It is often said that corruption is just a part of politics, that nothing can be done about it, because all people are vulnerable to corruption. Power, it’s said, corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. These notions are bandied about, but not, in my view, well-considered. It is not as if one day a perfectly wholesome individual gains political power and then, as if by some dark magic, corruption ensues. There are factors that bring corruption about, sources of it, if you will. If we were to target these sources, I venture to say that we could, if not end corruption, substantially reduce its incidence.
Tag: Philosophy
Intellectual Hipsters: Centrists
Today I would like to once again return to the subject of the intellectual hipster–someone who adopts an idea without giving it much thought for the purpose of conveying or demonstrating an intellectual impulse that is, in reality, foreign to them. In the past, we have looked at libertarians, sceptics, and lovers of Nietzsche. Today I wish to turn to the self-proclaimed centrists, those who purport not to agree with either side in political disputes, with the implication that their moderation indicates higher wisdom than their partisan counterparts.
Keynesian Utilitarianism
In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls draws a hard distinction between his prioritarian conception of justice and the utilitarian one. We have mentioned prioritarianism in the past, and indeed, this post is a bit of a synthesis of that post with this other one. Prioritarianism is the notion that a just society always tries to improve the welfare of the worst off before anyone else. In other words, the welfare of the poorest is prioritised. In contrast, utilitarianism is about maximising total welfare, regardless of the distribution. These theories seem at odds (indeed, Rawls wrote about utilitarianism as though he were very much at odds with it). Yet, if we adopt a few Keynesian economic principles, I believe the gap can be closed and the two theories shown to lead to more or less synonymous societies, or at least significantly more similar societies than is presently thought.
Do We Want More Political Engagement?
We often hear it said by those of us who are inclined to take a keen interest in politics and the various affairs of the state that people who do not pay attention are doing something bad, something immoral or unethical, that they have a duty to pay more attention, to participate in politics more. But is that truly what we want, or merely what we think we want?
The HSBC Moral Hazard Paradox
Recently HSBC, the British bank, was found by the Department of Homeland Security to have laundered vast amounts of money for drug cartels, terrorist organisations, and rogue states. One would expect a steep penalty for aiding and abetting such malevolent organisations. Consider Salim Hamdan, a man whose sole crime was to drive Osama bin Laden around for $200 a month, yet nonetheless ended up in prison from 2001 to 2009 and was subjected to “coercive interrogation” and “sexual humiliation”, whatever that means. Given the billions of dollars HSBC laundered for these kinds of groups, what Hamdan got should be a picnic in comparison, right? Well it turns out, not so right, as the Justice Department decided not to prosecute.
Benjamin Studebaker 