Incompetent or a Corrupt Government - General

First of all, any direct similarities to any real world governments is a coincidence. Feel free to refer to real past, present and future governments in your arguments but keep in mind that I did not make this thread with any specific existing government in mind. In this hypothetical world where you can choose only one of two choices for who will govern you, would you choose: An earnest but incompetent government that means well but can't get anything done or gets done the wrong things that may be detrimental to a country's growth. OR An effective but corrupt government that keeps the country running well but abuses the system for their self interest. Keep in mind that neither of these options is necessarily tied to any sort of political alignment whatsoever. Where does the moral choice lie? To be honest, I'm really sitting on the fence here. Our leaders in particular should not get away with amoral behaviour being our representatives and all but is it worth jeopardising the futures of the entire country and its citizens? I'm leaning towards letting some corrupt behaviour slide but I don't know how much I'd let slide before I draw the line. What are your thoughts? What is your choice? [b]AND DON'T SAY NEITHER![/b]

So the U.K or the U.S?

I'm for corruption. So long as their own interests aren't particularly detrimental and it kept the country afloat, so be it.

Wouldnt a corrupt goverment mean it was incompetent?

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;32550247]Wouldnt a corrupt goverment mean it was incompetent?[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. Perhaps a corrupt government is more motivated to have everything running smoothly so that they stay in power. Anyway, in this hypothetical scenario the corrupt government is not incompetent.

Well I would think that the corrupt government would probably trample on all the rights of the people, on the other hand you the incompetent government not being able to protect any of your rights. Well at least you have a chance of a smooth running government with the corrupt decision, though do not expect much when it comes to with right intention for the people.

Corrupt, for sure. Maybe also a bit incompetent towards matters that involve the public, but every government is filled with at least a bit of corruption. Everyone has their personal agendas.

Corrupt but functional. It's what we have now in every country.

Depends on which would benefit the people the most.

both just like good old North Korea [editline]30th September 2011[/editline] Also, incompetent maybe its much easier to fix at least

I'd go for incompetent. It is far easier to teach a few people how to govern than to tell a few million people that the government is corrupt.

[QUOTE=Rombishead;32555538]I'd go for incompetent. It is far easier to teach a few people how to govern than to tell a few million people that the government is corrupt.[/QUOTE] yeah just look at NK, its out the ass with corruption, or most of Africa, Nazi Germany, etc though a revolution is possible with either corrupt looks worse in text

Its not just NK or some of Africa that are corrupt, most countries including the US and the UK are corrupt as hell. Its just that the US and the UK attempt to hide how corrupt they are whilst NK and some African countries just don't give a fuck. Anyway this is about a hypothetical country.

[QUOTE=Rombishead;32555840]Its not just NK or some of Africa that are corrupt, most countries including the US and the UK are corrupt as hell. Its just that the US and the UK attempt to hide how corrupt they are whilst NK and some African countries just don't give a fuck. Anyway this is about a hypothetical country.[/QUOTE] Don't forget Italy which is effectively run by the Mafia families.

[QUOTE=Rombishead;32555840]Its not just NK or some of Africa that are corrupt, most countries including the US and the UK are corrupt as hell. Its just that the US and the UK attempt to hide how corrupt they are whilst NK and some African countries just don't give a fuck. Anyway this is about a hypothetical country.[/QUOTE] The US government system isn't the problem IMHO, its the people in the government that are corrupt. But yes, the US has loads of corruption. And as a hypothetical country it depends, is it corrupt in US terms where it runs, but still has those people fucking people over or just purely fucking people over either way? what form of government is it? etc after all, a corrupt dictator-ship is far different than a incompetent democracy

A corrupt one. At least if it gets into a war it won't get conquered.

[QUOTE=J!NX;32555600]yeah just look at NK, its out the ass with corruption, or most of Africa, Nazi Germany, etc though a revolution is possible with either corrupt looks worse in text[/QUOTE] Nazi Germany was efficient as shit though, regardless of corruption and a complicated beauracracy.

I'd have to say incompetent with some corruption spice on top.

[QUOTE=J!NX;32556387] And as a hypothetical country it depends, is it corrupt in US terms where it runs, but still has those people fucking people over or just purely fucking people over either way? what form of government is it? etc after all, a corrupt dictator-ship is far different than a incompetent democracy[/QUOTE] By corrupt I had in mind appropriating tax revenue to build a villa or spend on whores or something. Or using your power to get away with crimes. Irresponsible use of your position but not in a way that particularly or directly harms the running of the country. (I guess you could look toItaly as an example?) Also, when I say corrupt I don't necessarily mean authoritarian or a dictatorship or any form of brainwashing. You know this guy is a bastard. The question is how much you might let him/her get away with in exchange for running the country efficiently.

The Soviet union could be used for both examples. When it began and the civil war was raging the bureaucracy was incompetent, whilst the bread ration in Moscow was a single slice a day the telephone factory was one of the few busy, as the government had placed orders for 20,000 telephones. Much later under Stalin, the system was corrupt but it was making massive gains in industry, infrastructure and the such and conditions were gradually improving. Once Khrushchev got into power he seemed to run it effectively to the point that by the mid 1960s life in the USSR was pretty good.

The question is confused in that it asserts that self interest in government is a form of corruption. By this very definition, the incompetent government that did more for its people would be more corrupt in that they were acting more in their self interest to maintain their position. This would mean by the definition laid out here, that the government that tries to do more for its people is far more corrupt than the one that tries to do far less. If politicians were to give everyone $5,000, wouldn't that kind of seem like a bribe to keep them in power? It's more obvious when leader like Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe do it. Of course this could get into police states, but it'd only be fair to compare similar governments. It wouldn't be a fair comparison to assume that the incompetent government is Italy and the corrupt government is Iran, rather it only makes sense to assume similar scenarios. In the case of the other government, the more efficient one is less self interested as it isn't as willing to do whatever it can do to stay in power. They may still employ what many would consider corrupt means, but the other government is just as likely if not more likely to employ these means. I like this quote about democracy. [quote=Milton Friedman]I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.[/quote] To answer the question, politicians should act in their self interest, and their self interest usually coincides with what the people want. That is the major issue with democracy, but it is also necessary. I am more for a strict form of a Republic to negate the Tierney of the majority and the minority (special interests).

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32557299]Nazi Germany was efficient as shit though, regardless of corruption and a complicated beauracracy.[/QUOTE] I suppose that it was sort of nice for the Christian Germans before WW2?

Russia.

[QUOTE=LauScript;32575854]Russia.[/QUOTE] Although corrupt, it's much much more efficient than the USA. Much to the point that NASA is being forced to buy 50 year old Russian rockets, simply because those rockets are efficient and simple.

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32549961] An effective but corrupt government that keeps the country running well but abuses the system for their self interest.[/QUOTE] How is this scenario even remotely possible. A government that abuses the system for their self interest will not keep the country running properly, end of point. [editline]1st October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;32576098]Although corrupt, it's much much more efficient than the USA. Much to the point that NASA is being forced to buy 50 year old Russian rockets, simply because those rockets are efficient and simple.[/QUOTE] lol no Starvation much

[QUOTE=Glorbo;32578785]How is this scenario even remotely possible. A government that abuses the system for their self interest will not keep the country running properly, end of point. [editline]1st October 2011[/editline] lol no Starvation much[/QUOTE] Actually life in the USSR during Krushchevs and Breshnevs time was quite good. And a government that abuses a country for its self interest, will of course want the country to be powerful, wealthy and productive. If it's none of those things the government will either collaspe or is a puppet state.

Both for the U.S.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32580398]Actually life in the USSR during Krushchevs and Breshnevs time was quite good. [/QUOTE] Because they loosened up a bit the tight hold on the country Stalin kept before them. Why do you think the country was in so much shit back in his day? Because he exploited it too much. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;32580398] And a government that abuses a country for its self interest, will of course want the country to be powerful, wealthy and productive.[/QUOTE] lol nope. Most government officials know their time will be up and they will probably get replaced during SOME election, so they just try and make the most out of the situation. This can cause bending of the law, laws that benefit the lawmakers and not the population and general asshole things such as exploiting public opinion and superstition to get what you want or creating an actual situation to manipulate public opinion-which can, a lot of times, result in injustice and even death of innocent people.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32554862]Corrupt but functional. It's what we have now in every country.[/QUOTE] Depends what you class as functional. I wouldn't class many African nations as functional, especially since millions are dying due to not being able to feed themselves, yet it's fine so long as some rich guy in wall street gets a bonus for creating money out of nowhere right?

[QUOTE=Glorbo;32588772]B lol nope. Most government officials know their time will be up and they will probably get replaced during SOME election, so they just try and make the most out of the situation. This can cause bending of the law, laws that benefit the lawmakers and not the population and general asshole things such as exploiting public opinion and superstition to get what you want or creating an actual situation to manipulate public opinion-which can, a lot of times, result in injustice and even death of innocent people.[/QUOTE] That's why you don't hold a election and instead appoint people. The people who had and created a good life in the 1950s to 1980s USSR were the same people educated and raised under Stalin from the late 1920s to early 1950s.