TED Conversations

Michael Lee

manager, Jetson Woodcraft

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is Shaffi Mather's idea for fighting corruption practical?

Here are some ideas to ponder about to answer this question.
1. Even though corruption occurs mostly as single incidents, people that participate in corruptions, can join together and fight against the for profit organization. E.g. mafia. It also could potentially increase the amount of violence in the area.

2. What if this for profit organization suggested by Mather, gets bribed? If it is for profit, doesn't whoever gives the most money wins? Without doubt, the margin of profit will greatly decrease for those who are corrupted, but it doesn't mean it will stop it. In fact, it could raise increase the value of the bribes, since the for profit organization would raise the cost to gain these bribes.

0
Share:

Closing Statement from Michael Lee

Sure, you can say that humans need to take a spiritual leap to solve corruption, but you can say that about a lot of things. It isn't a solution, merely a dream without means. It seems that everyone agrees that Shaffi Mather's suggestion is an insufficient one. It has good intentions but it isn't very thought out. I would argue that the main reason why corruption will always exist is because there's a demand and a market for it, and it's the same for drugs, weapons, humans, etc. My solution to these problems would be to legalize an international market for it, become the monopoly, and have the ability to regulate/monitor it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 2 2011: I agree with your second point, and that's one of the things I was worried about. Accountability and transparency in terms of the organization is the only way you could go about trying to defend against bribes, but there's only so far that could go. It's even possible that, as a for-profit, after a while the bribery business could run dry. Sure, it's a good short-term solution, but when a for-profit starts to see it's profits dwindling, it can flip sides. Or end up trying to keep itself alive by creating more of the problem it exists to solve.

    There's also the case that any organization would be pretty hard to use over various countries, because these organizations use existing intranational laws to fight corruption. They have no control over the countries.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.