Topic: hypothetical solution of corruption in politics (Read 361 times)

The thinking is very good because if their properties are nationalized after the elections then the corrupt people will never want to come to the elections. It is very natural that the human race will naturally have an inexorable attraction towards money and nowadays only those who have a lot of money are willing to enter politics because they have to spend a lot of money in elections. It is understood that if it is possible to completely ban the use of money for campaigning as a pre-condition for elections, then it seems that corruption will be completely eradicated.

I get your drift and also note your sentiment on the nature of punishment (though I don't believe in death penalty) as punitive measure. I think imprisonment of various sentencing should be enough deterrent to corruption. In societies where those culpable are sentenced to prison, there is the likelihood of citizens avoiding anything that will bring about corruption. China is a typical example of countries with zero tolerance for corruption and that's a major part of what has stabilized her economy, though it's the death penalty way. Once a corruptor is hanged or executed, s/he won't have the opportunity to right the wrong. But if sent to prison, they could turn a new leaf and win more thieves over to the path of good. That's my point.

Yes, it started to be little OT. But i don't agree with your solution either - I don't think that it wll help to teach people that from some point wealth starts to be disgusting. You just draw a line (where?) and tell that everything above is disgusting (why?). Well, it doesn't have much sense at all - first question of every child will be - why?

I strongly agree with the opinion that corruptors should receive severe punishment. because with the culture of corruption very many parties are harmed. so it is very appropriate for a corruptor to be punished with the death penalty

You proposed a solution to the problem of corruption, and I'm trying to provide a more realistic one. I agree with that "if you are rich it is stupid to not use your wealth". But the thing is that many politicians are not rich(yet). They go into politics in hopes of becoming rich(mostly through bribes). And they will not stop taking bribes ever with that state of mind. It will never be enough money for them. That's why I think it's important to know the limit after which more money will not make you happier.

Well, IMHO if you are rich it is stupid to not use your wealth. What is the purpose of it if not use it for whatever reason? Happiness isn't the only one and doing some research for something so individual as happiness is irelevant at all. You can use wealth for example for making life easier, more comfortable or just for aesthetical purpose.

Lets say I am very rich and have comfortable house which is a piece of architectonical art. I would like to go to holiday but I really hate hotels. Because of I can afford the same comfort as at home, I will simply buy a new house at my holiday destination. As years passed, I've collected a few houses all around the world.

It is same as collecting whatever else. Someone is collecting cars, someone knives, some other tea ceramics or tatoos - every of them has its own reason for it and it doesn't have to be happiness at all.

I'm not saying "Eat the rich" and stuff like that. Far from it. Indeed, if you honestly earn a lot of money and want to live a luxury life, you have every right to do so. You can buy a private jet, you can buy the most expensive house in the world etc. ...

But collecting airplanes and buying several such houses? Idk, I think stupidity is disgusting.

And "Why is it stupidity?", you might ask. Well, we live in the age of the Internet, and it's stupid to not use it. If you want to feel happier, do your research first, and you'll find out that in most cases buying another airplane or very expensive house will not help with that. It can even decrease the feeling of well-being.

Disagree. Why is it disgusting? It is bad for other people when you steal money from them (generally), but if you earn lots of money and like the planes, why should it be disgusting to collect them?



May I ask you to expand this a little bit more? Your thoughts may be a fine addition to whole topic.

Although I can really sympathize with your sentiment, I disagree in some parts since some ideas mentioned may prove to be a bringer of more problems than solutions (no offense). Also, let us say that the good ideas are absorbed in the government system (in electing officials), there will always be a way for the corrupt and the influencial people that wants control over high positioned officials to have their way. This is because no single person is without a weakness that cannot be taken advantage of. Thus, the reason why even after all these years, the corrupt has never been erased on the most important positions in the human civilization.

I'm afraid such a scheme could lead to disaster, because dishonest people would find a way how to get around and continue to take bribes, plunder national treasuries etc. While honest people would stay away from politics completely, because normally they have families to care about, and getting all your present property "nationalized" is hardly good for your close ones.

Imo, the solution lays in teaching people through songs, books, movies, TV series that being wealthy is a good thing, but being overly rich, collecting airplanes, buying several houses worth millions USD each etc. is disgusting.

Of course that I know that this is part of democracy. The meaning of my post was - why democracy at all? What will it brings to us except this violenent rule of people who cares just about themselves?

That is the downside of a democracy,  anyone can run for a public office as long as they are natural-born citizen, a registered voter, able to read and write and a resident of that country.  It  could lead to corruption for it is based on electoral competition. Furthermore, there is also a vote buying phenomenon, where the voter sells his or her vote to the highest bidder. Ordinary people are unaware of what is good for them, whoever can give them enough tangible rewards will be their candidate without even knowing the true intentions. Political violence.

So why politicians and government at all? Why should someone led by personal interest rule? Isn't this simple violence?

New normal, who you are dont matter, show me your Bitcoin holding and you may pass
https://postnewsd2.blogspot.com/2021/10/ugandan-family-that-illegally-crossed.html
pic.twitter.com/0zsohZaeLi

Corruption is everywhere and we shouldn't be surprised by what we are seeing all around our society because we can't stop it not even care to beat it. Thanks to God for the liberty we have to agitate on it without being forcefully criticized. If you think your hypothesis and theory could reduce and bomb corruption then continue. Continuing doing what give you joy cause when your joy shouldn't be same with mine.

I imagine that will happen to my country, probably there will be no one to run for a public office. Most politicians run because of personal interest and political power they will hold.They even threaten or worst kill their opponent just to make sure they will win for elections.  Politics is a very tricky and dirty business.

Politics as well as corruption differs country wise. The kind of corruption in one democratic country is different from others.
Your hypothetical proposal sounds great, but who will implement it in a country where there is synergistic corruption?
Do you expect a politician to be on seat and implement what will not favour him?
In your country, is there a certain time that there is no president and the masses makes decisions? No! There is always a government or an interim government who is unwilling to implement things to his disadvantage.
Maybe you will reserve your proposal till countries are being managed with blockchain. 

If the whole country is ownd by a single company, two people, the solution can not be found fighting corruption
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/who-owns-australia-5363758

I agree with idea that simple people should be the highest supervision over politicians. Well, it is just like that in democracy, unfortunatelly it doesn't work - but I don't think that because all people are corrupted. They aren't - truth is always a little bit more complicated.

Lots of people are just too stupid to distinguish evil and good or it is simple to deceive them. Lots of people just don't care - because they do not undestand politics (who really does?  ) or they just want to live simple lifes (IMO not bad). And yes, lots of them are corrupted (but definitelly not all).

There are one other aspect of all this. What we consider as good and as bad? It is just our subjective point of view. Do you think that people of (for example) Islamic State consider themselves as bad? IMHO they don't. Maybe they think about themselves as saviors and warriors of justice (exactly as our politicians). Another example. Do you know Star Wars? Great Jedi warriors, keepers of the peace, featuring as good. Oposite of them are Sith Lords, generally considered as bad. But what is the final goal of the Sith? Peace, exactly as for Jedi. It is just fictional story, but reflects the truth - the concept of evil and good (which is so often used in discussions even on this forum) is just reflection of our own selfish and subjecive valuation of what we see around us.

And what I want to say? Maybe bad politics are just trying to survive, to win endless fight of evolution in overpopulated Earth just like everybody. They choose tools as they did maybe because they suffer from messiah complex or maybe because it is very pleasant to have a power. It looks like a irrelevant detail, but it helps from going crazy - there are no bad nor good and maybe all this is natural as whole evolution.

Politicans should be regarded only as administrators who govern and legislate within a remit under the framework of a nations constitution and should be held to account not be a controlled opposition or through a party procedure but by the electorate. There should be a strong oversight board with the power to dismiss and prosecute those who abuse their populations through corruption and overreach the same way there should be an independent policing body to police the police but unfortunately men and women are corrupt themselves deep down and always end up choosing to collaborate with evil rather than confront it.

Hypothetical solution,for corruption,base in our country BIG YES,if the leader not serving good idea and good planning in one country never can solve the corruption,but even the leader in one country trying stop ,that situations still a lot of people or some of them who sit in politics ,hiding and abusing the government rules to continues what they wanted to be in the government.Must the leader good advocacy

Well, that's some idea for sure and it's a good thing your thinking towards abetted world and not just folding hands. For this, I applaud and encourage you!

Though, one thing I know for sure is about humanity is the fact that, man will always want to find a way. Most times, the looted funds used by politicians in office for the acquisition of certain properties are mainly funds gotten from contracts and not there salaries alone. In the case of trying to keep them away from accessing these funds, you directly hinder any form of developmental ideas with regards to infrastructure and basic/social amenities and one wouldn't want that for a country. Hence, you give the free hand.

Now, virtually everyone or most persosns has three price. Given this notion, the individual in office could go about trying for officers with corrupt triats and even not within the political system. Even entrepreneurs that seek to expand there business. A partnership could be done secretly following legal processes or even buying of shares in someone else's name and the trend continues.

So, one can only try, through series of exposing the corrupt in office and pursue for justice because, we can't just fold our arms. While we hope that, one with good morals standard gets to occupy the seats some day and his predecessor follows suit.

Well, public service in my theory is hard and probably not for everybody. If you want to serve and have family, you will have to count with this. If you raise your children in material way so yes, maybe children can have a problem with that. But I think that it is everybody's choice how he/she raise own children. Maybe lot of public servants (in the meaning of politicians) would decide to not have a family at all.

Ohhh, so all of their assets that they deemed "necessary' will be confiscated after their term? is that how will this work?, so even if the family is living a luxary life while the politician is in position, they will go back after the term ends. Oh nice

But doesn't that will affect their children mentally, and emotionally as their items will be gone without their knowing, thus having issues.

It's a good proposal and helps rule out the monetary reward motivation factor. It could work once they are moderate and have no extremist leanings towards right or left spectrum and are absolutely subject to a strong constitution that protects the individual freedom of it's citizens and their nations public assets and natural resource wealth.

Well, this won't work. Maybe they will gain some wealth, but they cannot keep it after next elections. Politicians simply cannot buy anything - because they do not have any money. Politicians will be a special kind of servants - they get humble living, some clothes, food to survive...

I think this is a good idea, but politicians will find a way to use this concept for corruption, and I envision how will they do it...

Politician 1 will claim an essential need for their family (Obviously not needed) but claimed to be essential, and politicians 2 3 4 and 5 will be his backer that it is essential thus will be approved. And this will go on and on, and by the end they will have high end gadgets, house and lots for their children's, multiple luxary cars, etc.

IMHO money is just part of all this. Politicians are powerful because they can creates laws and people obey those, doesn't matter how stupid they are. Politicians have police in hand so they can force you to obey. And finally - they have money, so you cannot do anything with it - it is simple too hard to show politicians that you do not agree and not to be ignored.

What I can think of it is that every position in the highest place in the government should be paid little and above minimum for each country. This will determine who really have the heart of public service.
They won't be stopped on how they'll allocate the budget but all will be transparent and it's just the salary of them won't be that much.

Full transparent use of government money which public can access it anytime. Applying blockchain technology for all the government expenses with detailed attachment of the expenses. This will help to avoid corruption and abuse on power. Politicians are just powerful because they can use the government money as they own without being notice. But if imagine if they can't use the money, They will become just a normal employee with normal salary.

Yes, it is obvious. That's why I called it hypothetical. It is just a theory.

No matter what you change in the rules, since they are going to be in control of all those things then you can't expect to be corruption free but instead of giving certain time period as ruler people can remove them from leader position at any time of majority people don't like them but no democratic country will implement this because it is going to cause danger to the politicians.

You might be able to mitigate risk to some degree by having an "ombudsman" type of oversight body where the members are freely elected and NOT appointed. Appointments to boards are open to corruption as opposed to democratically elected member who can serve no more than 1 year without then having to be relected. Similiar to how state sherrifs in the US  are elected instead of nominated maybe as one example but there are other options. The key point is to ensure there is no political extremist allowed to sit in office or on an oversight board and only people without any conflict of interest whatsoever who cannot be biased for exampe siding with a far left politican because they too have similiar views etc. They should be thouroughly vetted to even pass as candidates and the vetting process most importantly must be without any corruption or bias and simply based on the constitution and its protection and in turn by default protects the rights of all citizens under its protection. This is just a general idea off the top of my head but the actual process would be simple in theory but complex in implementation to ensure double speak and the law itself is not twisted to suit any particular narrative. Third party interests disguised within populist narratives pushed through media upon ignorant masses are just as dangerous a threat to democracy as political corruption.

Well... I am a simple men, maybe don't understand these things very well. But back to topic - you were talking about some kind of independent oversight body. But how would it be possible to implement such a thing without risk it will become - lets say - less independed?

Noted.Yes to a degree but the law societies of various countries are corrupt in themselves whereby legislators and those who sign off on proposed legislation collude to implement the policies of third parties outside of a nation states jurisdiction . There are many "private clubs" where both attorney general and "democratically elected" officials along with the "opposition" are invited to hear the "proposals" of those who believe they are the rightful owners of earth inc and are given incentives to impose policies rubber stamped to ensure they are bound by contractual laws whereby the next "democratically elected" reps will have neither enough years in office or the litigation skills to unravel such a legal contract not to mention the fiscal penalties involved. Most of these policies ensure control through government borrowing to spend on useless social policies that will insure a bloated public debt which will incrue interest ( imagine for one outrageous example in some fantasy world where guberment shut vast sections of the economies of the world and paid people to stay at home   ). Privatisation of assets and resources then comes along to pay for this spending on worthless trinkets and services that are rolled up into financial instruments and sold to the people who end up owning the key assets and infrastructure through medium term notes,bonds,bank guarantees etc.

So the edu problem has two simple and elegant solution.

Granddaughter tuition will be paid from public funds as other life costs of whole family. Still much cheaper than coruption, but we can insure that - if granddaughter do not use her education in future (she won't have a job related to education), family will returns all edu costs.

Or we just won't care about it at all. If politician will try to do a dirty business (push some law in accordance with some private interest for example) their family just loose living, practically becomes homeless without protection - so anyone can just hang them about their necks until their die . IMHO some granddaughter education is not worth of it.

OP is on the right path in some ways.

The 'killer app' for politics would be a public A(sk)M(e)A(nything) with the candidate subject to sophisticated neuro-analysis (and the readings available for open-source analysis.)

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."  Any potential candidate is free to make that choice and encouraged to do so.  Just go be a corporate CEO if you don't want to take the test...but be advised that if your corporation is going to go for tax-payer funded contracts you'll end up back in the hot-seat.

This technology exists.  In fact, the very (and very sophisticated) monitoring and control frameworks designed to keep the plebs in check could easily be reversed to 'clean up' politics and make 'democracy' work.  This nightmare scenario has been recognized by the folks populating WEF, CFR, UN, etc for a number of years now and they are documented to have been discussing it at the highest levels.  The potential catastrophe may indeed be one of the major motivating factors in the timing of the kick-off of the scamdemic.

I don't see this as problem - it is by design. You have to loose something to gain power instead. It is proof that you mean it seriously when you are prepared to sacrifice something valuable to you. The gap beetween politician and simple people will be smaller in that case too. If you don't want to give up your wealth and you have some good idea, you can always promote it in other way without power to push it by force.


Yes indirect bribes are problem I dodn't thought about. In my country the majority of universities are public and the study are basically for free. There are some private universities too, but in general those are just for too_stupid_so_have_to_pay_it people. But yes - globally this can be a problem. Can you think up some other form of indirect bribe in this hypothetically scenario? I am sure that edu problem can have some simple and elegant solution.

---

This oversight body you are speaking about - aren't those courts?

---

Nice. But it assumed technically educated people. And we need to solve the problem of buying/selling votes.

Voting for someone who then turns around and votes against them is a scam.
The solution to corruption is democracy and make everyone vote count. In blockchain times easy done.
Self-govenment the locical sensible solution.

First of all, politicians should be licensed, pass professional exams (something like the FSO test, plus law and ethics).

As for their (or their family) net worth, it should be evaluated before they take office and every year after they leave office.
Basically, give them (and their family members) a tax audit every year, until they or their family members die.

Any politican or public servant who is a member of a "private members club" or who has any conflict of interest where they are open to corruption or bribery through lobby groups should be ruled out as a candidate for public service. Politicans should have an oversight body that is independent of political bias with the power to fire public servants and politicans who are in breach of their contract and the constitution.

Corruption is indeed a disease that is detrimental, not only in an agency, it can even harm the whole country. Preventing by giving big paychecks probably won't work. It is human nature to always be greedy with wealth. The higher the salary, the more motivated they are for corruption. Maybe it would be more appropriate to punish him severely or the death penalty.

I think at heart it's a good idea. I see two immediate problems, however. First, you're basically chasing away anyone who has already accumulated some wealth. Although they have got problems, enterprising people have got good ideas for how to run a country. Second, there's no way special interest groups wouldn't find a way to effectively bribe politicians – a Super PAC pays for their granddaughter's tuition to Harvard, for example.

Some time ago I was thinking about corrupted politicians in democratic countries and how to prevent this phenomenon. Things like big salary is to prevent corruption doesn't work, so why not to take all salary from them? In brief it should look like this...

Politicians and their families cannot have and manipulate with finance of any kind at all. After elections all their present property will be nationalized.  During the political service all their life costs will be paid from public funds, so as the living, which will be taken after the service. They will be motivated to rule well to rule as long as possible, because absence of any finance will effectively prevent from hoarding resources for later. After the service they will get some minimal one-shot retirement - for example one-year average salary.

What do you think about this? Can it works?