    Countries are strengthen by laws
    knowledge is strnghten by debate
    and morals of childern by strict training
    we need strict anti corruption/accountability laws, knowledge, education and awareness and moral training plus handsome salaries
  • thumb
    Oct 6 2013: I don't feel there is any universal solution that applies to all countries.....
  • Oct 5 2013: Well I'm from africa "Guine-Bissau" and my English is not good but I hope that you'll understand me.

    Where is more corruption certainly is in most part of African counties. But the best way to eliminate the corruption is in education that begins in our homes. If every parents show their children politeness, respect and not hurt your next.
    I think many thing will change to better. And people should think that being in government and the more honest the guy is the better will be to him. He always will get a good reputation, good job, good salary and the people will support him but if the man is kind of corrupted everything going wrong with him.

    Sorry my English is not fluenty.

    Thank you.
    • Oct 5 2013: Hi,Mohamed Djalo.I don`t agree with you.just as i have said that good systems make evildoer dare not do evil,while bad systems force the good to do evil,which is now the situation here in my country China.I don`t believe people ,I believe system.
      • Oct 5 2013: Great, this is your point of view. Do you believe in your self? Are you different of all people in the world? Good system means good people in my point of view. Good system means good education, good live, respect and many other adjective.
        To get good system it's necessary good people to manage the system otherwise the system will not work too.

        Thank you.
        • thumb
          Oct 7 2013: at first i did not understand, but your second comment makes sense...

          in south africa we have corrupt government and uneducated politicians in power.
          our governance is dictated by the U.K. - apartheid was an excuse to overthrow a good system.
          our revolution came about when britain lost political power and wealth in the country.
          today we have no education unless privatised.
          the ANC has closed all educational institutes for teachers and implemented the american system of rolling blacks out... you get passed over to the next grade...
          the black south african claims unfounded racism towards them. today we have less jobs and more unemployment and even more black racism.
          the indigenous KHOI/SAN are now victimised by black africans stealing land and perpetuating violence...
        • W T

          • 0
          Oct 8 2013: Define 'good'.
  • Oct 3 2013: Hi everyone,

    I am neither a historian nor an economist. In fact, I am a programmer however I would like to comment on Kevin Su's comment where its description fits on my country, Malaysia.

    Malaysia is a democratic country for quite some time. We do have some freedom of speech and demonstration as long as it's not a sensitive issue. To us, the sensitive issue is racial problems.

    Despite Malaysia is a democratic country, our corruption rate is considerably high and there are many reasons why this happened. My reasons are not on the government side because I am not too sure of what's inside either.

    The main reason behind is our education system fosters only knowledge that's useful for us in the working world, but not in the attitude nor morals. Secondly is, family education lacks of attitude shaping. Thirdly, even our own people thinks that bribing solves things faster. What causes all these is the backbone of a country, educating people to be a good citizen is lacking.

    So Kevin, being a democratic country only is not enough. There are far more reasons behind why corruptions happened in every country.
    • Oct 5 2013: Hi,Tifa Ong ,thanks for your reply. I am agree with you that having democracy is not enough.There are still many more other reasons for why corruption exist in a country. But i think democracy is the precondition to fight corruption in any nations.Without it ,it is totally impossible to solve this problem.
  • thumb
    Nov 1 2013: If the social and economic corruption of developing nations upsets you - wait until the nation becomes fully developed - then you'll come up against hypercritical corruption. That'll make you really sick!
  • Nov 1 2013: I believe that is some evidence to suggest a negative correlation between pay and corruption. Meaning the more you pay an official, the less likely they are to engage in graft, although I think for that work there has to be a reasonable fear of consequences. So I would arguing increasing public salaries while increases enforcement of corruption rules.
  • Nov 1 2013: Education is the keyword. Forget about the elder. Teach the children.
    Changes always led by younger generation.
  • thumb
    Oct 31 2013: What I see in Mather's proposal is to introduce a 3rd party into the process where an official requires a fee to perform a service they are already being paid to supply. The 3rd party is a middleman in the purest form of entrepreneurism. A champion in the mind of the one being bribed, and a challenger to the bribe taker. Of course money is still involved only it is expected to be a significantly lesser amount that the bribe and goes to the champion. Not unlike hiring an enforcer but of a more benevolent nature :)

    Many other countries have non-profit agencies that perform similar tasks where public officials are stonewalling some hapless citizen for whatever reason. Of course, non-profits of this nature are often struggling for funding since the government agencies they are often challenging have unlimited resources and hapless citizens are invariably at their mercy. Many non-profits may even require some modest fee as well.

    Where I have a problem still involves corruption only this time of the champion. If the champion is a for-profit agent then they could end up gouging the hapless citizen, albeit for less than the bribe but still far more than the service entailed.

    But ultimately we are talking about government services already covered by taxation and I suggest there is an even better method for the hapless citizen. How about demanding legislation that dumps the cost burden directly on the official that caused the problem in the first place as a fine. Once they compare the loss of monies with the income they get just for "doing the job" they will quickly change their ways. Never mind the potential loss of the job itself. But make them pay the piper.
  • thumb
    Oct 31 2013: Developing countries maybe poor economically but developed countries has also their share of corruption..morality. As world population increases, it is also expected that evil deeds of men expand. It is unavoidable. The bad outnumbers the good. The world is decaying and is destined to become worst. Look at global warming, is it man-made or natural occurence?
  • Oct 31 2013: The corruiption in developing nations is none of our business. If the people of those nations want to deal with corruption it is their responsibility to take control of their own lives and do something about it.
  • thumb
    Oct 31 2013: By not participating in the corruption unless necessary.

    ultimately it is up to each country to address the issue themselves.

    perhaps it also helps to share information on how to reduce corruption, the success stories, what works etc
  • Oct 29 2013: The growing prevalence of corruption is mainly due to the silence of people against the injustice that is caused to them. They know that they are being wronged against, but decide to keep it silent and do nothing about it. As much as it is the fault of the people who are corrupt, it is also the fault of the people who are suffering in silence. The citizens of a country have alot of power which they fail to realise. Should they stand up for their rights, slowly this problem may be alleviated. Of course, this may be oversimplification of the problem, yet, it is the first step to start the journey to eradicate corruption.
  • Oct 28 2013: As over the years we tend to try to solve the wrong problems. We know that the choice between right and wrong is an innate characteristic in us all. What we fail to recognize is that as long as we have free will we have the opportunity to choose corruption over other potential solutions. Removing the desire of choosing corruption is a multi-faceted problem. As a society first we have to choose to remove corruption from all areas of life:
    * People - As I stated above it is an innate characteristic. How do we eliminate the temptation of corruption?
    * Industry - How can we get the private sectors to police themselves to keep society safe?
    * Politics - Politics is about power and control. How do we remove the power and control from politicians?
    * Money - Of course it's all about money because money is seen as a way to gain power to most, rather than to give substance.
    * Recognition and Reward - We reward bad behavior because we set wealth and status above recognition of those that give service and sacrifice.

    We have had tremendous examples throughout time that have shown us how to live without corruption but, we are ourselves are unable to set the example because of the fear of falling behind those who are corrupt. As hard as we try, corruption still comes from within not from the outside. I can only control myself and set the example.
    It is a difficult problem and I believe can only be solved over time, but time is running out we need to act now by standing together for what’s right and accept nothing else.
  • thumb
    Oct 28 2013: Corruption is an economic inefficiency. Capitalism and Corruption are handmaidens.
    Corruption is hence a voice that demands refinement of the legal and democratic system. Only if the society consolidates itself an subverts the existing process can Corruption and other such evils can be brought down.
  • thumb
    Oct 28 2013: Unless everyone is ready to make sacrifices, corruption cannot be fought against. Corruption has to be curbed at individual and societal level first and only then it will make some difference at a national level. It's actually we, the people who are letting it grow. What we usually do is that we think at individual level. In order to get the things done for own self, we often forget what form it is going to take at larger level. Also, along with this if people, as a whole come together with essential courage, honesty and unity it surely can make a lot of difference. For this, it becomes very important to change the way people think at root level, much of which can be achieved by implementing a good education system. People's thoughts and actions are the only ways which surely can make a whole lot of a difference. It's not just about ruling party or corrupt officers only, it's about us, and we have all the power to fight against it and possibly eradicate it as a whole.
  • Oct 27 2013: To effectively combat corruption one must a) make being uncorrupted more profitable than being corrupt or b) make being corrupt extremely unprofitable or c) a combination of b and a

    ..reasoning? water follows the easiest path downhill but that easiest path may be natural or artificial
  • thumb
    Oct 27 2013: I think the only way to fight against corruption is in the hands of individuals. Every human being is selfish by nature but when that selfishness get to a level where the person wants everything for himself even without deserving it, then the corruption start. This kind of behavior normally start with individuals, generally people working for the government, and reinforced with time until it becomes spread in the society and believed to be the only way to become rich or to get to the top of the society. Hence "bad" people become more rich and those who refuse to be that selfish become poorer and this will continue unless good individuals decide otherwise and put their voices together and say "stop" because the union is power and the individuals are the reason why the government exists. so people need to stand up for their rights, because they have nothing to loose or they have nothing in the first place, but those at the top have everything that they are afraid to lose and they have no choice left than quit or at least start giving people some of what they deserve and also we must admit that corruption won't be over in 24 hours. It has taken place during tens of years and need also years to be overcome but the start is the important act and it in the hands of the individuals.
  • Oct 24 2013: If the world is full of pure honest leaders, it doesn't change anything. Only Individuals' value recovery via self discovery can guarantee national recovery hence corruption free world. Human identity isn't based on social class, race or riches but true potential discovery. When value corruption is resolved, economic corruption will automatically be dealt with. It's presently a world tortured by identity crisis but i believe the tide will turn soonest.
  • Oct 24 2013: Corruption is an ever present force in every form of human government that ever existed. It can not be eliminated completely, but it has to be maintained at manageable levels by active effort. Please refer to Plato, Democracy for a dynamical equilibrium strategy. Corruption is often actively supported by collectives that benefit from it. (Systems: governments, international firms, etc.). Thus it can not be counteracted at a personal level. These collectives are often external to the country, with small short-term benefactors within the country to propagate their efforts. There are two propagators, forces that attack and weaken corruption management mechanisms and forces that actively involve in corruption. Exact technical details of the implementation in more open cases can be found in what France/Belgium did in Rwanda, English in Sudan, and more recently the English in Zimbawe. In my personal opinion, short-term profit maximizing strategies (often employed by persons and firms rather than governments) is the main corruption propagation vector. Thus, a corruption maintenance system must be able to actively track and heavily discourage such entities. Since it is fighting against a collective, it has to be a collective of equal or more strength. This requires a critical mass of individuals which can identify their long-term benefits as citizens which will be granted the power of policy making only a very brief amount of time, a free media (non-profit, reliable, and efficient information sharing; such as internet based low publishing cost cited news journals), and a society/police that obeys the ruleset generated by the ever circulating policy makers. See French revolution, Mandela reforms, and formation of Turkish republic regarding how such a system can be kickstarted. See current situation in Turkey how such a system can be destroyed (origin vector: 1980 coup).
  • Oct 23 2013: I think we need to stop asking our government and big businesses to stop being corrupt... You can't expect the people who benefit from the system to change it, the only ones who follow laws and count money are not govt officials or big business owners, but the people.
    So we need to stop abiding by certain laws, we should stop using money, stop supporting big businesses and governments with our labor and consumption.
    We sit here and we think we need money, government, and companies, but no its the money, government and corporations that need us. Stop making yourself available. Become more self sufficient and build a system of interdependence among yourselves. It can be that simple. But we have to all agree to do it, even if in our own way
  • thumb
    Oct 21 2013: I couldn't watch the video for some reason. It occurs to me that without private property the idea of stealing/corruption is moot.
  • Oct 19 2013: Degree to which this phenomenon prevents countries from moving foward differs from one country to other. For countries where global well being is taken in hostage by corruption, i will suggest a radical revolution : Let's threathen the dignity of culprits by revealing their malpractices in national media. I understand that corruption should be considered as two dimensional: High level corruption done at a higher level of the country, by people in charge ( Govt...) and corruption done by the common citizen ( policeman, teacher, nurse...), all these fellow who are being given meagre fare to survive and who engage in this activity for the sake of survival. I strongly believe that corruption should be rooted out first from the higher level; minimal wages ajustement will follow after redirecting all the flow of corruption from official, so that lower class could benefit from it. Corruption will therefore be kicked out thereafter. Punishment will be non other than public humiliation, under a well advertised communication.
  • Oct 18 2013: By having problem consciousness and hope, I think.
    As my country, people are too cooled off to vote for election.
    (Only about half voted in this year..(T-T))
    Also, people have to be carful not to be manipulated by media or anything, which is quite difficult.
    Because someone, who really try to change, are always attacked by the other corrupted officials.
  • thumb
    Oct 17 2013: It has to start with me. We should stop taking the corruption behaviours to be normal behaviours in our nations
  • thumb
    Oct 15 2013: I remember reading a few years ago that some symptoms of corruption were a response to weak institutions in developing countries (in relation with the development of informal networks).
  • thumb
    Oct 15 2013: Controlling corruption in developing nations? Difficult problem. We can't seem to control corruption in developed countries. We don't control corruption in this country.
  • Oct 10 2013: watch "the 6 killers apps" video on TED
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2013: The very way the world is arbitrarily divided into countries is at the root of the problem. People are forced into bondage. Governments have stolen our identity. The governments of most countries impose upon "their" citizens some form of material id, i.e. id card, drivers licences, passports etc. And governments control directly or indirectly currencies. Such a system will never be corruption free.
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2013: What does corruption actually really mean beyond its juridical definition? Gross income disparities are a form of corruption.
  • Oct 10 2013: It seems to me that this whole question is based on the idea that corruption is localized. I would argue, however, that it is anything but this. In a globalized (or at least globalizing) world, nothing, particularly not something as complex as corruption, can be conceived of so simply. Perhaps, in order to actually answer the question, I ought to break it down into two related questions: what can those of us in the developed world do to combat this corruption and what can the developing world do? (I really loathe the terminology I feel forced to use there, and will likely fall into the trap of again, and wish to clarify that if it reads, in any way, as paternalistic, it was far from my intent.) So, dealing with those in order, those of us on the outside can help by being insistent in our lack of support for such practices. I don't mean simply saying that we do not approve of them; what I am suggesting is something larger and actual. It seems to me that a good bit of the desire (or the incentive) to be corrupt comes from external influences, particularly economic ones. What those of us in the developed world ought to do, if we are serious about combating corruption, is get out of the way of local leaders and local developments, as fully as possible without doing undue damage to the population as a whole. However, this is only half of the coin. Local efforts must be made too (and this is surely not limited to the developing world, the lack of wide-spread active resistance to campaign financing practices in the United States also serves to express it). The historical solution has been, eventually, revolution. I am unsure that this is the most applicable or productive solution today. Refusal is a good option, though perhaps ineffective. The best option, though nearly impossible, is perhaps total economic restructuring and a full separation of economic powers and governing powers.
  • Oct 9 2013: I think that corupption is kind of mental desease. It may take decades to fight the corupption, because you should begin from changing your consciousness, peoples' consciousness.
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2013: Attitudinal change is a good start. These days evil gets rebranded and is given catchy names to make them seem harmless. In fact, there is the slogan "Greed is good".
    If any section of the society can give seemingly good excuses for their greed and unethical acts, then we should not be too alarmed if we have dodgy or crooked leaders.

    We all need attitudinal change for the fight against corruption to be effective. After all, leaders are not aliens or spirits, but products of the society.
  • thumb
    Oct 7 2013: To effectively combat corruption one must a) make being uncorrupted more profitable than being corrupt or b) make being corrupt extremely unprofitable or c) a combination of b and a

    ..reasoning? water follows the easiest path downhill but that easiest path may be natural or artificial
    • Oct 11 2013: I agree completely. Corruption is motivated largely by greed, which means that normal corrupt activities need to be made unprofitable to stop the people committing them. Clever criminals always find a way around the problem, but if the problem is so big and such a hassle to move around, they'll stop and take their activities elsewhere.
  • thumb
    Oct 7 2013: look to venazeula and cuba....
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Oct 9 2013: in a democratic society we talk of equality and practise inequality... you look at cuba, venezuela, libya and all you see is tyranny because you have no discipline in your life.
        you look at money as a measurement of progress not development in education, healthcare and infrastructure. some of the countries mentioned have different degrees of progress and development. these do not have western society structures, yet you would impose sanctions instead of assistance.
        you at how much money the leaders horde as if you do not save money...
        cuba = some of the best doctors, libya = housing & infrastructure, venezuela the youngest with its leader dying not too long ago has its work cut out.

        i live in a country which was once state owned and now it has sold off and privatised the peoples assets = bad education, infrastructure, corruption increasing unemployment...
        yes it can be any western country and it is every western country.

        democracy and the western model of society has no morality or self respect = divide, conquer, dictate and debate
  • Oct 7 2013: Very burning question in front of us. however there is no answer. we can only hope for miracle.
  • thumb
    Oct 5 2013: By being honest ourselves.
    • thumb
      Oct 6 2013: That is certainly honorable and a very good advice to go for, but ...

      Just because you apply this wisdom to your morals may not be reason enough for me to do the same.

      So what could you do to stop or hinder me to corrupt other people in mine yet against your and other peoples favor?
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: Thanks. I'll explain.
        Corruption is a human social aberration that exists from antiquity like prostitution. When we discuss seriously about what must be done to stop or hinder it we need to understand why it is such an old institution.
        In one part it is built in human psyche as a survival trait - I shall talk about it later. In the other part it goes on due to lack of public awareness, inefficient governance, lack of education, poverty, unjustified aspiration etc. It is practically meaningless to talk about stopping it in societies where there is no or low regard for basic honesty.
        In a personal level, I follow some simple rules like never jumping a queue, never forgetting a bus/rail ticket (even if it is unmanned), never abusing a system meant for people. I used to be shy about being honest. These days I show it off. I think it encourages others.
        But in the part where a human aberration is concerned, corruption can only be fought by seeking and ensuring complete transparency in every aspect of life.
        • thumb
          Oct 7 2013: Thank you, Pabitra, I now understand your intention and agree with what you said.

          I like your encouragement on other people. Thats exemplary and much appreciated!
  • thumb
    Oct 5 2013: Well Jaime ! Shaffi was welcomed because he came up with a new unique idea to fight against corruption. But, before adopting such ideas, we must analysis all the factors as far as we can. For example, see following TED Conversation that doubts on Shaffi's idea for being practical -


    Doubt 1) People involved in corruption may join together and can be the reason of violence, like Mafia.
    Doubt 2) What if Shaffi's profit organization gets bribed?

    -----I think i have an Idea :D -------------
    My Idea begins with creating a mash kind of network of interested citizens.

    Where everyone is being watched by other one. A group of volunteers may create a Non-Profitable organization (not NGOs, coz NGOs deals with politics or international issues). This can be the first network to take initiative. But, I recommand, this organization must not be on the basis of organizational structure, No senior No junior ! Every Volunteer will be connected to other volunteer. Every volunteer will have same badge and will be appointed to a his/her township. Volunteer will be given a 'Book of Anti-Corruption' laws and his/her duties under circumstances.

    Every volunteer will make aware to every people of his/her township and guide them to contact him in case any face corruption. As soon as incident happens, concern volunteer will be informed by acquitted and he will inform to all other volunteers. They all together will directly approach Anti-corruption Government body , media, etc. and ofcourse the accused will be warned by volunteers :)

    Well, because the public itself will be involved, the government bodies ( or representative) will be under the pressure. I think this way the corruption can be rooted out...

    So, finally Jamie , this is just an idea may not be correct or upto the mark ! What do you say.. ?
  • thumb
    Oct 5 2013: how about not giving the state that much power? if the state is not in charge to give some kind of permits, you can't bribe them to give you a permit.
    • Oct 5 2013: In some tyrannic nations such as china ,North Korea and Iran how the people can succeed in not giving the state that much power ? The government have army ,police and jails.It is a very long and hard way for the people there to go .As a Chinese people ,i really feel very depressed when think of that.
    • thumb
      Oct 6 2013: How about not giving the market that much power?

      What is it that makes you see with one eye only? What causes this Pavlov's reflex to relate corruption to governments exclusively? How do your denial mechanism function and cope with corruption within businesses?

      Is this indoctrination or conditioning, or both or worse?

      Be generous as well.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: does not make sense. corruption is not a market phenomenon. corruption happens between the ruler and the ruled.

        how about answering the questions like they were asked to you?
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: Your explanation is worldly innocent and does not reflect reality. Try again, be generous.

          And in case you missed it, you'll find my answer to the original question at the top of this conversation. You can get there by pressing the 'View the full conversation.' text.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: your explanation is nonexistent. please try at least.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: So to you there is no corruption in the market, no corporate crime of this sort, right?

          Could you then please describe what the recent incident in the delayed market entry of generic medicines is to you, if not corruption?


          If one private company bribes other private companies to postpone their competition, how do you call this? What is your wording for this sort of behavior?

          The example is random yet I choose for a German company, so no other nation can feel offended.

          What is your language on this?
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: in libertarian moral theory, everyone is entitled to put a product on the market any time he chooses. if i pay a company to delay its own product, it is not bribe, it is morally unobjectionable.

        you would see that if you were running an actual company. if someone shows up, and tells you, here is a million dollars, please delay your lunch half a year, you just make a decision. and if men in blue suits show up to take you away, this is immoral and must be considered aggression.

        i actually happen to know a guy that accepted such a deal, in an even more serious form. a international firm arrived late to the market, and could not kick out the local competition. this local competition happened to be a person i know. so they offered a *huge* sum to buy the company, and integrate it into theirs, effectively discontinue their service. they could say: get the hell out of here. but no, he anticipated that instead of running his company in a risky business environment, why not take so much money that he could make out of his business in the following decade, and just leave. and, of course, start another business. are you saying that this setting should be illegal? that person was immoral? or the company was? on what grounds? who are you to interfere with their own lives and property?

        it is not that difficult, if someone actually tries to understand, and not just tries to dismiss. companies being evil is nothing short of statist propaganda that you bought on face value. and not only you bought it, you are proud of your purchase. that is sad.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: So in other words, murder should be legal, because you do not accept any other moral authority but yours. You do not consider yourself as part of the society you live in. You take advantage of it, yet you claim at the same time, that you are completely independent from them.

          Those with the bigger guns kill those with the smaller guns. It is not the problem of the big-gun that the other person had just a smaller one, or no weapon at all.

          Who is anybody to tell you not to kill, right? You made some money and bought a gun, so you can use it as ever you choose too. Your neighbor didn't smile - kill. The children in the backyard to loud - kill. No police, no law, no morals.

          That is what you just said.

          But it got clearer now to me why it is important to prevent mindsets like yours from spreading.

          If you don't care for the society you life in, there is no reason why society should tolerate such parasitic, egocentric and antisocial behavior.

          I am not even surprised that you happen to know such guys, it matches the picture.

          I do not agree with anything in your explanation and consider it of high criminal potential and even criminal in itself.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: But thank you for the time you put in the writing. This I actually didn't expect.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: What is the name of this guy, or the name of his company? It would be interesting to find out if court proceedings could be opened on this fraud.

          You can e-mail me, so the name won't go public if I am mistaken.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: i still haven't figured out if you are just trolling or you are that much lacking in reasoning. both possibilities frighten me. how could i get into a position in which i have to explain to a grown up person why a business deal is a mutually agreed upon arrangement, and why a murder is not. i would have to explain why i accept no moral authority other than me in how do i use my own property, how do i run my own company, etc. i would have to explain that a murdered person most likely disagrees with the act of murder. it should be obvious. so either you are disconnected from moral in a way that i find hard to understand, or you spend time on a forum just to disrupt conversations. which one is it? please don't answer, your answer is irrelevant in both cases.

        this is in fact an open letter to other participants. how can i find out which one is the case here?
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: I frighten you?

          Let me try again, maybe this will help you to get the picture.

          Due to a mutual agreement in a business deal the price for an important medicine becomes to high for many people to afford it. The production cost of this product is $1, the retail price within the price-fixing agreement goes for $4500 a pill. The people in need could spent a maximum of $20, not more, so still $4480 missing.

          As the agreement was mutual between the business partners, and according to your logic, the death of thousands of people do not count for intentional murder.

          Let me now take this picture, to help you out on my murder examples before, as you tend to take me literally exactly where I expect your abstractive ability to kick in. As this obviously didn't happen, here it goes.

          Your neighbor didn't smile, you and your friend mutually agree to kill him - and so you do.

          The children in the backyard to loud - you and your friend mutually agree to kill them - and so you do.

          How can a mutual agreement between any two entities justify to skip the consequences this agreement has on other involved parties?

          Your reasoning, your moral stops right there. One agreement, mutual, f*** the rest.

          Pretty convenient, isn't it? No holistic approach necessary.

          Similar behavior can be observed in parasitic viruses or bacteria, who are lethal to their host organism. They need the host for their temporary survival to reproduce and to infect new host organisms for the long term scheme.

          The difference in between you and me is, that you don't care for the host organism as long as you've got your genes reproduced and spread. I like to reproduce and spread as well, yet I wish the host organism to be as well as I am. I accept my dependency on my host and take responsibility for that. Nature developed this kind of species as well, they are called symbionts and those do not kill their hosts.

          This analogy is risky, as it takes empathy and imagination to grasp its scope. Lets try.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: What is the name of this guy you mentioned before, or the name of his company?

          With some more details you may add as well, I could pass this information to a friend of mine who has specialized in this sort of fraud as from your lines this deal seems to be of. He is a lawyer.

          You can contact me via e-mail so the name of that person doesn't go public here.

          If it wasn't fraud, as you seem to see it, nothing will happen to that guy. If it was, as it appears to me, justice will have its say if the timing still allows for it.

          The link to my e-mail is on my profile page.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: As you ask for an external point of view, I would say that Lejan has a different position on what is moral than you do. In his arguments of his case, he is expressing that different perspective rather than trolling.

          My guess is that he does not really expect you to turn over the name of the guy whose business was acquired by a competitor. Laws regarding economic transactions vary across countries. I am certainly unfamiliar with economic laws in Germany, where Lejan makes his home. Where I live, businesses are often acquired absolutely publicly in a way that gives competitive advantage to the purchaser. It is rare that legal authorities intervene. Roughly speaking, they would not intervene if it is easy for new entrants to challenge in the markets where the merged firm competes or where there is ample existing competition.

          You are focusing on mutual agreements between parties and Lejan is looking at the effect on a third party.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: "Due to a mutual agreement in a business deal the price for an important medicine becomes .."

        let me stop reading right here, because it is already false. companies can't set the price of any good. they can sell at a higher price, but then any competitor can come along, and outsell them. they can't force every chemical plant to comply. it is impossible that not a single company on earth will say: nope, i'm not going to cooperate with these guys, but rather, i increase my output instead, and take the entire market.

        but let us assume for a second that all companies (including future companies) agree on a higher price. is that immoral? nope. a company is free to stop producing at any time. a company is free to set their prices at whatever level. a company can change its pricing without notice and explanation. a company can set its production volume at any level, and change at any time. these are all completely moral, legal, unobjectionable business decisions.

        the opposite of that is either mob rule or socialism. which one is your choice?

        ps: stupid questions will be continued to be ignored. stop being obnoxious.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: Because you stopped reading, you didn't see the term 'price-fixing agreement' or shall I explain to you what that means?

          Read through, then reply.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: You give me an example and you ask for my opinion if that should be illegal and if that person was immoral. But the moment I am willing to check the example against existing laws, to see weather or not my 'gut feeling and moral compass is right on this, you refuse to go into detail.

          If this deal was as normal and legal as you claim it was, where is the problem?

          Or yet another claim. Trust me, because I say so.

          Thats not enough to support an argument, so I ask you again for more details on that deal.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: so if you use a magic term, you will suddenly be right? i just explained to you that price fixing agreement does not work in a free market setting, but even if it did, it still would not be immoral.

        we are not talking about legality. laws go against morals and against the free market in many ways. for example many times laws fix prices or stop competing companies to enter the market. it is also a usual setting when market leaders come together and try to convince the government to do some price fixing for them, as they can't do that on their own. bringing the topic of legality into a moral debate is pretty much like bringing a firearm to a business meeting. it indicates that the person is not very much interested in moral theory.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: To me there is no magic in this term, I've seen it working. It works.

          It is difficult to tell if you ever worked in any real market environment, because if you did, you wouldn't be so naive in hands-on experiences. It seems as if you were citing most of the time out of some books someone else wrote. In case you have worked in the industry, you seem not to have observed much of your environment. Maybe you have not been close enough to the decisions table? Or have you? But then, you wouldn't talk this way...

          Anyway, by what you say about my given corporate crime example, I conclude, that this was neither intentional nor negligence murder or killing to you. There are no related moral obligations in this context whatsoever. Would you agree if I put it this way seen from your standpoint?

          Do I understand you right in saying, that laws are not based on mutual agreements?
          Do I understand you right in saying, that morals have no influence on law?
          Do I understand you right in saying, that the market is incapable for price fixing on its own?
          Do you separate legality from laws and/or from agreements?
          Could you imagine, that the threat equivalent of firearms takes place in business meetings?

          Would you agree, that according to your theory, you and your friend are allowed to kill those loud children in the backyard, if both of you just agreed on it? Not the children. Just you and your friend make this agreement. If you don't agree could you then please explain the difference to the corporate crime example? And if you agree, could you then please elaborate on that as well.

          Does your country has a law about helpfulness? Would it be legal to refuse to help people out of mortal danger, provided your own safety first? Could you pass a car-crash legally not calling for an ambulance? In Germany we have such a law. If your country has too, what do you think about it?

          Many questions, I know, but blurriness doesn't help much.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: just for start: one of us severely overestimates his knowledge, and underestimates the other's.

        i'm owner in a small firm, and we work for the market. the example i told happened between firms working for the market, and i have insider information on what happened. if i cite from a book, i don't say "i know someone", okay?

        let's see the questions, and i'm sad we really need to answer such things.

        laws are NOT based on mutual agreement.

        morals sometimes have influence on laws, other times don't.

        the free market is mostly incapable of price fixing. in the rare cases when it can, it is limited in scope and temporary.

        legality = laws =/= agreement

        the phrase "threat equivalent" does not make sense in the context.

        according to my theory, i'm not allowed to kill anyone, unless it is the only way to defend another life from an attack. even this situation is fishy. however, we can kill anyone that agrees to be killed though. or we can kill ourselves. killing is not immoral per se, only if the killed person did not agree to it beforehand. the point is, we can do anything with *our* life and property, but not with others' without permit. understanding the role of ownership is the key.

        my country has the craziest laws possible. europe, after all. for example yes, i have to help in certain situations. this is a law against moral. help should be a voluntary action. on the other hand, my neighbors are free to not talk to me anymore, my friends can refuse to pick up the phone, and the waiter can refuse to bring me food if they find out that i left someone die in a car. because they also can use their life and property as they want.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: Quite easy to get you going on the 'male dominance' thing.

          Anyway, you own a small firm - fine. Get at bigger tables, to understand what's working, even though your book theory tells you, it isn't.

          So laws are not based on agreements to you, right? Which individual do you have in your country who makes your laws? Whats his/her name? Or is it a god?

          In my country there is a whole process in which our laws get made. Many people are involved in this process. At the end of this process out of multiple steps, revisions, and adoptions, there is a voting in the parliament, which either passes the law, or rejects it. The parliament consists out of representatives which got elected by the people of my country, which then, in their name, form an agreement when a law is passed. This is a usual democratic process.

          I don't know about your law making individual, but we have agreements on laws. What legality means should be understandable, then.

          I made a mistake, sorry. I ask for 'your theory' on the killing examples, but what I meant was the 'libertarian moral theory' which you cited before. Given your answer, they are not the same.

          Could you please try again to argue from that libertarian theory, because as you used it before, we should stay consistent here.

          Do I understand you right, that you don't agree, that 'helpfulness' is a necessity within a society or a community of people? It should only be voluntary and neither expected nor regulated, right? You could imagine yourself doing this consciously? I don't mean situations in which people get paralyzed in stress situations and therefore cant help, or when they get grid-blocked within a crowd paralysis. I mean a truly conscious decision not to help someone in need if it could easily be done. You wouldn't have to risk anything. Maybe, just calling an ambulance, because the old lady dropped on the ground and lays there bleeding. You could pass by her not helping? What would be your justification? Freedom of choice?
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: "get me"? are you trying? however, claiming superior knowledge is not "male dominance" in my book.

        laws are made (through a complex mechanism) on majority vote. majority is not mutual. i have to explain why majority is not mutual? i hope not.

        i don't know where do you get the impression that my moral and libertarian moral would be different. they are the same, and thus they both reject killing unless it is voluntary on the part of the killed, which is unusual, but possible in some situations.

        helpfulness is not a necessity. it is a natural human trait, it is very widespread, probably also very beneficial, but not necessary. if somebody is such an asshole that he just drives off without even calling the ambulance, this person is not violating libertarian moral law. he faces, however, the possible disgust of his fellow men, and he might find himself in a position in which he will be rejected by members of the community. according to libertarian theory for example, nobody is entitled to provide services to anybody, unless a contract has been made previously. so being a rejected person might put you in a very hard situation.

        for example you will never be able to have a beer in my pub. in a libertarian world, not this one. in this one, i have to serve you if i have a pub.
        • thumb
          Oct 7 2013: Thats right, you and your books claim it as norm.

          The majority vote of a group of n>2 free individuals is the equivalent to mutual agreement of its smallest form n=2 free individuals. Remember, you are free to leave the group of n>2 free individuals at any given time. Nobody forces you to stay. Thus, the fact you stay, makes you mutually agree with the majority vote. It is that simple. It is the essence of freedom!

          You can not seriously believe it to be any different. That much worldly innocence was beyond repair. You didn't grew up in North Korea, did you? You may have reached this level of freedom later than I did, that could be if you are old enough and born at the place stated in your profile. But there was enough time since for you to figure that out.

          It usually becomes clear latest at kindergarten. If you are in a group of three and you don't like the suggested game, you leave the group. Yet the moment you join in and play along, you agree to that game mutually. Thats your freedom of choice. No one to blame.

          So the fact that you didn't leave your county because of its laws, makes you agree with those laws. I am surprised that we even need to discuss these basic social principles here, especially as 'freedom' is one of your major claims. Thats odd.

          You are even free to influence your agreement in your favor. This is the essence of democracy! Get active, get involved in the process of law making, make suggestions what may works better for the group. But do not pretend to have no freedom of choice and your agreement isn't mutual. Get out of your theory books, get real, stop babbling!

          If your and libertarian moral were the same, your line of argument breaks even logically. Get a wider picture, include cause and effect, get to its very essence and not stuck in meaningless definitions and you may then find it yourself. I doubt it though, but there is a chance.

          Your beer example is interesting and you really life in a strange country if what you say is true.
        • thumb
          Oct 7 2013: In Germany we have laws concerning the 'freedom of contract', which define the rules of trade. It combines the principle of 'private autonomy', 'civil laws' and 'good morals' and balance them as good as possible. It says, that the 'freedom of contract' is free, as long it does not violate 'civil laws' and 'good morals'. Once this is kept, nobody 'has to serve' anybody. Some further regulations apply to government services and certain professions, medical doctors for instance, as of for different and well agreed reasons.

          Pub owner usually have their 'house rules' in Germany and if you violate them, you'll be kicked out. Pretty simple, pretty straight forward, pretty effective. You can even select who is allowed in and who isn't, as long as it respects the given discrimination laws. No tie? To bad, get out buddy. Thats allowed here. You are Hungarian? To bad, get out buddy! That would be illegal here. And rightly so.

          Trades or rules of trade and their customs are inseparable form their social environment. It is an integrative part of society, not an self-feeding independent concept of mind. Trade is not entitled to claim any privileges, any 'special laws' which would contradict with the laws and agreements of the society it is embedded in. I don't even understand what makes you think that, other than taking it by its parasitic, self-centered and misanthropic origin and nature.

          If you seriously believe, that helpfulness is no necessity for social behaviour and does not play a vital and important role in any society, your social skills are either severely damaged, crippled or have not developed at all.

          On this I like to ask you a very personal question, which, of course, you are not obliged to answer at all. But if you do, please be honest, as it would help my considerations on this matter on which no answer is better that a faked one. If you like to answer, but not in public, you can use my e-mail on my profile.
        • thumb
          Oct 7 2013: My question is about your childhood, especially the very vulnerable periods and stages in which a child develops its first connections towards its parents and other adults inside and outside the family. Traumatic experiences in those sensitive periods regarding attachment, bindings, the formation of trust, self-esteem, the sense of being loved or rejected are well known to have a negative impact in the development of the social behavior and abilities of a child. Have you experienced such trauma or any other kind of abuse in your early years?

          This my question is sincere, as a positive answer would at least allow me to comprehend, to understand the source, the origin of this kind of antisocial and misanthropic ethos of your believes, your world view reflects.

          I don't think you make all of this up, or that you are just joking. You seems to believe in what you say and I like to find out why.

          The reason for this my curiosity, my interest is the fact, that you are the only person I encountered so far in my entire life, with such an redial mindset on human relations. I have seen enough impact of something alike, but I never got to actually 'speak' to one.

          At this point and without better knowledge about what made you this way, I tend to believe, that your mindset is an parasitic menace to almost any society you would live in. You do not take on any responsibility towards your fellow men. You separate. You don't cooperate emotionally. You don't care. You distort the concept of freedom. The level of modern anonymity is on your side. You are reason for its existence. If society wasn't as crippled as it is, its immune system would have already rejected you. No, even better, it would have helped you. But as I said, this is seen at this point without better knowledge about what made you this way. I can't 'feel' you. Therefore it would be helpful to me if you decide to answer my question honestly, as it could confirm my only explanation. I respect any of your choices.
      • thumb
        Oct 7 2013: quick note: i'm not very patient. if you write such long posts, i will not read them very carefully. i have better things to do. so i try to address the main points, and ignore the smaller ones.

        you claim that majority vote is as good as mutual agreement. it is just a claim with no support. i define mutual agreement as n out of n agrees. the statement that i can leave is mafia logic. my neighbors can't vote on what color my rooftop should be. this logic says: we are stronger, comply or we beat you up. on the contrary, my ethics says: you do whatever you want with your own house. there is no majority vote. majority vote has to be agreed upon beforehand. democracy is not like that.

        laws concerning the freedom of contract is a contradiction. a law can only limit the freedom of contract, and indeed it is what happens. it is of course condescending and/or coercive. there should be no legal limit in what adult individuals can agree upon.

        childhood experience is important. in our society, children develop into two directions: either you are strong enough to take what you want, or you side with the guy that is strong enough. you can be the served or the servant. the entire logic of the state is based on that. either you climb the social hierarchy and become a ruler, or you become friends with the powers that be. this mindset is understandable, since this setting seems to be here forever, with no alternative. if you believe that you will live and die under the rule of a regime, it breaks your opposition easily. that is the era we live in. but it won't last forever. every year, more and more people understand how it works. today it is 1 of a 1000, 10000 maybe. when it reaches 5%, things get going faster.

        step one of solving a problem: admit the problem.
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: 'Mafia logic' is the core of libertarian 'moral' theory and chances are high, that followers won't admit that. You are exemplary for this problem.

          Fortunately, former sympathizers of your godfathers woke in the recent elections this year in Germany and kicked the Liberal Party out of parliament.

          Thats good news! They lost almost 10% (9.8%) of their former voters in one single blow. Thats good news too. When people understand how its works, they stop voting for it, as they get to realize its destructive potential on society.

          Libertarian 'moral' theory will have no say in the next 4 years in the policy of my country!

          Step one : checked.

          Actually, I didn't expect this to happen so clearly, as Germany still isn't effected much by the European and worldwide banking crises. But the message seems to have gotten through, that the 'privatization of profits' comes with the 'socialization of losses' in Libertarian 'moral' practice.

          But there is no time to rest, as lethal parasites reproduce fast not only in biology.

          This time, Libertarians have exposed their true intentions way to clumsy, which will result in an even stealthier strategy for the future. This virus is polymorph and the immune system of society got stay alert to prevent those parasites from spreading.

          Education helps on this and so does democracy and its majority vote. At its best, direct democracy could deal with those shape-changers even more effectively.

          Predatory exploitation runs on minority rule, thats why the people who make society got to get involved to prevent this to happen.

          Its just like kindergarten, Krisztián. If you don't like to play outside with the other kids of your group, that perfectly OK. You don't have to. But get off their lunch boxes in the kitchen.

          Wow, again soooo many words for so little patience ... so my congratulations to you if you made it here ...

          I assume your are not going to give any detail on this possible corporate crime you mentioned? Surprise, surprise ... :o)
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: I accept that you didn't answer my question on your childhood experiences.
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2013: as usual, i'm replying only to the parts that have a place in a civilized conversation, and also interesting and meaningful. for example of course ignoring any questions about my childhood, as it does not belong, and obviously we are not in such intimate relationship.

        but unfortunately, i found nothing this time. you have managed to fill the 2000 characters with namecalling, condescending remarks, mocking and irrelevant statements. nice job.
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: At least your patience managed 2000 characters. Thats good, we can build on that.

          As for condescending remarks and mocking you can't blame others for what you do yourself, right? And I am not taking me as your only 'target' example in this forum.

          Imagine 2000 characters filled only by repetitions of 'I hate you' wouldn't that be just plain boring?


          'Irrelevant statements' are a bit more difficult, by the fact, that their total relevance is not decided by you alone. You could say, 'your statements are irrelevant to me', that would work logically, yet claiming it 'absolute' doesn't by the fact alone, that they are relevant to me.

          Yet I tend to do the same mistake myself from time to time, so thank you for reminding me indirectly on that, and probably unintentionally as well ... :o)

          On 'namecalling' I am not sure. Did I offend you in using bad language?

          If I did, I am sorry for that and apologize for it.

          Would it help if instead me saying 'you are parasitic' to say 'libertarian moral theory is parasitic', but what would this possibly change, as you yourself said, that this is your moral code?

          'You' takes 3 and 'libertarian moral theory' 22 digits and I have to consider you being short-tempered. So what shall I do? Abbreviate? LMT for 'libertarian moral theory'? Also just 3 digits, yet remaining its meaning to 'You'.

          I will do as you please, as both of us would know about it. Let me in what you think of that.
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: Oh, I almost forgot:

          I am grateful that I can say, that I was privileged to have been borne into a caring, loving and forgiving family. Values have been taught by exemplary living of both of my parents and close relatives, which allowed for my lighthearted, cheerful and just beautiful childhood to come true.

          I have never seen or heard my parents argue with one another or anything alike. As this much of harmony is pretty unusual, it did cause me some troubles later in life, as I had to learn how to deal with conflicts appropriate in my own relationships. Yet as a child, i couldn't have asked for more.

          Intimate indeed this information is, yet nothing the world shouldn't know of.

          But this is just me and I respect your decision as I said.
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2013: this overdue emphasis and overly detailed talk about childhood makes me more suspicious than anything. who are you talking to right now? what do you hope to achieve? don't answer that. rhetorical question.
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: rhetorical answer

          I was talking to you.

          I didn't hope to archive anything but to demonstrate, that 'intimate relationship' to me is no necessity to talk about my childhood. At least not in the level of detail I choose, which actually wasn't really detailed at all. But it is honest and true.
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2013: saying "i'm honest" does not make much sense, does it?
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: I don't understand what you mean by that.

          It doesn't help you to distinguish if I am lying or not, that is true if that is what you mean, but this your ability does neither change the validity of what I was saying, nor does it alter the way in which I choose my words.

          Just skip what isn't helping you, yet do ask when something is unclear.
      • Comment deleted

  • thumb

    Gord G

    • 0
    Oct 5 2013: ...I'm still trying to figure out how to fight corruption in developed nations. :-(
    • Oct 5 2013: But we have to admit that the more the country(which is always a developed nation) is democratic, the less corruption it has ,isn`t it?
      • thumb

        Gord G

        • 0
        Oct 6 2013: Less overt perhaps. It's difficult to gauge the amount of corruption, the kind of corruption and the impact the acts have on the global community.

        For example: Libor scandal. In June 2012, multiple criminal settlements by Barclays Bank revealed significant fraud and collusion by member banks connected to the rate submissions, leading to the scandal. It involves trillions of dollars.

        What's the effect of a scandal of this magnitude?
  • Oct 3 2013: Its sad. Rick warren gave an awesome ted talk on this issue .. it wld be nyc if u listen to him. Check it under the Christian category.
  • thumb
    Oct 3 2013: I will definitely agree with Robert Winners ascertainment considering the deals under the table, because most of the corruption actually are deals of this nature. Since my country, Bosnia and Herzegovina, is one of the most corrupted countries in Europe, so I have one of the best insights in corruptive systems in general. Politicians, doctors, police, university professors, all of them are bribable to the extreme extent. In my opinion, Bosnia and Herzegovina might be late to fight the corruptive system. Reason why I think this is that people around me are still unaware of the current situation. Why do people have to be so blind/uninterested/scared when it comes to fighting corruptive people?
    I strongly believe that campaign against corruption can hopefully raise the awareness of people who eventually will conclude that they've been blind all the time, and that corruption is happening right in front of their eyes. Since i think this can work on Bosnian people (who are stubborn and obviously do not care), it will definitely work on other developing countries which have the same problem.
    • Oct 3 2013: I like wht you are thinking. I have also been thinking same. Curruption has eaten deep into the system. Its like an infection, particularly of the mind. People have lost the taste of doing wht is right at every point in time, and have no gilt in them .. I hav a good feeling the things will change
      • thumb
        Oct 3 2013: The most discouraging fact of all is that everyone says that young, upcoming generations are the future, but they don't want to pay attention on real problems, which is definitely devastating.
  • thumb
    Oct 3 2013: The problem with corruption is that by the time you know the how and the extent ... the money is gone. Much of the corruption is always the award of contracts and deals under the tables. Since the top brass is always in this together it goes unexposed for a long time. It is very hard in developing countries .. the cure usually involves a strong justice system and a independent court system free of political influence ... that is rare in a developing country so the task is often left to the military which also has issues with corruption and political influence.

    I would suggest that the way that the Constitution is framed is the way to intervene.

    As history is often the greatest teacher ... I would suggest that you examine the 1968–1975 Socialist government of Juan Velasco Alvarado and his Constitution to the current Constitution and see what has been added or deleted that makes the current Constitution more successful.

    How would you go about making changes to better control or eliminate corruption? How has history influenced your suggestions?

    I wish you well. Bob.