Most Effective way to Reduce Corruption?

[Ron Webb]

Latest post of the previous page:

The test is not biased, but based on political knowledge of current events, it is not a "do you believe in God?" "do you like fruit cups?" test o.o

What does that have to do with ethics? You don't think that unethical people have any knowledge of current events?

who administers the tests? The government? Who else? The tests would be designed by the current ethics board and would go under crucial evaluation before being administered.

You want the government to have the power to declare who is and is not ineligible to run against them? IMHO this sounds like a recipe for corruption. Even if the system itself was run fairly (and there would be endless suspicions to the contrary), the incumbent party would almost certainly slant the test in favour of its own hobbyhorses and ignore those of the opposition parties. The Labour Party would ask a whole lot of questions about labour issues, the Conservatives would ask complex economic questions, the BNP would focus on racial differences, etc.

[getreal]

This: Basic income?

or this: guaranteed minimum income?

Wow! Thanks, Hundovir. That was a really interesting read, although I am slightly disturbed that I find an article about economics interesting.

It's the first one I was referring to (basic income) as there is no means test. Interestingly, this appears to have found more supporters in conservative countries. Wonder why that is?

[Nirvanam]

This: Basic income?

or this: guaranteed minimum income?

Wow! Thanks, Hundovir. That was a really interesting read, although I am slightly disturbed that I find an article about economics interesting.

It's the first one I was referring to (basic income) as there is no means test. Interestingly, this appears to have found more supporters in conservative countries. Wonder why that is?

Yeah, both these systems sound good theoretically. But, I don't think they remove the root cause which is the need for money. Like someone said "a system is only as good as the people running it" (or did I make it up?), I think unless we as a society do not evolve beyond the need for discrimination and status, it'll be difficult to eliminate corruption.

At the very foundation we would require that people have "faith" that all of us are equal. No amount of rational thought processes or rationalizing can cause this to happen at the large scales necessary. This requires human beings to evolve from their current natural tendency to identify with groups, to a natural tendency to identify with all. Maybe sorrow may lead us to that "realization" in the future...like entire societies in a short period of time suddenly open their eyes to this reality because of the misery all around.

Another imaginative idea I had to reduce corruption was to reward people for making things happen for others. You know, the more you help others achieve things the more you get paid or more your benefits. So intrinsically it changes the whole game from serving one-self to serving the others. Corruption basically is a form of serving the self rather than serving others, so if we dangle more carrots for "service to others" then probably the behavior would change.

[mewi]

The test is not biased, but based on political knowledge of current events, it is not a "do you believe in God?" "do you like fruit cups?" test o.o

What does that have to do with ethics? You don't think that unethical people have any knowledge of current events?

who administers the tests? The government? Who else? The tests would be designed by the current ethics board and would go under crucial evaluation before being administered.

You want the government to have the power to declare who is and is not ineligible to run against them? IMHO this sounds like a recipe for corruption. Even if the system itself was run fairly (and there would be endless suspicions to the contrary), the incumbent party would almost certainly slant the test in favour of its own hobbyhorses and ignore those of the opposition parties. The Labour Party would ask a whole lot of questions about labour issues, the Conservatives would ask complex economic questions, the BNP would focus on racial differences, etc.

uhhh NO, did you not read any of my previous posts? I said the only requirement is education for the position they are entering -.- and of course the government would be handing out the tests? HOW ELSE would they get out there? Thats like saying it is a brewing pot for corruption to hand out ballots, ( and of course it will be no matter what you do, but at least you can reduce uneducated fools from being elected )

I like the twisting attempts >.>

[getreal]

Mewi

HOW ELSE would they get out there? Thats like saying it is a brewing pot for corruption to hand out ballots, ( and of course it will be no matter what you do, but at least you can reduce uneducated fools from being elected )

In my (albeit limited) experience it's not uneducated fools who are most guilty of corruption.
The big corruption wheezes which come to light are invariably orchestrated by very, very clever people.
The people who are most clever are those where the corruption remains undetected.

Being educated and intelligent is no indicator of integrity.

[Ron Webb]

uhhh NO, did you not read any of my previous posts? I said the only requirement is education for the position they are entering -.- and of course the government would be handing out the tests? HOW ELSE would they get out there? Thats like saying it is a brewing pot for corruption to hand out ballots, ( and of course it will be no matter what you do, but at least you can reduce uneducated fools from being elected )

Defining the "educational" criteria to qualify for political office is not at all like handing out ballots. A left-wing government would define it to include a knowledge of Marxism and labour economics. A right-wing government would fail you if you didn't know the details of supply-side economics. A theocracy might insist on memorization of scripture. And so on. The temptation to twist the standard in their own favour would be irresistable. In fact, they probably wouldn't even think of it as corruption. Theocrats honestly believe that anyone who can't quote scripture is an uneducated fool who ought not to be elected.

[Hundovir]

uhhh NO, did you not read any of my previous posts? I said the only requirement is education for the position they are entering -.- and of course the government would be handing out the tests? HOW ELSE would they get out there? Thats like saying it is a brewing pot for corruption to hand out ballots, ( and of course it will be no matter what you do, but at least you can reduce uneducated fools from being elected )

I like the twisting attempts >.>

I did read your previous posts.

I personally think a government should revolve around an ethics group which has high requirements in order to be elected into that position, such as 4+ years of ethical education?

Do you think that education about ethics is a guarantee that a person will act ethically? Or do you mean that any candidate would have to hold the same ethical views as this "ethics group"? And who decides which of the myriad of human ethical stances is the "correct" one? e.g. Should abortion be allowed? Should assisted suicide be allowed?

(You seem to assume that it is patently obvious to everyone what is the "right" thing to do. And judging by your comments in other threads, the "right" thing to do would be to do what you think is right.

I had superior ethical standings than most people that I knew.

)
Things are not really as simple as you seem to think. Another example:

The test is not biased, but based on political knowledge of current events, it is not a "do you believe in God?" "do you like fruit cups?"

"Political knowledge of current events" is not some body of undisputed "facts" with right or wrong answers. E.g. "For what reason did the U.S.A. go to war in Iraq?" What's the "correct" answer here?

Edit: Hmm, not sure if that last example's very good. How about "What caused the Second World War?"

[Gottard]

People, let me just remind you that this thread is going off topic! Wars have nothing to do with corruption or, conversely, corruption can enter every single aspect of life. We must decide which aspect we are talking about.

[Hundovir]

People, let me just remind you that this thread is going off topic! Wars have nothing to do with corruption or, conversely, corruption can enter every single aspect of life. We must decide which aspect we are talking about.

Whaaa?
My mention of war was in response to the suggestion by mewi that there should be some sort of test to ascertain eligibility for election.

The test is not biased, but based on political knowledge of current events

I am suggesting that "political knowledge of current events" such as the causes/reasons for a war are disputable and not just "cold facts". How is this off topic please?

[Gottard]

People, let me just remind you that this thread is going off topic! Wars have nothing to do with corruption or, conversely, corruption can enter every single aspect of life. We must decide which aspect we are talking about.

Whaaa?
My mention of war was in response to the suggestion by mewi that there should be some sort of test to ascertain eligibility for election.

I am suggesting that "political knowledge of current events" such as the causes/reasons for a war are disputable and not just "cold facts". How is this off topic please?

Wars, political facts, etc. concern a multitude of people while corruption -at least in the meaning of this thread - concerns the ethical attitude of "the individual".

[mewi]

Mewi

HOW ELSE would they get out there? Thats like saying it is a brewing pot for corruption to hand out ballots, ( and of course it will be no matter what you do, but at least you can reduce uneducated fools from being elected )

In my (albeit limited) experience it's not uneducated fools who are most guilty of corruption.
The big corruption wheezes which come to light are invariably orchestrated by very, very clever people.
The people who are most clever are those where the corruption remains undetected.

Being educated and intelligent is no indicator of integrity.

If the field you have studied in is a field of ethics, I think the chances of corruption is greatly reduced, as they would understand the importance of not violating those terms.

Sorry but, I'd rather have someone in the Government to be hired for their experience in the field, rather than for their pretty speeches and glittery smiles...

I am suggesting that "political knowledge of current events" such as the causes/reasons for a war are disputable and not just "cold facts". How is this off topic please?

Like I said, there would be nothing controversial about the tests given. It's not going to be like "Do you think this person was qualified to do this? etc etc etc"