[net.politics.theory] corruption a non-word: accountability in Govt.

orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/21/85)

> []
> Another question:
>   Do libertarian dictionaries contain the word "corruption?"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 	No.
> 
> 	Corruption is a government activity. 
> 	If McDonalds wants to adulterate the hamburger with saw-dust,
> and/or charge $75 for a Big Mac, this is bad business not corruption. 
> (The market place keeps them from such "corrupt practices".)
> 	As there is no market place in the "government services business" 
> we can't call government stupidity "bad business" so we call it CORRUPTION.
> 						danw

There certainly *is* a marketplace in government services:
it's called "elections".  If you think the government is corrupt then
you have a choice every election: throw the rascals out of office.
If you think that government is intruding where it should not then
vote for government officials that will lessen such intrusion.
As long as there is a democratic system that allows various political
groups to compete then there certainly *is* both a marketplace in
government services and accountability in some sense.
I realize that this use of the term "marketplace" is not precisely the
same as its use in economic theory. To be most precise I suppose one could
label it a market in "government officials" rather than "government services".
Voting for the government officials is assumed to result in differing
approaches to government and the provision of government services.  While
this is not always true, it is true to some extent.
 
It is simply ridiculous to claim that businesses are never either corrupt
or downright criminal.  If McDonald's takes to adding arsenic to people's
hamburgers rather than sawdust then not only is this activity corrupt,
I would say it is outright criminal.  Perhaps it is "bad business" and
perhaps it is not.  But it is definitely immoral and criminal to the same
degree murder is.
                 tim sevener  whuxl!orb

laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/22/85)

Tim, a few months ago I recall that you were terribly upset that
Reagan was elected again. As I recall, your position was that
the public had been manipulated into electing this monster. Please
make up your mind. Either the democratic process works (in which
case, why were you so upset about Reagan) or it doesn't. If it
doesn't, how can you claim that it is possible to change it
within the system? The militant anarchists have a point, you know.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura

josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/23/85)

>sevener
>If McDonald's takes to adding arsenic to people's
>hamburgers rather than sawdust....

It's interesting to note that in the exchange between sevener and 
the libertarians, the libertarians all claim that murder etc is
stupid ("bad business") whereas sevener thinks it's a good idea
(ie, that people acting in their best self-interest (as in a marketplace)
will do it in the absence of external forces.

I'd have to agree with the libertarians on this one...

--JoSH

mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/23/85)

In article <535@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>There certainly *is* a marketplace in government services:
>it's called "elections".  If you think the government is corrupt then
>you have a choice every election: throw the rascals out of office.

Tim, you know not of what you speak. In most elections, you have two
choices: the democrats or the republicans. In other words, no choice at
all. In some states, any marks on the ballot outside of the squares next
to peoples names is illegal, and invalidates the ballot - so you can
only vote for state approved people. Even in the states where you can
vote for other parties, the demopublican control of the media is so
great that most people haven't even *heard* of anything but the big two.
If voting could change the system, it'd be illegal.

Also, you've swallowed the myth that "the will of the majority" is in
some way inherently "just". Does that need to be destroyed again?

>It is simply ridiculous to claim that businesses are never either corrupt
>or downright criminal.  If McDonald's takes to adding arsenic to people's
>hamburgers rather than sawdust then not only is this activity corrupt,
>I would say it is outright criminal.

I would also say criminal, even in the case of sawdust. The crime in
question is fraud. Of course, a politician isn't expected to keep
"campaign promises," so it isn't fraud. Maybe some brave soul would like
to try sueing a politician for fraud when he failed to keep his campaign
promises?

	<mike

orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/26/85)

> >sevener
> >If McDonald's takes to adding arsenic to people's
> >hamburgers rather than sawdust....
> 
> It's interesting to note that in the exchange between sevener and 
> the libertarians, the libertarians all claim that murder etc is
> stupid ("bad business") whereas sevener thinks it's a good idea
> (ie, that people acting in their best self-interest (as in a marketplace)
> will do it in the absence of external forces.
> 
> I'd have to agree with the libertarians on this one...
> 
> --JoSH

Why don't you read "The Jungle" ?  You might get some sense of
what unrestrained and unregulated capitalism is capable of.
          tim sevener   whuxl!orb

esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (03/29/85)

In article <5324@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>make up your mind. Either the democratic process works (in which
>case, why were you [Sevener]  so upset about Reagan) or it doesn't. If it

Not that simple.  It works, but badly.  BUT -- and I know I'm repeating
myself, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in -- all the others work even
more badly.  ("Absolutely the worst ... except for all the others".)  Now,
y'all think you can get the democrats' position through your thick heads?

					Iconoclastically,
					Paul V. Torek, wucs!wucec1!pvt1047

mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/31/85)

In article <862@wucs.UUCP> pvt1047@wucec1.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes:
>Not that simple.  It works, but badly.  BUT -- and I know I'm repeating
>myself, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in -- all the others work even
>more badly.  ("Absolutely the worst ... except for all the others".)  Now,
>y'all think you can get the democrats' position through your thick heads?
>
>					Iconoclastically,
>					Paul V. Torek, wucs!wucec1!pvt1047

Gee, last time this came up, Sevener quoted that particular idiocy. I
expected it to appear again, but not from Paul.

The problem with "all the others" is that the number of possible
organizations of power in a society is *much* larger than the total
number of people in that society - and the more people, the greater the
disparity in size.

I'll concede that democracy is the best system that I know of that has
been put into practice, that doesn't mean that:

	1) all possible systems are worse than democracy; or
	2) the representative democracy in the US is the best democracy.

It's easy to describe a system that will work better in practice than
democracy. Trouble is, all such systems (including democracy) suffer
from the need of knowing which part of the populace (if any) is behaving
rationally at some given point in time.

	<mike