Originally posted by whodey
What are you babbling about? Social Security is a prime example. Just create a large pot of money and redistribute only what you are required to redistribute, and then steal the rest and leave a worthless IOU.

Good grief, I could give countless other examples such as the stimulus package. Where did all that money go? Hmm? You say you can't empirically show me where every last cent went? Do you think that is troublesome?

You are claiming there is a link between corruption and government size. Can you show such a link by using empirical data?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You are claiming there is a link between corruption and government size. Can you show such a link by using empirical data?

I just got reading a book called, "Hitler's Beneficiaries" by the historian Gotz Aly that empirically shows the relationship between government largeness and corruption.

It is a good read, buy a copy.

Originally posted by whodey
I just got reading a book called, "Hitler's Beneficiaries" by the historian Gotz Aly that empirically shows the relationship between government largeness and corruption.

It is a good read, buy a copy.

So what's Aly's argument?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So what's Aly's argument?

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Beneficiaries-Plunder-Racial-Welfare/dp/0805087265

According to what I've found, it is basically about how Nazi Germany was actually a very efficient redistribution socialist nation. It was able to bring about such a great increase in the standard of living for the average German based on large part by plundering Jews and the rest of Europe.

Originally posted by whodey
I just got reading a book called, "Hitler's Beneficiaries" by the historian Gotz Aly that empirically shows the relationship between government largeness and corruption.

Oh dear, Godwin's law again...

Originally posted by whodey
I just got reading a book called, "Hitler's Beneficiaries" by the historian Gotz Aly that empirically shows the relationship between government largeness and corruption.

It is a good read, buy a copy.

Empirical evidence is not needed here or book reading. Even the phrase common sense is an oxymoron with regard to this subject. It is what it is and those arguing that a larger government would not have more corruption is either mentally handicapped or just playing devils advocate.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Empirical evidence is not needed here or book reading. Even the phrase common sense is an oxymoron with regard to this subject. It is what it is and those arguing that a larger government would not have more corruption is either mentally handicapped or just playing devils advocate.

A larger government is not necessarily a more powerful government.

Take two examples. One government levies high taxes and provides universal healthcare for all citizens. One government keeps taxes low provides a skeleton healthcare system for those who genuinely can't afford to fund their own health care.

Which is the larger government? The first. Which is the more intrusive government? The second, which has to conduct means-testing, has to know intimate details of the personal and financial circumstances of its citizens, to make sure that only those citizens who deserve health care get it. And I guess that latter government is more prone to corruption too, because some citizens will want to get free health care even though they can really afford to pay for it.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Empirical evidence is not needed here or book reading. Even the phrase common sense is an oxymoron with regard to this subject. It is what it is and those arguing that a larger government would not have more corruption is either mentally handicapped or just playing devils advocate.

If you look at the Corruption Perceptions Index, the trend is the opposite - on average, a larger government is associated with less corruption. Now the CPI is not necessarily the best measure for corruption - what alternative measure do you suggest?

Originally posted by whodey
Mark Levin suggests we go back to the pre-Progressive era, when states had rights. You know, the way it was set up. This could be done through such things as the states amending the Constitution to limit Federal powers. They could create a balanced budget amendment and impose term limits for the aristocracy in Congress.

Congress and the federal governme ...[text shortened]... an intervention.

Why all the hysteria with anarchy when proposing the reform the status quo?

Mark Levin is unrealistic. Only 15 US states have term limits on their own legislatures. If the objective is to eliminate corruption at the federal level, how many states do you think will push for federal term limits? Don't forget the amendment would need 2/3 of both houses or a constitutional convention (the latter has not happened), plus 3/4 of the state legislatures.

The only motivation I could see for a state that does not have term limits to be for them at the federal level would be to transfer federal corruption to the state.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you look at the Corruption Perceptions Index, the trend is the opposite - on average, a larger government is associated with less corruption.

Would you agree with my interpretation above as to why this might be so?

Originally posted by JS357
Mark Levin is unrealistic. Only 15 US states have term limits on their own legislatures. If the objective is to eliminate corruption at the federal level, how many states do you think will push for federal term limits? Don't forget the amendment would need 2/3 of both houses or a constitutional convention (the latter has not happened), plus 3/4 of the state le ...[text shortened]... limits to be for them at the federal level would be to transfer federal corruption to the state.

Mark Levin was merely attempting to find a legal means to correct the ship.

Personally I think it is a pipe dream as well, but it is worth a try. I think that once corruption within society reaches a certain level, laws simply no longer matter. For example, they could pass a balanced budget amendment and just ignore it, like pretty much every state in the union ignores their duty to balance budgets under their laws.

I think the one word that sticks out in my mind to describe the human condition is "entropy". It is the never ending spiral downward.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Would you agree with my interpretation above as to why this might be so?

I'm not sure. The correlation does not appear to be very strong. I suppose there is a strong correlation between corruption and crime, and crime is lowest if there is more equality of opportunity. The latter, in turn, requires a government guaranteeing certain services.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps you can cite some evidence supporting this assertion? There are plenty of countries with small, but powerful governments. If you are LGBT in Russia, its "small government" is going to help you protect you against abuse from government officials. A country like Sweden has a relatively large government, but in what sense is it "powerful" or "corru ...[text shortened]... m absurd drug laws, has precious little authority over its citizens, and corruption is very low.

I can see how you determine your point of view. You view believe that pushing certain social agendas as "protection from corruption". You are mixing up two different things. From your point of view you are not. Which means that anything other than a large government that pushes your personal beliefs is going to be corrupt.

I suppose this is a common point of view among leftists, which explains why they are unable to see actual corruption. Your comment was very enlightening. Thank you for letting me see how you see things.

Originally posted by whodey
Mark Levin was merely attempting to find a legal means to correct the ship.

Personally I think it is a pipe dream as well, but it is worth a try. I think that once corruption within society reaches a certain level, laws simply no longer matter. For example, they could pass a balanced budget amendment and just ignore it, like pretty much every state in t ...[text shortened]... n my mind to describe the human condition is "entropy". It is the never ending spiral downward.

I think you are right about the entropy comparison. I think nations have a life cycle and we can learn from history (not that the learning will include knowing what to do and getting the will to do it.)

Is there an example of a nation that became overgrown with corruption and repression, that reformed itself without violent internal revolution and/or international war?