FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


In Search of Non-Corrupt Politicians





The Philosopher Princess
Are there any sincere, non-corrupt politicians in existence? If so, please tell us about them for our collection.

Happy New Year! Here is a new thread to start the new year off thoughtfully. Thinkers are highly needed!

If you know of a sincere, non-corrupt politician, here's your chance to submit your contribution. Please tell us as many relevant particulars as you know including, but not limited to:
Arrow his or her name
Arrow country
Arrow office or position held
Arrow party affiliation
Arrow whether elected or appointed or gained office by coup
Arrow years in office or position
Arrow campaign website link
Arrow your personal knowledge of the politician's sincerity, integrity, and non-corruptibility.

This thread is also a chance for others to give their evidence supporting or countering your claim.
~~~~~~~~~~
Supplemental Information

The plan for this thread includes the data to be gathered and organized elsewhere: http://thephilosopherprincess.frih.net/non_corrupt_politicians.html. Your suggestions for that Collections section can be posted here.
~~~~~~~~~~
Important Notes on Non-Corrupt Politician Submissions

Arrow We are not looking for just any ol' submission, even if the politician you have in mind happens to be the least corrupt politician of whom you know. We instead are in serious, sincere search of politicians who are not at all corrupt. Some people here on Frihost, and elsewhere in the world, claim that not all politicians are corrupt. If they are correct, then we should be able to gather these non-corrupt politicians for our database.

Arrow Any submission needs to be a person who has been elected to office, appointed by a person elected to office, or gained office by coup. At this time, we are not looking for people who are running for office. Also, though sometimes those without titles wield tremendous power, for this project we are examining people who hold political titles.

(Note that appointed office holders are just as political as elected ones because they are put in power by those who are elected to power, and because appointed politicians wield vast amounts of power, maybe more than elected politicians. As an example, the California State Board of Equalization is elected to oversee the tax system of the US state of California. The elected board and the {elected} Governor, then, appoint members of the Franchise Tax Board to do the dirty work that the California State Board of Equalization and Governor don’t want to face the voters over. So, a member of the Franchise Tax Board would qualify for inclusion here, but the hired secretary of a board member probably would not.)

(Note that often when a government is overthrown by military coup, the new leaders claim that they did it to save the country from the corruption of the previous government. So, these politicians can be valid submissions.)

Arrow While any submission needs to be someone who you, to the best of your knowledge, believe is not corrupt, you by no means need to know everything about that politician. For example, you don't need to know them personally. But, to keep up your integrity, you need to know enough that you vouch for them to a certain extent; in other words you need to give us some reasoning as to why they fit.

Arrow Silly, insincere politician submissions should be sent to one of the Frihost joke threads, not here. Smile (However, that doesn't mean that the people hanging out here shouldn't have some on-topic kidding around. We can be serious and have some fun simultaneously.)
~~~~~~~~~~
General Notes

Arrow While The Philosopher Princess will act as facilitator, she will need lots of help with peer-to-peer constructive critical review. Besides her not having the ability to check everything out personally, it's better to have multiple analyzers and judges. We also want to minimize multiple posts from the same person, and yet everything valid needs to be addressed. So, please, help verify yea!, or verify nay!, the information submitted here.

Arrow Other Frihosters may not realize that we need their inputs over here. If you see people on other threads claiming to know that non-corrupt politicians exist (or, equivalently, that Government is not always corrupt), why not (politely) ask them to make a (valid) submission on this thread? After all, if they make those claims, then they must already know whom to submit, right?

Arrow It is valid to quote, here on this thread, Frihosters making (relevant) claims on other threads (for example, someone making a claim mentioned in the previous point). Please include a URL link. That way, we can get those claims on the record. And, we who read this thread will know who "owes" us a submission. (Not owes in the real sense, but owes in the intellectual integrity sense.)

Arrow I will update this post if important "rules"/notes are added/changed. I can envision the posters coming to consensus on something needed. I am open to improving our discussion environment. In fact, early posts offering ideas, including questions, of how best we could proceed on the goals here would be welcome.
~~~~~~~~~~
Simultaneous Discussion: Asserting that we will find none

Also valid is for people to state that they do not believe that non-corrupt politicians exist. In this case, please tell us how strongly you believe this, or whether you have some doubts. If you believe this to any extent, please put it on the record here to help our discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~
Simultaneous Discussion: What are good definitions of corrupt and non-corrupt?

It is obvious that for this collection to be meaningful, we need to know what corrupt and non-corrupt mean. Rather than my attempting to force definitions from the start, and knowing that we each have a general idea of what we mean, and also knowing that this topic will be debated naturally anyway, I leave these open for us to discuss. We hopefully will, together, hone in on a consensus of definitions.
~~~~~~~~~~
I apologize for the lengthiness of this and my next post. But, I believe that proper context setting is often the key to productive discussions.

I would like to suggest that the people here who are sincerely attempting to help us make progress on this thread, re-visit these first couple of posts occasionally so as to remind oneself of what we're after. The thinkers could also help remind me and others when we're not being true to the focuses.

Let the non-corrupt politician hunt begin! Very Happy
The Philosopher Princess
How This Thread Was Born

You may be curious how this thread's idea was born. There have been, and still are, some good politically related discussions over on the Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom thread. Some people believe in Not Voting. Some believe in Voting. (Obviously, there's more to it than that.) People have their reasons.

A subset of the pro-Voting group believes that Government isn't necessarily corrupt, and that some politicians comprising the Government are not corrupt. Other people are skeptical of these claims. So, I decided to open a thread to focus on this.

Let's look at some quotes from "both" sides (it is actually more complicated than having just 2 sides, but considering the extremes can often help).
~~~~~~~~~~
Evidence of Believing that Politicians are Not Always Corrupt

Arnie on (Not) Voting page 8 wrote:
Governments are, in my eyes, often composed of both sincere and 'bad' politicians mixed together. Often politicians are seen as an evil group, while it's just a bunch of individuals. Probably a lot of them aren't sincere though Mad But it's important not to instantly write any politician off as corrupt

Phil on (Not) Voting page 1 wrote:
What shameful acts are you referring to? Do you mean to say just because someone is a politician, they are committing shameful acts?

(More will be added as we notice relevant quotes. They need not be from the (Not) Voting thread.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Evidence of Believing that Politicians are Always Corrupt

The Philosopher Princess on (Not) Voting page 8 wrote:
Finding a "sincere" non-corrupt "politician" is like finding a sanitary sewer line. It may have been clean when it was first laid, but it doesn't stay clean for long.

SunburnedCactus on (Not) Voting page 1 wrote:
I thought "stupid and corrupt" was a given in any politician these days.

dark_paladin on (Not) Voting page 1 wrote:
Whether we are going to vote or not doesn't matter, cuz anyone who gets elected will become corrupted when he/she gets the power. Power is the temptation of EVIL!

Dante on (Not) Voting page 7 wrote:
the chances of us getting a real choice out of the electoral system on this issue at this point is almost nill.....
The real choices would be around..... re-organising our political system so our politicians are not so dependent on big money in order to get in.

SunburnedCactus on (Not) Voting page 6 wrote:
Sadly once someone is elected they become practically immune to any rebuke you may have.
~~~~~~~~~~
Objectivity

Sometimes it is difficult to prove a negative. In this case, the people who believe all politicians are corrupt could, theoretically, list every politician and at least one corruption of each politician, and this would be an attempt at proof, for it would be comprehensive. However, this is not practical.

The burden of proof, in this case, instead rests squarely on the backs of the people who believe non-corrupt politicians exist. For sincere believers, their first "duty" of proof is not that difficult. Each of these people need only find one politician, for whom they are willing to vouch non-corruption. A submitted name, along with the called-for "relevant particulars", including the important "personal knowledge of the politician's sincerity, integrity, and non-corruptibility" is all that is needed. (Obviously, more submissions are better, but let's at least get this ball rolling.)

Then, the burden of proof switches sides. A person who believes a particular submitted politician to be corrupt must offer a second level of proof, in the form of evidence of corruption.

Then, the burden of proof switches sides yet again. Someone with evidence that the submitted “corruption” is not actually corruption, can give corroboratory evidence.

I make this all sound much more difficult than it really is. The methods I'm referring to are really quite logical, and many of you would figure them out for yourselves. But that doesn't mean I know how to explain it well. So, I welcome others who can re-state these things better. Once we get going, I think most will easily get the hang of it (hopefully myself as well Smile ).

I will be attempting to track all significant information for us (at http://thephilosopherprincess.frih.net/non_corrupt_politicians.html). My lists and tables should make evident what is needed next for each submission. (I say, "should" but that doesn't mean, "will". I'll need help to keep it all accurate.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Honorable Mentions

The following quotes get honorable mentions for their feisty candidness about politicians and corruption.

druidbloke on (Not) Voting page 2 wrote:
politicians, the people doing this for a living are generally dull people who think they have loads of charisma, and are bigger than the subject they are talking about, that is just tedious and puts a lot of people off including me.

pat783_earthling on (Not) Voting page 5 wrote:
At one time I was very involved in the American process. I was on a Central Committee of the Democratic Party in Colorado 6th. I became convinced that voting didn't matter because I was in close contact with the people who were elected.

nextgen on (Not) Voting page 6 wrote:
As far as voting is concerned your just swapping one puppet for another. The puppet masters don't change. just the puppets.

Matrixz24 on (Not) Voting page 7 wrote:
Personaly i think all goverments are all corupt and well i dont vote at all cause whoever we bring in as president or prime minister or what type of goverment they will be corupt one way or another so i dont vote at all i just go with the flow and pay my frigin taxes lol

lapsantos on (Not) Voting page 6 wrote:
I also don't know how many of you ["americans"] actually support president W. Bush's foreign policy of spreading democracy worldwide by any mean available, but I can't understand why the guardians of democracy aren't able to make it work as well as they try to impose it......
you are leting he lessons of your Great Nation's Fathers, over the years, go down the drain.

fathomer6279 on (Not) Voting page 8 wrote:
Myb u shld b askin da q does voting politicians into power corrupt them? or r they all corrupt b4 nyway? or r u a person dt finks politicians rnt corrupt lyk my 'best' 'friend' at my skl?

GranMastah on (Not) Voting page 8 wrote:
voting NEVER changed anything except for people on top of the foodchain.

Metaguy on (Not) Voting page 8 wrote:
the government is stupid anyways. Its like "lets vote on this guy so we can have more wars" or "this guy promises us less tax! Lets believe him!" when in the end they dont do anything but cause more destruction and chaos.

Rodier on (Not) Voting page 3 wrote:
i never really liked politicians i think they are all liars and good at evading the truth. They can shrug off any mishap like it is yesterdays new, totally oblivious to the severity of th esituation. i feel that they or self centered and egotistic and that they feel whatever they want is what is best for their nation. Wrong of course they usually are (polititions that is) but none the less left unchangeble and childish with their ways of running their country.
~~~~~~~~~~
Let's Start the New Year Off Right

Okie dokie! If we believe opposite things, some of us must be wrong. Let's make objective progress towards figuring out which stuff is right.

Everyone who believes in the Goodness of Government in the area of the Non-Corruption of Some Politicians, come on; we need to hear from you!

Everyone who's good at tracking down the truth, whether to verify submitted non-corruption, or to offer prove otherwise, we surely need you here!

We also need those who can help us all objectively judge what we should next do with any submitted names and evidence.

Welcome to all thinkers!

As The Philosopher Princess says: Thinkers don't just spout what they knew yesterday. They are willing to re-think in the light of new evidence.
riyadh
to tell u the truth, it is very hard to find non-corrupt politicians espcially in my country - bd. u look at them at a glance and u will think tht they oh so innocent, trying to do gd for the country. but actually they r nothin but corrupt cos if they were honest, they couldn't hav bought a bmw 7 series right after it was launched in bangladesh.
WoolmerHill
The are two views which are wrong. One is that a polician can be an angel; the other is that every politican is corrupt. Most policians combine genuine belief with dirty hands.

The key to a better political system is the trinity: political particpation by ordinary people, accountability and openness.
S3nd K3ys
Pity reply... Rolling Eyes
Metaguy
Well seriously, today you'll see actors, directors etc. running for president, vice etc. and they all want to shape the world in there image. For once, if everyone would vote for someone who is honest, sincere (and wont get greedy) etc and not just for your favorite person based off looks, acting in certain movies etc, and vote for who you really think should win, based off they're personality off screen, and not just always on TV, where they make them look good, it would turn out great. Its not the polititians who are corrupt all the time, to be honest I beleive you should be blaming yourself (If you voted) and the other citizens who voted, after all you do choose the fate of where ever you live for 1 or more years.
DX-Blog
Jan Peter Balkenende
The Netherlands
Prime Minister
CDA
Elected
2.5 years
Couldn't find a campaign website link Razz, think it would have just been on www.cda.nl or so.
He isn't corrupt, morals and ethical values are for which he strives and he's definately sincere Razz.

There's just one thing.... he completely sucks as a politician, he can't make any decisions, he's being fooled around like a nerd and 1 of the reasons why people voted on him was: he looks like harry potter.

But don't be afraid, here is our own personal harry potter meeting bush:
http://www.usemb.nl/pmvisit3.jpg

And look, although he might not have any charisma, looks nor gives the people any confidence in him, at least he isn't shorter than bush Razz.



Perhaps a corrupt prime minister could have done more for our country in the last 3 years Razz.
ocalhoun
George W. Bush
(not kidding)
S3nd K3ys
ocalhoun wrote:
George W. Bush
(not kidding)


Big 'ol brass ones...



The Philosopher Princess
I won't post here every time I make updates to In Search of Non-Corrupt Politicians, but I will occasionally, as I am doing right now. It reflects our two submitted politicians.

Thank you to DX-Blog for giving us at least something to start with on the first submission.

The second one.....
ocalhoun wrote:
George W. Bush
(not kidding)
.....didn't have any accompanying data or opinion so I took a stab at it to stand for the moment:

"Commander-in-Thief of the Heavenly Host".
(not kidding)
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I won't post here every time I make updates to In Search of Non-Corrupt Politicians, but I will occasionally, as I am doing right now. It reflects our two submitted politicians.

Thank you to DX-Blog for giving us at least something to start with on the first submission.

The second one.....
ocalhoun wrote:
George W. Bush
(not kidding)
.....didn't have any accompanying data or opinion so I took a stab at it to stand for the moment:

"Commander-in-Thief of the Heavenly Host".
(not kidding)


Perhaps you'd be so bold as to provide any source of evidence that proves your stand that W is a "theif" ??
ocalhoun
What do you want?
How do you post evidence of non-corruption?
To the best of my knowlege president Bush is not corrupt.
I've never seen evidence to prove that he is.
Also, please define corruption.
S3nd K3ys
ocalhoun wrote:
What do you want?
How do you post evidence of non-corruption?
To the best of my knowlege president Bush is not corrupt.
I've never seen evidence to prove that he is.
Also, please define corruption.


That's my point. If there's something corrupt, provide proof. Otherwise, it's just another (flawed) opinion.

I agree, I don't think W has done anything willfully wrong. He's doing what he thinks is best for the US and the rest of the free world.
The Philosopher Princess
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Perhaps you'd be so bold as to provide any source of evidence that proves your stand that W is a "theif" ??

You're funny. Thanks! I don't know anything about any "theif". But on my "thief" part, it's a joke in place of real data, because no real data had been submitted. I don't expect anyone to immediately know how to follow everything requested, but I do expect sincerity. I will be less likely to make fun when I see someone really trying, whatever they say. With just a name and a "(not kidding)", especially when accompanied with the signature statement, "A proper appplication of nuclear weapons can solve any problem.", I can't be sure of sincerity.

My joke had 2 goals:

(1) To call attention to this part:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
in other words you need to give us some reasoning as to why they fit.

(2) To encourage something more of value.

My joke's worked to a certain extent because -- and I respect ocalhoun for this -- we now have at least some humbly stated and very valid questions from ocalhoun -- all, worthy of our attention. I, for one, cannot answer them to my own satisfaction. I need help from many people available here. I would like objective ways to determine these things. In the mean time, I must make judgment calls. I judged just a name and a "(not kidding)", one way. While, DX-Blog's entry at least had something implying sincerity.

Now I make a judgment call that ocalhoun and S3nd K3ys are sincere and would defend "W" with evidence if they only knew how. So, I will remove the "Commander-in-Thief of the Heavenly Host" from the webpage. I expect others can supply evidence yea and nay, so I'll refrain from that for now.
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I don't know anything about any "theif".


Yet you toss the title of theif around like it's a fact.

Quote:
Now I make a judgment call that ocalhoun and S3nd K3ys are sincere and would defend "W" with evidence if they only knew how.



Quote:
if they only knew how.



Seriously, now.. your thread's title contains

Quote:
...Non-Corrupt Politicians


How would you prove he is not corrupt...? Simple: The absense of proof that he IS corrupt.

So the burden of proof is on YOU, seeing as how you so quickly pinned the title of "thief" on him. (Well, until I called you on it, then you started backing off.. )
The Philosopher Princess
S3nd K3ys wrote:
(Well, until I called you on it, then you started backing off.. )
No, sorry!, S3nd K3ys. You don't get the credit. But ocalhoun does. I was going to explain to you about the joke, but leave the "Commander-in-Thief of the Heavenly Host" until I saw ocalhoun's questions.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
(How would you prove he is not corrupt...? Simple: The absense of proof that he IS corrupt.
Yes, to a certain extent, you are correct. But "absen[c]e" does not help the sincerity case, which was the point.

And, judgments can always change later, e.g., if new information came in that showed the submitter didn't really believe the claim of non-corruption.
~~~~~~~~~~
ocalhoun wrote:
Also, please define corruption.
Here's just one, very generic, incomplete definition as a simple start.

{A definition} Corruption: When someone, before getting power, swears to not do something on behalf of particular people bestowing power, but then, after getting to power, does do that something after all.

{Example} If a political candidate promised not to start a war, but then he or she did start a war, they might be corrupt.

But this is just an example. In a real life case, we would need to study more, like whether the politician who started the war really did it out of corruption (meaning, he or she had planned it all along and lied during the swearing), or out of stupidity, or for some other reason.
~~~~~~~~~~
Since I've offered a start, would you guys please give me an attempted definition or example? Think of someone other than your submitted politician. Think of someone whom you would call corrupt. What is it about that person that makes you want to call them corrupt?
riyadh
very few politicians are non-corrupt and where i live, u won't find a single politician who's not corrupt. i mean literally. in a country like bangladesh no politician would be able to give their son a bmw 5 series as a gift if they made honest money.
i_am_mine
Well as far as Public Opinion In the United States goes...


Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About half of U.S. adults believe most members of Congress are corrupt, a poll released Tuesday suggests.

According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 49 percent of respondents said most members of Congress are corrupt. Although 46 percent of respondents said most aren't, the margin of sampling error -- plus or minus 4.5 percent -- makes it clear that the perception of congressional politicians is largely negative.

Congress' image could emerge as an election topic, with 55 percent of respondents saying corruption will be "the most important" or a "very important" issue to consider when voting in November, when all 435 House seats, and 33 Senate seats, will be decided. (View poll results)

Thirty-two percent of people surveyed said corruption was moderately important, and 12 percent called it not important.

But when asked to identify corruption by party, respondents were more hesitant. About half of those polled said "only a few" members of either party are corrupt.

Asked how many congressional Republicans are corrupt, 19 percent of respondents said "almost all" and 28 percent said "many." The response was similar when people were asked about corruption among Democrats: 17 percent said "almost all" and 27 percent said "many."

The poll was conducted among 1,003 adults December 16-18, before former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax-evasion charges Tuesday as part of a plea deal with federal prosecutors.
i_am_mine
I do believe that Ralph Nader Of The Green Party Is a Non-Corrupt Politician.The Only Problem being that I'm not sure he's still in Politics as of now.

A Brief History Of This Man

Personal information


Quote:
Nader has never been married, and has denied rumors that he was gay while running for president in 2000. According to the mandatory financial disclosure report that he filed with the Federal Election Commission in 2000, he then owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc. [9] Nader's total net worth is between $4.1 million and $5 million. However, the consumer advocate has made more than $15 million in his lifetime, most of which he has given away.

Ralph Nader's lifestyle is unusually austere for an American celebrity (Nader has appeared on the NBC Saturday Night Live television show four times, including hosting the show January 15, 1977). Nader inhabits a modest apartment in Washington DC, equipped with a black-and-white television, which he watches only rarely. His attention is focused on the work of his public interest crusades. Nader has donated the vast bulk of his earnings over his lifetime (from royalties, lectures, legal work, and so forth) to funding public interest causes.

Nader's harsh and uncompromising critiques of corporate and political wrongdoing have earned him a reputation as an angry and gloomy "national scold." Yet, despite this caricature, which no doubt reflects the seriousness and intensity with which Nader approaches his work, people well-acquainted with Ralph Nader generally speak of his persistent optimism, his abiding sense of humor, and his unfailing wit.

Nader stands 6' 4" (1.93m) tall.


Ralph Nader Is Perhaps One Of The Most Active Activists I have Ever Seen

Activist movement

Quote:

Hundreds of young activists, inspired by Nader's work, came to DC to help him with other projects. They came to be known as "Nader's Raiders" and, led by Nader, they investigated corruption throughout government, publishing dozens of books with their results:

* Nader's Raiders (Federal Trade Commission)
* Vanishing Air (National Air Pollution Control Administration)
* The Chemical Feast (Food and Drug Administration)
* The Interstate Commerce Omission (Interstate Commerce Commission)
* Old Age (nursing homes)
* The Water Lords (water pollution)
* Who Runs Congress? (congress)
* Whistle Blowing (punishment of whistle blowers)
* The Big Boys (corporate executives)
* Collision Course (Federal Aviation Administration)
* No Contest (corporate lawyers)
* Destroy the Forest (Destruction of ecosystems worldwide)
* Operation:Nuclear (Making of a Nuclear Missile)

In 1971, Nader founded the NGO Public Citizen as an umbrella organization for these projects. Today, Public Citizen has over 140,000 members and numerous researchers investigating Congress, health, environmental, economic, and other issues. Their work is credited with helping to pass the Safe Drinking Water Act and Freedom of Information Act and prompting the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Their various divisions include:

* Buyers Up
* Citizen Action Group
* Congress Watch
* Critical Mass Energy Project
* Global Trade Watch
* Health Research Group
* Litigation Group
* Tax Reform Research Group
* The Visitor's Center

[edit]

Non-profit organizations

In 1980, Nader resigned as director of Public Citizen to work on other projects, especially campaigning against the believed dangers of large multinational corporations. He went on to start a variety of non-profit organizations:

* Capitol Hill News Service
* Corporate Accountability Research Project
* Disability Rights Center
* Equal Justice Foundation
* Georgia Legal Watch
* National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
* National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
* PROD (truck safety)
* Retired Professionals Action Group
* The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest

* Congress Accountability Project
* Citizen Advocacy Center
* Pension Rights Center
* Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
* Center for Auto Safety
* 1969: Center for the Study of Responsive Law
* 1970s: Public Interest Research Groups
* 1970: Connecticut Citizen Action Group
* 1971: Center for Science in the Public Interest
* 1971: Aviation Consumer Action Project
* 1972: Clean Water Action Project
* 1972: Center for Women's Policy Studies
* 1980: Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations)
* 1982: Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
* 1982: Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism)
* 1983: Telecommunications Research and Action Center
* 1983: National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
* 1989: Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service)
* 1993: Appleseed Foundation (local change)
* 1994: Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees)
* 1995: Center for Insurance Research
* 1995: Consumer Project on Technology
* 1997?: Government Purchasing Project (encourage the government to purchase safe and healthy products)
* 1998: Center for Justice and Democracy
* 1998: Organization for Competitive Markets
* 1998: American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition)
* 1999?: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
* 1999?: Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations)
* 2000: Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress)
* 2001?: League of Fans (sports industry watchdog)
* 2001: Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups)
* 2001: Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)




The Ten Key Policies Of His Party Are Commendable:

Ten Key Values of the Green Party
Quote:

The Ten Key Values of the Green Party include and expand upon the Four Pillars of the Green Party originated in Europe and practiced by the worldwide green parties. The Global Greens Charter, signed by many of these parties in Australia in 2001, was based on the Ten Values and Four Pillars, reduced to Six Principles for brevity. The ten values are still used by most of the state and provincial parties in North America. Over 20 years of use, there are many different explanations of what the ten original terms mean, and many policies that represent examples of the principles in action, but the terms themselves are relatively constant:

1. Community-based economics, e.g. LETS, local purchasing, co-housing, Community-supported agriculture
2. Decentralisation, e.g. via Bioregional democracy, sustainable agriculture, regional transmission grids
3. Ecological Wisdom, e.g. ending human-caused extinction, promoting ecological health
4. Feminism, e.g. health security especially for mothers and children, and thus a focus on environmental health, gender equity in government; also referred to as Postpatriarchal Values, e.g. de-emphasizing competition and encouraging cooperation
5. Grassroots democracy, e.g. via electoral reform to improve deliberative democracy
6. Non-violence, e.g. via de-escalation, peace processes
7. Personal and global responsibility, e.g. moral purchasing, voluntary simplicity
8. Respect for diversity, e.g. via fair trade, bioregional democracy
9. Social justice, e.g. harm reduction rather than zero tolerance, a Living wage
10. Future Focus/Sustainability, e.g. measuring well-being effect over seven generations, leading to what is called seven-generation sustainability, Renewable energy and Conservation, New urbanism, Zero waste




Source: Wikipedia
i_am_mine
During my search for A List Of Political Parties I was shocked to find the website of The American Nazi Party.Although I had been told of its existence, It hand never really sunk in, and my mind had somehow refused to accept that such a party could exist in the United states.

The Website, was quite...well...horrible.

http://www.americannaziparty.com/index.php
The Philosopher Princess
Wow, i_am_mine!

i_am_mine wrote:
I do believe that Ralph Nader Of The Green Party Is a Non-Corrupt Politician.The Only Problem being that I'm not sure he's still in Politics as of now.

I can see that I need to reconsider the original criterion that submitted politicians need to be in office. There's no doubt in my mind that Nader is "still in Politics". And, I'm not certain that he's not been appointed to office, anyway. Can anyone verify that part (possibly using the data submitted by i_am_mine)?

The main issue for me is that Nader has been a high-visibility candidate. So he seems very worthy of proving non-corrupt or corrupt.

My original reasoning for requiring submitted politicians be in office was to not waste our time on low-level, no-name people who have little chance of being a true representative of Government, so whether they're corrupt or not wasn't of significance in our study of Government.

So, I'm tentatively putting Nader in the Collectibles table for now, while I/we reconsider. One thing we need is a more definitive way than just "high visibility" to describe this new criterion.
~~~~~~~~~~
I've added a "VOUCHER(S)" column in the Collectibles table (and made a few other updates).

I've tentatively put S3nd K3eys as vouching non-corruption at least to some extent of Bush. Am I correct, S3nd K3eys, that you assert non-corruption of W?
~~~~~~~~~~
By the way, right after the first three posts by riyadh, WoolmerHill, and sharkkky, I realized that this thread needs to invite people who believe that non-corrupt politicians don't exist, to assert this. So I added that into my first context-setting post.

(See? I want to keep our search standards somewhat high, but I am completely open to reasonable changes. I may be facilitator, but this is truly a group effort.)
i_am_mine
Well, I can see that you're highly organised.I hope the information given by me is of help.You can verify it at http://www.wikipedia.org

And also, it is true that since Nader is well-known by the media, is susceptible to being branded the non-corrupt or corrupt tags.However his susceptibility alone should not be reason for his non-inclusion.

I personally believe that it is next to impossible to find Nader corrupt.But then , it is the facts that should be sought, not personal opinion.
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Am I correct, S3nd K3eys, that you assert non-corruption of W?


IMNSHO, all polititions are corrupt to some extent. But sure, put me there if you want. At least until I see proof showing otherwise. The ACLU, on the other hand, (an entity that professes to promote the civil and liberal rights of the accused to be innocent until proven guilty) has already convicted him via a full page ad in the NYT claiming

ACLU wrote:
"Mr. Bush broke the law in the NSA phone tap deal and is as bad as Richard Nixon."
The Philosopher Princess
While I am trying my best to extract words from people, I am in no way trying to put words in people's mouths. I only want to extract/capture Reality. A subset of Reality is what people believe.

(For example, while it may or may not be true that "global warming" is caused by humans, capturing people's beliefs on that is capturing a part of Reality. So, then, it is one thing to deal with researching the truths and falsities of "global warming", and it is another thing to deal with people's beliefs on those truths and falsities.)
~~~~~~~~~~
So, S3nd K3ys, thank you for your additional comments on your beliefs. Clarity of your beliefs, however, is not quite yet to be had by myself Smile.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I've tentatively put S3nd K3eys as vouching non-corruption at least to some extent of Bush. Am I correct, S3nd K3eys, that you assert non-corruption of W?
S3nd K3ys wrote:
IMNSHO, all polititions are corrupt to some extent. But sure, put me there if you want.

As I've attempted to convey explicitly, this thread is seeking "not at all corrupt" politicians. I should only include you as a Bush voucher if you believe he is "not at all corrupt".

Both of these cannot be true, simultaneously:
(1) You believe that "all polititions are corrupt to some extent".
(2) You believe that W is "not at all corrupt".

So, I guess I will not "put [you] there", until I find out more strongly that I should. By the way, please note that even when someone believes a politician is somewhat corrupt, that someone can still validly attempt to disprove particular corruption evidence submitted by others.
~~~~~~~~~~
I believe a source of confusion has been my possibly poor use of "at least to some extent" as is in the quote of myself above. I did not mean to imply the following:
(3) You believe that W is only mostly not corrupt.

I did mean to imply, and elicit whether it's true that:
(4) You believe that W is not at all corrupt, even if you only have a certain amount of evidence proving non-corruptness.

In other words:

** If someone has some evidence proving non-corruptness to themselves, and they do not personally know of any corruption for that politician, then they are a voucher for that politician.

** If someone has a lot of evidence proving non-corruptness to themselves, and they do not personally know of any corruption for that politician, then we will need a new, stronger term than just voucher to identify this. (We're not even close to having any serious evidence, so I feel no rush to devise that term.)

** If someone has any evidence of corruption, they can not be a voucher for that politician.
~~~~~~~~~~
I stand ready to reword anything, when any of us figures out how to state it better (more concisely and easier to understand).
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:

As I've attempted to convey explicitly, this thread is seeking "not at all corrupt" politicians. I should only include you as a Bush voucher if you believe he is "not at all corrupt".

Both of these cannot be true, simultaneously:
(1) You believe that "all polititions are corrupt to some extent".
(2) You believe that W is "not at all corrupt".


Well, by your definition...

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
[

{A definition} Corruption: When someone, before getting power, swears to not do something on behalf of particular people bestowing power, but then, after getting to power, does do that something after all.


You're assuming that nothing is changed and/or nothing is learned AFTER said candidate gets into office. Therefore, given new knowledge of events that were previously unknown to the candidate, the reasoning for going to war may be enough to change that persons mind, thus making him/her a 'corrupt' politition.

Please better define 'corrupt', and a way to prove/disprove it. As I said, proving a politition is NOT corrupt is nearly impossible, while disproving it is much more likely to be attainable.
The Philosopher Princess
I think I followed what you said.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Well, by your definition...
[...]
You're assuming that nothing is changed and/or nothing is learned AFTER said candidate gets into office.
Yes, but keep in mind that I stated it was an "incomplete" definition, so there are other things that fit it as well.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Please better define 'corrupt', and a way to prove/disprove it. As I said, proving a politition is NOT corrupt is nearly impossible, while disproving it is much more likely to be attainable.
You seem to have a good grasp of many things. Due to your second sentence above, I believe you yourself have an understanding of what it means to be corrupt, or not. So, please, why don't you make an effort to get us a more complete definition? It's going to take some work, and I obviously can't do everything. I depend on people like you to help us all.
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I think I followed what you said.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Well, by your definition...
[...]
You're assuming that nothing is changed and/or nothing is learned AFTER said candidate gets into office.
Yes, but keep in mind that I stated it was an "incomplete" definition, so there are other things that fit it as well.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Please better define 'corrupt', and a way to prove/disprove it. As I said, proving a politition is NOT corrupt is nearly impossible, while disproving it is much more likely to be attainable.
You seem to have a good grasp of many things. Due to your second sentence above, I believe you yourself have an understanding of what it means to be corrupt, or not. So, please, why don't you make an effort to get us a more complete definition? It's going to take some work, and I obviously can't do everything. I depend on people like you to help us all.


Thanks, but many here don't see it that way. I do have an open view of many things, as I have been strongly involved in both major political parties in the last several years. (I converted from a Democrat after that stupid Clinton/Monica BS.)

As far as defining corruption for the sake of this thread, I'm afraid that will be a debate in and of itself. If I get time today I'll try to put some criteria together to propose a definition and/or method to prove corruption or lack there-of.

*cough*debate forum*cough* (hi bondings)
Dante
The Philosopher Princess goes to pains to define a politician in terms of a holder of political office, but what is corruption?

You coud start with the idea that a politician should stick to the things he belives in, and not just to follow where the money is. But what if he starts by beliving, or comes to belive that there is nothing wrong with being rich, that the rich benefit the rest of society, and that it is very important to safeguard the interests of the rich? Is she corrupt, deluded or perhaps right on the money?

Well it depends on your point of view.

What about personal integrity, of saying one thing and doing another? Is inconsistency a sign of corruption, or can honest people change their opinions and still be honest?

What of people that are not being honest with themselves? Or who are inconsistent in a way that they don't themselves acknowledge? How do we then know if they are corrupt, or perhaps deluded, or just ignoring difficult perspectives, or even seduced by power?

And what of the rithlessy non-corrupt, but also ruthlessly murderous? What of honest fascists?

I think there are many problems with the idea of corruption. Is it just about taking bribes? Is it also about being sucked into powerful points of view that are out of touch with the concerns of the many? Blair in the UK is guilty of the latter, and rather greedy, but not really what I would call directly corrupt: I personally see him as sincere, a bit easily led and rather personally deluded.

The point is, what exactly are we looking for in terms of an ideal politician, that the corrupt ones fall short of?
Dante
It is important to remeber that corruption is also a systemic issue, it is due to the pressures brough to bear in the corridoors of power, to make sure that the powerful get their way, even with a democratic process.

Some peope resist this, Lula and Chavez are having a go, despite there being some wiff of financial corruption around them. So is corruption about resisting power?

Allende in south America was democratically elected, governed within the rule of law, resisted the US, and was executed by a CIA funded Junta for his pains. He must of showed quite a lot if integrity in the face of threats and inducements, before the CIA went to the lengths of supporting Pinochet and a coup.

Part of the problem is that we live in a world ruled by one ruling faction, that is the US government, and there is no-one on the international stage there to limit the corruption they have spread to get their ways. "Confessions of an economic hit man" is a book that charts the history of this corruption of the world's ruling elites by US power. The only wayto end such corruption is for there to be checks and balances on the ruling elite internationally, like an international criminal court with teeth, and possibly a global parliament that can scrutinise the activities of the most powerful as they operate globally.

Without that, our national level democracies and be bought and bullied away with impunity, and the big global decisions remain beyond the reach of democratic scrutiny and control.
The Philosopher Princess
Excellent posts, Dante -- just the kind of thing we need to get us going! I think (and hope) they will benefit S3nd K3eys, who has graciously agreed to create something for us on that subject (but it doesn't have to be "today"; I heard you coughing earlier; we don't want you getting sick; no pressure to rush, just pressure to do Wink).

I'm picturing our definition(s) not being typical prose-type definitions, but instead being in bullet form -- something similar to that comedian Jeff Foxworthy's You might be a redneck if ...(fill in the blank)...

We need to be stronger though:
We know so-n-so politician is corrupt if ...(fill in the blank)...
We know so-n-so politician is corrupt if ...(fill in the blank)...
...
We know so-n-so politician is corrupt if ...(fill in the blank)...


So, if they meet even one criterion, they're toast. Of course the "if" must be met quite stringently. What do y'all think?
~~~~~~~~~~
Dante wrote:
The Philosopher Princess goes to pains

Yep. Facilitator pains. Thanks for easing some of them Very Happy.
druidbloke
I have a sneaky feeling the ones who appear most squeaky clean are the most corrupted Smile the odd affair here (go clinton ;ob), a drink problem here (leader of the lib dems here in the uk), its all things people understand, and just happen to ordinary people, I worry more about the ones who none of this dirt can be dragged up about.
Arnie
I think if you want to find something against somebody, you will always be able to twist this or that for criticism. It's easier to prove somebody has no integrity, than to prove he has. I think it's also a matter of 'tasting' the person, which goes a lot better when you're close to him/her obviously.

And even if you're not able to find anything, you just say as 'druidbloke' did.

This topic proves my point. Nowadays there are so many corrupt politicians that it's hard to find one that isn't. And when you do, it's easy to accuse him. Because somebody that appears to be so good - that can't be true. He must be hiding something!
The Philosopher Princess
Your comments are very reasonable, druidbloke and Arnie. It's just that I envision our benefiting from such a search, in some ways that I don't exactly know how to explain. But I will try along the way, and hope for help from others.
~~~~~~~~~~
druidbloke wrote:
I have a sneaky feeling the ones who appear most squeaky clean are the most corrupted Smile
Certainly could be!

Some do appear "squeaky clean" to many people who are looking. However, my time spent studying the political system causes me to not see "squeaky clean" anymore. I default to skepticism, and it's not out of faith, but of an understanding of the principles of cause and effect of politics. And yet, I would like to give others a chance to prove me wrong.

I know people who are principled. I know politicians who are corrupt. But! Is it possible for a person to be in politics and be principled? If so, let's find them. If not, let's figure out how to prove this, so that others can't call this belief faith-based.

druidbloke wrote:
the odd affair here (go clinton ;ob), a drink problem here (leader of the lib dems here in the uk),
I'm not quite sure whether you are saying those are examples of some considered "squeaky clean".

druidbloke wrote:
its all things people understand, and just happen to ordinary people, I worry more about the ones who none of this dirt can be dragged up about.
Yes. In general, a person's sexual escapades and drinking habits don't have anything to do with corruption. However, as soon as someone is publicly and loudly stating one thing, but privately doing another thing, no matter what that thing is, then that person is blatantly open to corruption, due to their inconsistent behavior.

Let me offer an example. My (admittedly very distant) impression of Russia's ex-President Boris Yeltsin was that he drank a whole bunch but he really could care less whether people knew about it or not. Russia's famous for vodka. Why would they care? Of course Yeltsin would have wanted people to believe he was fully functioning (and he was certainly corrupt for other reasons), but being "caught" drinking wasn't embarrassing like it would be for, say, the supposedly non-drinker "W". If this is true, then Yeltsin was not very corruptible by drinking, but "W" would be if he drank. (I have no reason to think "W" drinks. I think his cluelessness comes naturally.) (Do we have a Russian here who could give us an opinion?)
~~~~~~~~~~
Arnie wrote:
I think if you want to find something against somebody, you will always be able to twist this or that for criticism.
You are correct. But keep in mind that that is not our goal here. Given my context-setting, we are not out to railroad anybody. We are in search of truths on this subject. Therefore, any twisting of the truth is available for others to counter. (For those whose first language is not English, to railroad is a term that can mean to pressure or coerce into a hasty action or decision.)

Arnie wrote:
It's easier to prove somebody has no integrity, than to prove he has.
Yes, "It's easier...". But can you not envision any scenario where some people did prove a negative? Are you up for the challenge? Smile

Arnie wrote:
I think it's also a matter of 'tasting' the person, which goes a lot better when you're close to him/her obviously.
I believe I see what you mean. But there's also something to be said for people who are not close being more objective. When someone is too close, then they can become biased because then they have a personal stake in the outcome. (When they're too close as a friend, they might be biased in one direction. When they're too close as a competitor, then might be biased in the other direction.) Whereas, people "above" or "outside" the fray can be free to seek the truth, whatever it may be.
Soulfire
Well, everyone has a different preception of corruption, and try to avoid stereotypes. Saying all politicians are corrupt is like saying every single child under the age of 18 is immature. It's simply unjustified rambling.

But I can't really think of one, so much for my argument. Ah well, stereotypes are dangerous.

Now what did we learn?
The Philosopher Princess
Soulfire, are you saying that you are proud to personally and strongly support corruption?

Otherwise, why are you flamboyant in your happiness with Bush (and your disgruntledness with Democrats) (as depicted in your chosen images) yet you believe Bush is corrupt?

Soulfire wrote:
Well, everyone has a different preception of corruption
True. And that's why one of our tasks here is to define it for our purposes. Care to offer your perception as a start?

Thanks (I think) for admitting that both of the following can't be true:
Soulfire wrote:
Saying all politicians are corrupt is... simply unjustified rambling.
Soulfire wrote:
But I can't really think of [a non-corrupt] one
SunburnedCactus
I'm surprisied no-one has yet related this topic to a present incident of corruption i.e. the whole Abramoff, DeLay et al scenario which has been unfolding for the last few months. There's a fine example for you, and it implicates Mr.Bush for accepting $150,000 of the money involved for his last election campaign, along with a great deal of other politicians. Scandalous I'd say.
The Philosopher Princess
Thank you, SunburnedCactus, for not DeLaying another minute in bringing that up!

In regards to "W", do the Bushiites here believe that is:
(1) likely corruption
(2) possibly corruption
(3) not likely corruption
(4) other Question
ocalhoun
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
ocalhoun does. I was going to explain to you about the joke,


Why blue?

Also, this topic is in the wrong forum!
I didn't see any links to your sources...
Alluding to your own site is hardly a source. (besides technicality)
Vrythramax
Lets face it folks there is no such animal. The mere statement "Honest Politician" is a contradiction in terms....much like Jumbo Shrimp.
Arnie
My taste of this topic is exactly described by the above post. No, that doesn't mean I agree with it - I mean you may say you're in search for truth, and in search for 'good' politicians. But let's be honest now. Look at all the replies of this topic. What is the general subject? Is it a search for 'good' politicians, or simply another occasion to have a good bash at all politicians that (you think) are bad?

To say it another way: we were searching for 'good politicians, so why the heck are you talking about bad ones all the time, such as Sunburnedcactus? That doesn't provide much perspective here. Let's not forget the title. It does not say "In search of bad politicians to bash them" - that's probably done enough already on this forums outside this topic.

So basically in my eyes this topic is going to one point only - talking bad about a lot of people you don't like. And will that prove that there are no non-corrupt politicians in this world?

Which brings me to the following.
Quote:
We instead are in serious, sincere search of politicians who are not at all corrupt. Some people here on Frihost, and elsewhere in the world, claim that not all politicians are corrupt. If they are correct, then we should be able to gather these non-corrupt politicians for our database.
If nobody here would turn out to able to prove the existance of non-corrupt politicians, that wouldn't mean you can prove the statement "non-corrupt politicians exist" wrong. First of all, that proof of non-corruption can never be right, and will never be right in the eyes of many. Considering that I read people say "I suspect the ones that look totally clean". What can ever be proven then!? If they appear to be corrupt, they are bad. If they appear to be sincere, they are bad too? Also, there are basically 2 kinds of politicians. The famous ones and the ones that nobody has ever heard of. The first group has a lot of enemies, which means they will certainly have a lot of accusations against them out there. Who is going to tell whether those accusations are right? But they are often quickly grabbed and used to hold against sincere politicians. The second group nobody knows, and you'll hear stuff like "does that person exist anyway", or "there is so little pressure on him because nobody knows him. he can probably hide his stuff good". And even local politicians have enemies which can falsely accuse them.
SunburnedCactus
The paradox of the non-corrupt politician is born!
ocalhoun
It all depends on your views.
If you define corruption very strictly, there are very few corrupt politicians.
If you define corruption very liberaly (the adverb, not the political persuasion), almost all of them are corrupt.
Philosopher Princess: If you want to make a topic like this, preceed it with one about the definition of corruption, or it will waver off of the topic as it has now.

My definition of corruption (which nobody will really accept, as they have their own...): The pursuit of power and money as an end, not as a means to an end.

Google's definition of corruption:
Google, define: corrupt wrote:
Definitions of corrupt on the Web:

corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality; "debauch the young people with wine and women"; "Socrates was accused of corrupting young men"; "Do school counselors subvert young children?"; "corrupt the morals"
lacking in integrity; "humanity they knew to be corrupt...from the day of Adam's creation"; "a corrupt and incompetent city government"
crooked: not straight; dishonest or immoral or evasive
alter from the original
bribe: make illegal payments to in exchange for favors or influence; "This judge can be bought"
containing errors or alterations; "a corrupt text"; "spoke a corrupted version of the language"
defile: place under suspicion or cast doubt upon; "sully someone's reputation"
touched by rot or decay; "tainted bacon"; "`corrupt' is archaic"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In broad terms, political corruption is the misuse of public office for private gain. All forms of government are susceptible in practice to political corruption. Degrees of corruption vary greatly, from minor uses of influence and patronage to do and return favours, to institutionalised bribery and beyond. The end-point of political corruption is kleptocracy, literally rule by thieves, where even the external pretence of honesty is abandoned.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt

Changed from good to bad, dishonest, to make wicked, to defile.
www.godonthe.net/dictionary/c.html


Under some definitions all humans (and some animals) are corrupt.
The Philosopher Princess
ocalhoun wrote:
Why blue?

Coloring people's names is a service I like to provide to my fellow Frihosters. It makes it easier for people to find discussion related to themselves and other people. The colors I use are mostly random, but I try to use different ones for different people when they are fairly close together in posts. And I try to use the same colors for the same people in the same area.
~~~~~~~~~~
ocalhoun wrote:
Also, this topic is in the wrong forum!

I am open to the possibility that the thread's location should be different. I think that because my approach of attempting to entice people to actually work on an intellectual project, with a goal of actually making progress towards something, rather than just general chit chatting, it is not that usual on Frihost, so it might not be easy to categorize. When I was designing this thread, I did search Frihost to see if I could find any similar method of discussion, and I could find none, so I had no template to mimic.

ocalhoun wrote:
I didn't see any links to your sources...

My expectations were/are that people would be referencing contemporary and past world news, so the sources should be scattered throughout. This is not a discussion based on one source but should be a project with many sources. In general, a search for non-corrupt politicians seemed to fit world news. I also had noticed that the moderators do not like topics put under the General Chat Forum when they better fit other forums.

If we actually found a non-corrupt politician, with our knowledge backed up by evidence, we would certainly be making world news (but that's a context-switch).

ocalhoun wrote:
Alluding to your own site is hardly a source. (besides technicality)

My site is not a "source" in the sense that I understand that word being used here; my site does not contain a starting-point piece of "news". Instead, it is supposed to supplement our discussion here.

It didn't seem appropriate to track our findings, along the way, in a Frihost post that I would keep editing. Plus, I can format the data easier on a webpage. As said, I haven't noticed anyone trying such a project on Frihost -- something where we're actually working, not just talking -- but I hope there's nothing wrong with attempting to tread new ground.
~~~~~~~~~~
ocalhoun, those logistics issues can be important. But, hopefully more important is, what of substance do you have to offer us on the actual topic here? I know you have something of value inside you. You submitted Bush as being non-corrupt, so assuming you are sincere, you must know something of substance related to Bush on this issue and you must have a concept of what it means to be corrupt/non-corrupt. Please share these with us.

Yippee! Just as I was about to post this, I noticed you did! Your last post is definitely of value. Smile
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Why blue?

Coloring people's names is a service I like to provide to my fellow Frihosters. It makes it easier for people to find discussion related to themselves and other people.


Honestly, I find it annoying to have to keep reading posts with colors in them. The ones that are a solid color, (say green), are bad, but the multi-colored ones are worse.

Not to be rude, Princess, but the amount of effort you go thru to make your posts pretty are overshadowed by the (typically) lengthy content, and personally I don't tend to read as much of those kinds of posts.
Animal
S3nd K3ys wrote:
... the amount of effort you go thru to make your posts pretty are overshadowed by the (typically) lenghty content and personally I don't tend to read as much of those kinds of posts.


I'm gonna have to agree here. I scrolled through this whole topic, but tended only to read the small few-liners. I'm a firm believer in say what you mean, be direct, cut to the chase, make your point, get on with it, don't waste your breath.... I digress.

American politics are run entirely by the mightly dollar, so corruption affects virtually every politician. The scale and seriousness of the outcomes of this corruption dictates how it is seen.

Outcome is bad, it's said to be corruption.
Outcome is good, it's successful lobbying.
The Philosopher Princess
Understood, S3nd K3ys! I like to have fun and I like to stick with a subject. You like to start tons of topics and move on. We each have our preferences. All I can think to offer you is that I will boringize Wink any talking I do directly to you.

Are you working on what is corrupt/non-corrupt, as you said you would? We need it.

(Now, see, I would have colored the question above, because that's the substance here, but because you like it plain, I left it plain. However, the italicizing was necessary to distinguish those words as terms; it wasn't prettying. Was my wink too extravagant?)
~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, okay, the same offer to Animal. You guys want plain jane nothing special? I shall try.

But I have no intentions of changing having fun with my style in general. By the way, I work in Word where useful macros are easy to write, so I don’t go to as much effort as you might think.
~~~~~~~~~~
Frankly, I wish people would go to more trouble, like giving some real reasoning along with what they're declaring. And, how about correctly spelling words? What about reading through once to see if there are any typos? Yeah, I know, that's too much to ask for.
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Understood, S3nd K3ys! I like to have fun and I like to stick with a subject. You like to start tons of topics and move on. We each have our preferences. All I can think to offer you is that I will boringize Wink any talking I do directly to you.

Are you working on what is corrupt/non-corrupt, as you said you would? We need it.

(Now, see, I would have colored the question above, because that's the substance here, but because you like it plain, I left it plain. However, the italicizing was necessary to distinguish those words as terms; it wasn't prettying. Was my wink too extravagant?)
~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, okay, the same offer to Animal. You guys want plain jane nothing special? I shall try.

But I have no intentions of changing having fun with my style in general. By the way, I work in Word where useful macros are easy to write, so I don’t go to as much effort as you might think.
~~~~~~~~~~
Frankly, I wish people would go to more trouble, like giving some real reasoning along with what they're declaring. And, how about correctly spelling words? What about reading through once to see if there are any typos? Yeah, I know, that's too much to ask for.


Hint: The coloring isn't quite as bad when it's a short, precise point Wink

I've been contemplating the definition of corrupt, and there's no way to please everyone. I think we'll have to leave it at it's most basic term... which means in all likelyhood, all polititions are corrupt to some extent.

I haven't given up yet though. Very Happy
ocalhoun
Hey, if she wants to make fancy posts, why not?
Anyway...
1) President Bush is my favourite politician.
2) I do not believe he is corrupt. (If I did, I would not have voted for him)
3) I see no evidence, hard or otherwise, to contradict my belief.

Are you [philosopher princess] by any chance an anarchist?
Animal
Animal wrote:
... corruption affects virtually every politician.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
... all polititions are corrupt to some extent.


Looks like we agree on something... either that or it's Deja Vu!!
The Philosopher Princess
ocalhoun wrote:
Under some definitions all humans (and some animals) are corrupt.

True, but they would not be definitions of any value. Definitions (actually, more precisely, the concepts upon which definitions rest) are of value when they distinguish one category of thing from another category of thing. If everything is in the same category, then the definition has no use.
~~~~~~~~~~
ocalhoun wrote:
Philosopher Princess: If you want to make a topic like this, preceed it with one about the definition of corruption, or it will waver off of the topic as it has now.

You're right that that's a standard method. However, consider the hypothetical scenario where I chose my own definitions but then most people didn't like them, so they'd offer their own. Well, I'd be in the same position as now of not having a consensus. I realize that it is unusual to offer a simultaneous discussion on terms' definitions, but if we never experiment, how can we progress?
~~~~~~~~~~
ocalhoun wrote:
My definition of corruption (which nobody will really accept, as they have their own...): The pursuit of power and money as an end, not as a means to an end.

There is definitely something to consider there. I'm thinking through means versus ends.
ocalhoun
Still no disproof (did I just coin a new word?) of my claims regarding the President...
Nobody is going to submit any more names untill this one is out of the way, I suspect.
The Philosopher Princess
ocalhoun wrote:
Are you [philosopher princess] by any chance an anarchist?

It depends on how you define it Laughing .

See my discussion on this on the Not Voting thread. I would have much more to say on the subject than I wrote there, but it really needs its own thread, rather than being on Not Voting or here.

In general, I will say that, politically, my main goal is to end -- or at the very least not condone -- initiation of force, wherever that may be. Since there's a lot in Government, that's obviously a main focus of attention. But there is initiation of force outside of Government too.
ocalhoun
initiation of force?
so,
1) a jedi hater
2) a pacifist extremist

Did I get close?
Dante
I like the definition of corruption given:

Quote:
My definition of corruption (which nobody will really accept, as they have their own...): The pursuit of power and money as an end, not as a means to an end.


This is based on Kant's notion of morality, of treating people as ends in themselves rather than means to an end. It implies that corruption is about loving money and power more than people, and using people for the love of money and power rather than vice versa.

However, that is interesting, since the type of economic set up we live in is explicitly utilitarian. By this I mean that it uses people to generate goods and capital, since the assumption is that by creating more goods and capital, everyone will be better off.

But by the definitions given, our whole economy is therefore corrupt! It loves goods and money more than people, since it assumes that 'goods" will translate into happiness and love for people, without really explaining how.

So if we live in basically corrupt economies, or if in other words our day to day transactions and practices, when we work and shop, are basically corrupt, how can we expect our politicians not to be?

A good politician, presumably, would somehow try to place the love of people above the love of goods, and try and reorder the economy accordingly. That, however, sounds a bit like socialism...
The Philosopher Princess
I don't know what #1 is. Star Wars talk?

ocalhoun wrote:
initiation of force?
so,
1) a jedi hater
2) a pacifist extremist

Did I get close?

On #2, I can't be totally sure what you mean there, but my best guess is that that is not close. I have no problem with force, even extreme force, if used in defense. My philosophy specifies that one can validly use force up to the level of that needed to stop the initiation. A real threat of force is also initiation.

But I'm talking about true defense and true threats. I do not mean invading other countries and then mis-calling it defense.

I also have no problem with preparation for true defense.

Very generally, initiation of force is harming someone else or their property against that person's will except when they were already doing harm. Two people physically fighting voluntarily is not initiation of force. It is force but not initiation of force. Two people fighting in words, but then one gets so mad they start a physical fight that the other didn't want, is initiation of force. If the defender then escalates things by pulling out a gun and shooting, then they initiated force. Escalation of force to a level past what it was at, is also initiation.
~~~~~~~~~~
Dante wrote:
This is based on Kant's notion of morality, of treating people as ends in themselves rather than means to an end. It implies that corruption is about loving money and power more than people, and using people for the love of money and power rather than vice versa.

And yet, voluntary sales involving trading money for a thing can easily involve "love of money", but it's not corruption. Do you agree? Among other things, money is needed to support life. People who love their kids better love money to a certain extent. It's hard to grow and build everything needed for survival.

Employers are "using people" as a means for "power" in not necessarily a bad sense, and the employees are working there because of their "love of money" (which helps them buy things to live).

Or, maybe I should restrict my use of "love of money" to something much harsher, so that these cases don't fit.

Dante wrote:
But by the definitions given, our whole economy is therefore corrupt!

So, if that's true (and we should find out), then "the definitions given" are not valuable to us. We need something that is distinguishing, not universal.
ocalhoun
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I don't know what #1 is. Star Wars talk?

ocalhoun wrote:
initiation of force?
so,
1) a jedi hater
2) a pacifist extremist

Did I get close?

That was a joke...
The Philosopher Princess
ocalhoun wrote:
That was a joke...

Laughing Oh, goodie! Laughing

May The Force Be With You!

(Actually I forget what "The Force" was supposed to be. Maybe I should check on that first, before I wish it upon you. Laughing )
The Philosopher Princess
Arnie, I am very glad that you are writing, and I hope you will stick around even if you aren't (currently) happy with the goals and methods. I find you sincere in your questioning of whether the discussion is fitting the context I set out. You could help keep things on track. I'd like to address a couple points you raise.
~~~~~~~~~~
Arnie wrote:
I mean you may say you're in search for truth, and in search for 'good' politicians.
Arnie wrote:
a good bash at all politicians that (you think) are bad?

This thread was not set up to talk about "good" versus "bad" politicians. Instead, it's about not-corrupt and corrupt politicians. Normally, I try to be tolerant of the terms that other people prefer, but in this case, the words you are using changes the meaning fairly significantly. Good and not-corrupt are not synonymous. Same for bad and corrupt. Next are 2 simple examples.

A politician who declares being pro-choice on abortion is typically going to be considered good by the liberals and bad by the conservatives. But this "liberal" stance has nothing to do with being corrupt or not-corrupt, for that is a different thing.

A politician who declares being pro-choice on personal investment of 2% of one's social security funds is typically going to be considered good by the conservatives and bad by the liberals. But this "conservative" stance has nothing to do with being corrupt or not-corrupt.

When either of these two politicians publicly declares their respective stance above, but then secretly takes money to work towards the opposite stance, then they are corrupt.
~~~~~~~~~~
Arnie wrote:
To say it another way: we were searching for 'good politicians, so why the heck are you talking about bad ones all the time[...]?

You ask an important question, which I want to answer. Let me first restate it, given the above.

"[W]e were searching for [non-corrupt] politicians, so why the heck are you talking about [corrupt] ones all the time?"

Because we will only be able to recognize a non-corrupt politician if we can also recognize a corrupt politician. Similarly, when searching for an "effective teacher", a group must be able to recognize what "ineffective teachers" look like. And, similarly, before any such discussion, the concepts/definitions of effective teacher and ineffective teacher would need to be discussed so that the group searching is "on the same page".

I have another example that maybe will resonate with you. Put yourself in the shoes of a small business owner. A new employee is needed to help with the growing business but the payroll can only handle one new person at this time. The owner needs to make a very smart choice because one person's work production needs to more than counter the extra business payroll expense. A bad choice can be devastating for a small company budget. When dozens of potential employees are interviewed and none quite seem to fit, the owner must become an expert on imperfect employees so that when that rare perfect employee comes along, he or she will be recognized and made a worthy offer of employment.

It is very logical to focus on non-corrupt along with corrupt. Note that we've gotten 3 non-corrupt submissions into which we've yet to delve. When we get into dealing with evidence, pro or con, we'll need your kind of perspective to help keep us truthful.
Arnie
Apparently it was my turn, but I'm not here too often so sorry for the delay which stalled the topic.

You can replace 'good' in my posts here with 'non-corrupt' and 'bad' with 'corrupt'. You'll see that it sounds like a boring speech on the epistomological differences of left from right. Which is exactly why I used smoother words, but the correct meaning is limited to 'non-corrupt' and 'corrupt' as you correctly stated.

Anyway, there's no problem with focusing on what corrupt is to know what non-corrupt is, but when reviewing this topic you see a lot of comments that do not serve the stated purpose. The stated purpose was finding non-corrupt politicians. To a certain extent you'd want to know what corrupt politicians are. But the general flow of this topic surpasses that sub-goal and makes finding corrupt politicians the main goal instead.

And I didn't even mention the fact that nearly everyone here already is well-informed on what a corrupt politician is. That is easily proven by reviewing their posts. There would be little need to rehearse this even more.
diverden
Isn't the topic of the forum an oxymoron?
Arnie
No. You might try reading the opening post. Rolling Eyes
SunburnedCactus
And then perhaps the rest of the thread before making such bland commentary.
Related topics
Where do you live?
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Bush Wiretapping power
"Stop Sending Aid to Africa!" says Kenyan economic
What's great about your country?
Versions of THE Holy Bible
State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!)
President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on Torture
casualties in war
Where have you been?
The Legalization of Non Medicinal Marijuana Use
The Pakistan Government is making peace with the Taliban
Obama down in polls
Democrats’ Crony Capitalism
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.