Hacker News Reader

Comment by deanclatworthy | Hacker News Reader

Why does it blow your mind? Have we learnt nothing about democracy in the last hundred years? Why do we still think modern society has no place for corruption. I am sure societies two hundred years ago were saying the same thing. In fact I would suggest that technology and the global economy we live in has made corruption more accessible to the masses.

The fact is society has always been corrupt. It doesn't matter whether you are living in a democratic, socialist, communist country or dictatorship - there has and always will be corruption. It's human nature. You are never going to stop bad people doing bad things.

View on HN

"Why do we still think modern society has no place for corruption."

What do you mean by that? Clearly corruption exists as you pointed out later but "has no place" usually means "unacceptable". I think the reason people believe that is because it's accurate.

Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish.

This is the argument I hear every time, and completely glosses over my last sentence. People have been trying successfully for thousands of years to stamp out corruption. It's a part of human nature.

In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption.

It's not about accepting the practice of corruption, it should of course be punished when proven. It's about accepting that it's human nature. You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing. People have been doing these things since the dawn of our existence.

I found some interesting reading around this subject [1].

> Earlier Enlightenment-era thinkers looked to society to bring structure and civilization in order to restrain naturally corrupted mankind from chaos. In 'The Confessions', as in his other works, Rousseau takes an opposing view. He asserts that man begins in a pristine, uncorrupted state at birth, and gradually becomes corrupted through the assertion of society upon the individual. The true state of nature, says Rousseau, is uncorrupted

Whether you believe society corrupts the uncorrupted human mind, or that humans are born corrupted is up to you. I believe that no matter what, corruption is part of us, and part of being in a society.

[1] http://www.academia.edu/1922627/Rousseau_on_the_Loss_of_Iden...

You're never going to stop murderers murdering, or robbers robbing.

FYI, crime rates including murder and robbery have been falling sharply for the last 20 years:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-s...

But those things will never go totally away is his point.

Sorry to be that guy, but your argument is totally flawed because it's such a blatant example of the black/white fallacy. The order of magnitude difference in corruption between different countries makes it obvious that it is possible to combat corruption, just as the sharp decline in all sorts of crime across pretty much the whole Western world shows that it is possible to combat other sorts of crime too.

You say it yourself. The "order of magnitude" is different. It's still present everywhere and always will be. Even places like Iceland, one of the least corrupt societies in the word has corruption: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iceland

Show me a single case of any society having never had corruption.

What you are arguing is either wrong or tautological. What is the relevance of the fact that nobody can get rid of all corruption? How do you even know it's a fact, except by some appeal to history?

You might as well be arguing that humans can't possibly fly because up until 1903 nobody had. "The Write brothers will surely fail! Show me a single case of anybody having ever flown."

Corruption is an extremely difficult problem to combat. But what reason do you have to say that it can't be solved? Maybe you should produce an example of some corruption for which there can be no possible manner of correcting.

The ease and at which you've adopted this attitude of cynicism and helplessness is not making the world a better place, nor does it provide an example of good decision-making or maturity. It's classic FUD.

> How do you even know it's a fact, except by some appeal to history?

Does nature create perfect humans? If your answer is anything but yes, then it's a fact that corruption is a part of nature, much like thunderstorms or a sun rise.

> But what reason do you have to say that it can't be solved?

Because it's inherent to our nature. Can you stop people from loving one another? Do you think that's possible? If your answer is anything but "Yes", then you have your answer on corruption. It's exactly the same thing. Trying to eliminate something that humans have been doing since our existence isn't something that can be solved with naive optimism.

The answer isn't to eliminate, but to mitigate and minimize its effects. It's very similar to the war on drugs. You're never going to stop people from doing drugs, so you work to minimize their usage - legalize it and regulate it so you can minimize the damage.

>Does nature create perfect humans? If your answer is anything but yes, then it's a fact that corruption is a part of nature, much like thunderstorms or a sun rise.

This is complete bullshit and you should know better. Nature also created smallpox, if you'll recall. But we killed that just fine. You're a part of nature, and you'll die too.

> Trying to eliminate something that humans have been doing since our existence isn't something that can be solved with naive optimism.

Like flight? I'm not advocating naive optimism. I'm advocating a rational exposition of possible solutions, and you are stubbornly obedient to your own expectations of preferred attitude in a way that has nothing to do with solving problems.

And don't try to use meaningless examples like 'perfect human' and 'love' to argue about corruption. Until you've got some firm grasp on what corruption is in a way that can be consistently communicated, you are doing nothing but trying to define yourself to be correct.

> Nature also created smallpox, if you'll recall. But we killed that just fine. You're a part of nature, and you'll die too.

You're not comparing apples and apples. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want a more accurate comparison, it would be like if humans wiped out disease completely. And we're not even close to that. In truth, it would be impossible. Diseases will adapt and evolve to fight whatever cures we can throw at it. We can minimize and mitigate their effects, however.

> Like flight?

Do you think you could stop every human on this planet from loving? Again, if your answer is anything but "yes", then you're self-admittedly wrong. A hypocrite.

You can't eliminate something that is fundamental to human nature. It's silly and naive to even consider it.

> And don't try to use meaningless examples like 'perfect human' and 'love' to argue about corruption.

Why not? You're trying to eliminate something that is inherent to our very existence. Ok, so you don't want to use "love". Then how about laughter. Do you think it's possible to eliminate laughter if, for whatever reason, we wanted to get rid of humor?

It's a rhetorical question. No, you can't get rid of humor. And no, you can't get rid of corruption. They're the same exact thing. They're part of us. And always will be.

>No, you can't get rid of humor. And no, you can't get rid of corruption. They're the same exact thing.

Humor is corruption? That's how you intend to convince me that it can't be eliminated?

> In the case of FIFA (and reportedly) the IOC, delegates were given gifts. How do you suggest stopping the royal family of Qatar (who we have no jurisdiction or control over) giving a FIFA delegate a rolex? Short of putting an implant in everyone's head uploading everything they do, say or think to some giant all-seeing mainframe, I doubt we can track the actions of everyone and therefore stamp out corruption.

The person who is offered the gift says "thank you, that is very kind, but I am unable to accept gifts."

You then have a register of gifts. Anyone who is offerdd a gift notes that in the register.

But what about those corrupt people that want to accept the gifts? And who is going to enforce this policing of the gift registrar?

It makes it very easy to charge them for accepting the gifts once we find out.

Locks are for keeping honest people out.

And for increasing the expected cost for dishonest people to get in -- in the case of literal locks, by increasing the time and effort required to get in and the probability of being detected in the process (the variation in the quality and expense of locks is all about this second function, not about the function of keeping honest people out.)

Similarly with anti-corruption regimes -- they not only keep honest people from engaging in prohibited practices, but also generally include features designed to detect and punish defectors. While these obviously aren't 100% reliable, they are intended to increase the expected cost of defection.

Recognition of the existence of a thing is not equivalent to approval of the thing.

Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish.

Here's a page that lists the different levels of access you get for donating to the UK's ruling political party:

https://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx

There are so many ways to give influence via political donations, and the problem is just as you wrote: nobody gives a damn!.

I don't know how to solve the problem, any realistic chance of cleaning up politics seems to be an impossible task.

> Your acceptance of this kind of corruption is the very thing that enables it to flourish.

Humans are inherently corrupt. You're never going to have a morally perfect society. It just can't happen. It's like asking the sun not to rise in the morning. Nature is not perfect so humans can't be perfect either. Flaws will appear.

Believing that corruption can be stomped out is as naive as believing in Santa Claus. Once you accept corruption, you can work to minimize and mitigate its effects. Which is the goal since you can never, ever eliminate it.

I don't think it has anything to do with democracy. Moreover, I don't think that we should be talk about "corruption" as some kind of a moral entity, it's not. What we call "corruption" is just a manifestation of the human nature to be selfish (combined with unability to think beyond scope of one's own person and family, something many people seem to suffer from). As long as what humans want is misaligned with what they can get, there will be corruption.

Note that, ironically, humans are so selfish that everything is corrupt, and yet not selfish enough as the economy would like us to be.

>"What we call "corruption" is just a manifestation of the human nature to be selfish (combined with unability[sic] to think beyond scope of one's own person and family, something many people seem to suffer from)"

Without going into the whole "altruism" vs "egoism" discussion. One simply needs to admit that there is a slight, never-zero skew for individuals to favor self and family over others. Hardly something you could use the word "suffer" for, without injecting your own personal bias into the matter.

What I refer to in parenthesis seems to me to be more of a cultural phenomenon than anything inherent in human nature (like selfishness is, understood amorally). I've observed that general culture emphasizes well-being of your own kin at the expense of the other people around you. I personally believe this to be a morally lacking attitude, but my own opinion on the morality of this doesn't change whether this has (or has not) an impact on what we call "corruption".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com