Danton is a man of power, he had his moments with slaughtering enemies, but he also took money, property, women, etc. for himself. Robespierre is the embodiment of the two principles he holds most dear, terror and virtue.

In one scene, Danton, in an amazed tone, looks at Robespierre and says, “Do you mean to say that in all this… you’ve taken nothing for yourself?”

I suppose I recognize the sheer damage that corruption can do under out of control circumstances, the degree to which its early existence can generate the circumstances for it to slip out of control, and so on. But I was programmed early to think of it as not quite the worst thing or the worst temperament to have.

A little bit of help for family and friends, a little bit of like for like sympathy, can bite us all in the ass if we’re on the outs, but at least it’s human and understandable.

Exactly.

The big problem that Tullock ignores is what if the corruption entails killing someone and stealing their organs instead of just getting a phone line? Where does it stop? Since there is no rules if you’re not following the rules things can get out of hand very fast. I believe this sort of corruption goes on in the US today where people are killed that work to stop corruption.

In Canada, I also resent having to pay extra for services and am glad it doesn’t seem to come up the way it did a couple generations ago, OTOH I don’t find it the least bit alarming to give significant tips to movers and so forth. Maybe not even telecom guys.

I think we now have a telecoms sector so regulated that this is less common, but then so is customer service.

As far as cops, I would say that’s the key example. There need to be elements that don’t operate within the fee system, or as little as possible. Once they do, the problems start. And since they will sooner or later, or feel obliged to adopt the aggressive outside mentality against the rest of society, you have to consider the whole system.

Some corruption greases the wheels of insanely messed up societies, then it gets institutionalized and makes things worse.

I’ve been torn for years. On one hand, an old boss pointed out to me just how much and how comprehensive social, economic and political damage real, epic level corruption has done in Africa, how many frankly have died because of the way resources are actually managed. China too, once upon a time. One can understand how corruption eventually gets people the old neck bullet treatment.

On the other hand, we’ve reached a point in our search for paradise in which the definition of corruption has in some places grown very broad, and has been mirrored by the definition of the sphere of judicial and legal control, such that many practices that did not trouble our forebears are now nonetheless forbidden. In matters of politics, it has been mirrored by the expansion of the sphere of judicial control and autonomy, or of “policy”, and the shrinkage of the spheres of executive action, legislation, and competitive “politics”. The same principles are at work in how international relations operate.

It has before now struck me as conceptual sleight of hand.

For example, much though I am inclined to not want to support Trudeau on anything, I am not convinced that a prime minister suggesting to the justice minister that it is not in the state interest to prosecute a company for actions done abroad, is outside the legitimate sphere of state action, or that the justice minister doing so is outside the realm of prosecutorial discretion.

I don’t see it as being as bad as a senator using public funds to do partisan travels, for example, though in the Canadian system for historical reasons I wasn’t too discomfited by that either.

Our society, all the Anglo societies, were once like that. I don;t think it harmed our ascent to wealth and power much, if at all. Not even in 18c England or 19c America.

Per your suggestion, https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6n5c61

From Star Trek episode “A Piece of the Action”, in which the long ago visit of an Earth ship has corrupted the lifestyles of a very “imitative” culture.

I recommend 6:30 to 8:30 for the full effect. But the key line is at 8:25 or so. “What government? Like I told ya, I got the territory and I run it.”

Every society will have exactly the maximum amount of corruption it will endure. Unless a concerted effort is made to keep the parasites down, they will stabilize their level of extraction at the maximum sustainable. And if no such effort is made, it really pays to be the extractor.

Suckers enable con artists. Cowards enable bullies and thieves. Nonresistance invites abuse.

Society is a continuous conflict. A stable society is a stalemate and a cease-fire (an armistice is a delusion.) Whoever is strongest in both ability and will shall dominate, until another comes along strong enough to depose him.

And when that happens, none will dare call it treason.

Honest cops have something that is worth more than money under the right circumstances. If an honest cop was pinned under a burning car and I could take a risk to save him, I would probably take that risk, because an honest cop is worth a lot in the many emergencies that inevitably arise. Beyond that, even if the honest cop were too old to fight for me, I would probably be sentimental enough to save him out of some weird notion of “loyalty” or “honor” or something like that.

If a bribe-taking cop is pinned under a burning car … I don’t imagine anyone running forward to save him … except maybe an honest cop.

So to bring this back to the article, bribe-taking cops are likely to create social structures in which psychopaths can rise to the top. Psychopaths are hostes humanis generis – threats to the entire human species. Thus bribe-taking cops are like the preliminary infection that starts a deadly disease. Despite their short-term advantages for some rich people, bribe-taking cops must be regarded as the enemies of society and humanity.

If we were to say, tomorrow, that instead of having Google, Microsoft, and Boeing bribe and “donate” their way into legislature favorable to them, we’d just put the whole f**king thing out to open tender, well… Yeah.

“Y’all want law X? Fine; it’s gonna cost you Y, and then if your competitors want law Z and can pay more, guess who wins?”.

Get it out in the open, let the dollars speak, and then instead of enriching politicians, let them put the money into the Treasury. Corruption will always be with us, but just like drug use, you can’t stop it. What you can do is control it, and reduce the harms from it. Put it on public tender, and get that money out of the hands of kleptocrats and into the treasury, instead.

I’d pay the politicians a percentage for sponsoring legislation that brought in money, but I’d also back-end it such that if the legislation turned out to be a bad deal and/or hurt the public, they got charged for it.

Frankly, the real problem with our system is that it’s meant for angels, not men. Men are corrupt; the system ought to be honest enough to acknowledge that fact, and then regulate it all. Put the bribery into the open, and then let things fall where they want them to. If an ATT wants favorable legislation, let them pay for it up front, and into the treasury. There should also be time limits on it, such that we put up for bid favorable telecommunications legislation such that you get your rules you like for the next 25 years, or such-like. You pays your money, you gets your laws.

Think of legislation as being similar to the FCC’s idea about radio spectrum. You want it, you buy it. Openly. Want a politician to do something? Pay him; thing is, other people can pay him, too.

Hell, to be honest, I’d make the whole thing open to the masses–Say you’re in Wyoming. Operate your Congressional delegation on a for-profit basis; you want favorable legislation, Mr. Gates? Here’s our price list…

Isn’t really any different than the way things actually are, already–It would just put it out in the open and reduce the hypocrisy.

Frankly, I’d do the same thing with organized crime. Organize it. Tax the f**k out of it, while you’re at it. You want to reduce crime? Tax it. Tell the gangs “Hey, look… You want to run Chicago? Fine; run it. It’s all yours. All you have to do is answer to the locals, and pay your taxes. We’re gonna withdraw the cops, and y’all are on your own…”.

Cue about a 25-year disaster that will eventually shake out with the current lot of sociopaths being ousted, and the gangs having to take over government themselves, ‘cos they can’t parasitize on the current lot of civic incompetents. I can about guarantee you that they’ll either kill each other off like Kilkenny Cats, or the whole thing will recapitulate the rise of civil government from its roots in the need to organize things.

I keep telling people this sh*t, but they won’t listen: We don’t have to keep doing things this way. If it’s not working, try something else. And, to my mind, if corruption is a problem, turn it around and base your system on corruption itself. Once those crooked politicians have to put it all out in the open, pay taxes on it, and all the rest…? They’re gonna start doing things differently.

Root problem is that we really don’t run things in accordance with human nature. You can’t do away with corruption, really–Not so long as there are people involved. So, embrace it, make it a part of the system.

For example, some years ago up here in Canada, there was a minor scandal over the tendering and awarding of a contract to build a new terminal at an airport. It turned out that the contractor that won had ties to and had made extensive campaign contributions to the governing party. They were also not supposed to have won, given the bidding rules.

So yes, there was corruption, but the negative impact was very small. The project ended up costing the tax payers, perhaps ten percent more than it should have, but on the other hand, the new terminal was built, on schedule, and on budget. The economic benefit of having another terminal was realized, the x-thousand man-years of employment went into the local economy. Most importantly, the terminal was built to spec and safely, and has not fallen down.

Contrast that with a similar situation in the third world, where the terminal either never gets built at all, or starts falling apart as soon as it is finished.

The difference is that in the first case, the corruption is at a high level, The building inspector cannot be bribed to look the other way as half the cement powder for the concrete is diverted and sold off on the black market.

A certain amount of corruption at the top is relatively harmless because it does not significantly impact day to day life and business. When the building inspector or the driving test examiner is corrupt, and buildings fall down and incompetent drivers become a menace on the streets, you have a direct and significant impact to the man on the street.

The other aspect is what I would call “value for (bribe) money”. In the example of paying for expedited phone installation (for example), you know the cost up front and can factor it into your business plan, and if you pay, the phone does in fact, get installed. On the other hand, cops or soldiers at a “checkpoint” shaking you down randomly does not provide ANY economic value, and just makes civil life difficult.

The annual corruption index usually has the Scandinavian countries and CAN/AUS/NZ at the top (least corrupt), and North Korea or Somalia at the bottom. That is not to say that there is no corruption in Finland, just that there is less of it at a less harmful level. After all, the top spot often changes hands, since it is a relative index of corruption, and I suspect Canada will drop a few places this year because of the SNC/Lavalin scandal.