The_Bear

In my last thread, I showed how financial reform of the mexican/central American system is the only way to adequately keep people down there instead of up here. In response, people said that if we reformed mexico, it wouldn't work because the system is too corrupt. This thread seeks to answer that question, and show how corruption is not a result of any particular system of government, but merely because the nation is poorer.
--

The first question that needs to be answered is "What is corruption?" For if you detail what corruption is, then you can show the factors that go into making corruption. Corruption hinges on the concept of what is called the 'public' people.
When society was smaller, and everyone knew everyone, there was less need for a system of government. A government was more of an arbiter than one that ruled by binding fiat. If I had a problem with another person, I came to a person who was deemed 'wise', and he worked out the problems. In this instance, the 'governemnt', was incredibly connected with the people - for if the man made decisions that were not fair, or he did not act in the interest of everyone, everyone paid the price simply for the fact that everyone knew everyone. So this man could not go about his daily busiess without the risk of running into the person that he screwed over. As a result of this, this type of society creates two types of leaders: people who are very in tune with the 'sense of the community' and can use that for some good, or people who are in tune with the 'sense of the community' and can use that for some bad. For instance, they could use their position to win a war, or to lose a war. There was no such thing as a 'self interested ruler', whose self interest did not coincide with that of his community, because he lived among his peers.

As society grew, necessarily, the space between the government and the governed became distanced. Instead of having to deal with the same people all day every day, the governments ruled over thousands, millions of people. Some think this was a good thing; for if you have representatives who represent many people, it is hard enough for one faction to control that representative. A result of this, however, is that you create a two tiered system; you create those that are in the government, and you create those that are not. There are some people who have all the power in society, because without centralized power you have anarchy, and some people who don't. All the benefits that being a leader got in the small society, is magnified a thousand times in this new, bigger society. Furthermore, simply because of the sheer size, and because the ruler cannot possibly live among all of his subjects, the dynamic of the type of leaders that get produced change.
1) There are people who are in tune with the sense of their community, but their community is so large and diverse, that it is more of a collection of publics than one community with the same interest.
2) There are people who are not in tue with their community, but instead some moral aspect; for it is only when a society gets sufficiently large, does the government try to regulate the way that people act and think.
3) There are people who derive their legitimacy not from the people at large, but from a collection of nobles, or those that are more wealthy in society.
4) There are people who represent their own interests, because the 'people' they represent have no unified voice, or are incapable of shouting loud enough to motivate the person in a specific way.

For right now that is the relevant parts. Number 1 is neccessarily the case, simply because there are always going to be differences in society - and even if there was no differences, unless there was no government, differences would arise. Number 2, is really just a reason to justify peoples power, not a type of person who controls it. Number 3 is an aristocrat. Number 4 is the man I am going to deal with.

This is the man that will have the most tendancy to become corrupt. This man feels no accountability to some 'sense of the community', nor any 'moral perspective', nor to even the rich in the community. HE may be in power because of any of them, but he does not recognize them as being superior to his authority.

Therefore, corruption, is when a person who has been imbued with the power of a public office, uses that office for something other than a public, moral, or rich man benefit. If someone uses it for those things, they are a factional leader, and not a corrupt one.
---
In the next post, I'll show how this is relevant to financial reform.

The ignorant ask "what is my effect on the world?"
The enlightened ask "What does the world know about itself?"

The Bear

I am The Bear
The Bear

Advertising

dls

Keep'em coming. You've piqued my interest.

The_Bear

The question then becomes, how do you make people feel accountability to some moral, public, or aristocratic cause?

The answer is provided in Federalist 51, where Madison writes "If men were angels, no government would be necessarily. If government were composed of angels, checks and balances would not be necessary. Since neither is true, we need checks and balances to ensure that somehow there is accountability present in the system. (paraphrased)"

There needs to be some institutions in government that have separate powers, so that if one becomes to dominant, the other can 'check' that branch. Ron Paul, the self-proclaimed constitutionalist, would have no chance to become president, had it not been percieved that George Bush violated the constitution.

These institutions need to exist to provide an outlet for the belief in accountability. There also needs to be a belief in accountability. The people need to believe that a certain situation requires a certain remedy. For instance, in a situation where the competing interests of an extended community is in play, a single person is woefully unequpped to take into account everyones situation; thus, a legislature is necessary. Conversly, in a state of war, a legislature is seen as 'slow', and thus endangers the community - thus, a single 'commander' is needed. The strongest presidents were presidents who presided over, and won a war.

But how do you create this sense of accountability? How do you make the people want to hold their official accountable? My solution, is to simply make the peoples' lives comfortable enough, so that the average person has the time, and the leisure, to contemplate matters beyond their immediate concern. When people do not have to work everyday for their sustenace, their thoughts then will naturally turn to thoughts of morality, of religion, of politics. This is the 'middle class'.

Beyond this amount of thought that will turn to politics, people will start to form local councils to take care of their situations. If people become prey to the elements of the economic, religious, or social, they will not turn their thoughts to the proper form of politics, but will instead turn their thoughts to other people or forces. However, if they are wealthy enough, they will form local councils that are adept at organizing this wealth. Basically, if there is a middle class, there will be a more federalized society. This, in turn, strengthens all society, because it feels like people will always have an outlet, should one part become too tyranical, or corrupt.

The last thing I wish to talk about before I conclude, is how to make good leaders, so that on the town and county levels, you have people who are capable and able to deliever results, rather than create excuses for their inadequacy.

If there are no people in the nation who think of politics, indeed, an uncorrupt society is really impossible to have - for the people are the primary means by which a government is checked from consolidating it power. So, to make the citizens of mexico think about politics, it is necessary to first forumlate pro-growth policies to take away the edge of hunger. After this, through different schools for Democracy, such as localized government, student government, or any other method that can train the average joe in the ways of government, can the spirit of Democracy and accountability enter their society. I would say to this effect, that in a society with a strong middle class, a strong Democracy or Republican government is the necessary outcome, because the addition of the middle class to the national discourse on politics, is enough to create a society that works not for the rich, but for the 'greater good'. Not only that, but if their is a middle class, the proper institutions will arise that can make schools for democracy known and respected nationwide. Without this respect for the system, and without accountability, arises the evil of corruption.

There will always be a divide between the rich and the poor. The poor, being too absorbed in trying to survive, necessarily hand all the power over to the rich - the rich being too acquiesing in taking this power. I have shown, as it is well known, that a middle class will necessarily create a spirit of Democracy in a society. This spirit will arise, unless, it is totally shattered by those in power; however, we can use our power here in America to make sure this doesn't happen. This spirit, coupled with financial reform of Mexico, will reduce the influence of corruption, and thus, will increase the wealth and power of Mexico, reducing the amount of illegal immigrants coming to this country.

People on my previous thread charged that Mexico is such a corrupt society that reform is impossible. This is not the case. Firstly, they have not shown that it actually is corrupt, but have just said 'its corrupt'. I ask them, how are Mexico and other CA countries corrupt? Prove it to me. However, assuming that they are corrupt, they are corrupt because there are too many people for such an inferior economic infrastructure; thus, there is no foundation for the middle class, Democracy, or accountability.

The ignorant ask "what is my effect on the world?"
The enlightened ask "What does the world know about itself?"

The Bear

I am The Bear
The Bear

Migi e!

YESSSSS for The Bear!!! Again, you've made me think.

The_Bear

i only wish to add one thing then I go to sleep:

Its true, that if you are able to meet every attempt to bring vast quantities of illegal aliens into this country, that you will succeed in making sure that these people do not come in.
- However, without a corresponding financial reform of Mexico and other coutnries in question, barring these immigrants will result in less money put into those countries because less money is being 'sent home', thus destabilizing them even further. This is surely not beneficial for anyone.
- There may come a time when the forces that wish to allow or to let illegal immigrants into this country, that they will seize power; as a result, if there is no financial reform, the illegal immigrant problem will return, and all the measures put in place to capture these illegals will be negated. 'Following the law' doesn't actually deal with the problem; it's just a band-aid for a larger situation

The ignorant ask "what is my effect on the world?"
The enlightened ask "What does the world know about itself?"

The Bear

I am The Bear
The Bear