Post by goldensandslash on Apr 8, 2018 17:25:11 GMT
Looking at the state of the world, it seems that so many people in positions of power have become corrupt. This has caused some to take a "Come on, I *know* I can do better than this" approach to looking at the world. And while it is easy to think that when you're at the bottom, the reality is that at the top, life looks a lot different. Allow me to explain to you...
WHY NON-CORRUPT LEADERS WILL FAIL
So, first of all, let's define our terminology a bit. What makes a leader "corrupt" vs "non-corrupt"? Well, the non-corrupt thing to do would be to spend your country's resources on the citizens of the country. Giving it all to small groups of people at the top would make you corrupt. There's a bit more to it than that, but this is a good starting point. A non-corrupt leader is one who spends money based on the needs of the citizens. Let's show why this doesn't work.
For our first example, I'm going to assume that the leader has absolute total unchecked power and can do whatever the fuck he/she wants. This isn't actually the case in practice nowadays, but let's take a look.
Now, it is important to note that, even in such a system, your power isn't actually unchecked. Your citizens still give you power. Cause if they ever say "No, fuck this. We're not gonna listen to you anymore", well then there's not much you can do about it. The people will revolt and dethrone you. The way you ensure that a revolt doesn't happen is if you keep the military on your side and ensure that they can crush any resistance that you face.
So here's why non-corruption doesn't work. Let x = the total amount of money you spend on the citizens and y = the total amount of money you spend on the military. If I wanted to get the military on my side and let them allow me to revolt and replace you, all I have to do is say "He's/she's currently paying you guys y. I would pay you x+y, which is much more money."
If the military leader is corrupt, then this will work. What if they are non-corrupt? Very simple. I move to the next level down and repeat the process, telling the second-in-command that they would make more money under my rule if they eliminated the military leader. And if that didn't work, I can move another level down, and so on, until I did get it to work.
Sooner or later, you'll encounter one greedy person. And that's all you need to get the whole process started.
If you want to stay in power, the best way to prevent this whole system from happening is to make it so that I can't pay them extra. The way you do that is have y=x+y, so that either way, they get the same amount, but it's less risky for them to back the existing leadership. And as any elementary-school student could tell you, the only way this works is if x=0.
In other words, you are not allowed to spend money on the citizens in this system, because if you do, you will lose your power to someone who doesn't. Spend money only on those that keep you in power. I've been using military in this example, but it could, theoretically, be anything.
This is the dilemma that you face as a leader. Morally, you want to spend money on the citizens. Practically, you can only spend money on those that give you your power.
So there is an obvious solution: make these two things one and the same thing.
Congratulations, you are now the leader of a democracy.
But here's the thing: democracies involve voting and elections and what-not. There are many different ways to run an election, but I'm going to assume you're going to use first-past-the-post for now.
In this voting system, you don't actually need ALL of your citizens to like you. You only need 50%+1 of them to like you. (Note that you don't even need them to "like" you. You just need them to like you better than they like the other guy.)
As a result, anyone who votes against you is not relevant to keeping your power. You don't need to spend money on them. The same goes for those who don't vote. They are irrelevant to you. So you spend money on things that will make it easier for the citizens who would vote for you to vote and harder for those who wouldn't to vote.
For example, if you are popular with older citizens but not younger ones, simply make it very difficult to register to vote, but already-existing voters are able to vote just fine. This ensures that the younger generation will have a hard time voting, and you'll win the election.
The first-past-the-post system also helps you with this. If you only have a small percentage of citizens that like you, that's fine. Just make sure that the others are spread out. Remember, 2 votes is enough to win if the vote count is 2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1. So if you end up in such a situation and you aren't using first-past-the-post, you can switch to first-past-the-post to help yourself out.
And that's basically how it works in other voting systems too. No voting system is without its faults, and all can be exploited in one way or another. Choose the one that most directly benefits you, and you will stay in power.
But let's assume that you are non-corrupt and decide to spend the money on the citizens fairly. That's fine, but if I want to run in an election against you, and I choose not to do that, then you will lose, because I am taking advantage of the way the system works. You'll get voted out of office because the election isn't fair, and then, once again, you have a corrupt leader in charge.
Whether dictatorship or democracy, the rules of the game are the same: spend money only on those that keep you in power, and ignore all others. Failure to do so will mean that you will be replaced with someone who does follow the rules.
This is how corruption looks from the top.
And this is why it can never go away.
WHY NON-CORRUPT LEADERS WILL FAIL
So, first of all, let's define our terminology a bit. What makes a leader "corrupt" vs "non-corrupt"? Well, the non-corrupt thing to do would be to spend your country's resources on the citizens of the country. Giving it all to small groups of people at the top would make you corrupt. There's a bit more to it than that, but this is a good starting point. A non-corrupt leader is one who spends money based on the needs of the citizens. Let's show why this doesn't work.
For our first example, I'm going to assume that the leader has absolute total unchecked power and can do whatever the fuck he/she wants. This isn't actually the case in practice nowadays, but let's take a look.
Now, it is important to note that, even in such a system, your power isn't actually unchecked. Your citizens still give you power. Cause if they ever say "No, fuck this. We're not gonna listen to you anymore", well then there's not much you can do about it. The people will revolt and dethrone you. The way you ensure that a revolt doesn't happen is if you keep the military on your side and ensure that they can crush any resistance that you face.
So here's why non-corruption doesn't work. Let x = the total amount of money you spend on the citizens and y = the total amount of money you spend on the military. If I wanted to get the military on my side and let them allow me to revolt and replace you, all I have to do is say "He's/she's currently paying you guys y. I would pay you x+y, which is much more money."
If the military leader is corrupt, then this will work. What if they are non-corrupt? Very simple. I move to the next level down and repeat the process, telling the second-in-command that they would make more money under my rule if they eliminated the military leader. And if that didn't work, I can move another level down, and so on, until I did get it to work.
Sooner or later, you'll encounter one greedy person. And that's all you need to get the whole process started.
If you want to stay in power, the best way to prevent this whole system from happening is to make it so that I can't pay them extra. The way you do that is have y=x+y, so that either way, they get the same amount, but it's less risky for them to back the existing leadership. And as any elementary-school student could tell you, the only way this works is if x=0.
In other words, you are not allowed to spend money on the citizens in this system, because if you do, you will lose your power to someone who doesn't. Spend money only on those that keep you in power. I've been using military in this example, but it could, theoretically, be anything.
This is the dilemma that you face as a leader. Morally, you want to spend money on the citizens. Practically, you can only spend money on those that give you your power.
So there is an obvious solution: make these two things one and the same thing.
Congratulations, you are now the leader of a democracy.
But here's the thing: democracies involve voting and elections and what-not. There are many different ways to run an election, but I'm going to assume you're going to use first-past-the-post for now.
In this voting system, you don't actually need ALL of your citizens to like you. You only need 50%+1 of them to like you. (Note that you don't even need them to "like" you. You just need them to like you better than they like the other guy.)
As a result, anyone who votes against you is not relevant to keeping your power. You don't need to spend money on them. The same goes for those who don't vote. They are irrelevant to you. So you spend money on things that will make it easier for the citizens who would vote for you to vote and harder for those who wouldn't to vote.
For example, if you are popular with older citizens but not younger ones, simply make it very difficult to register to vote, but already-existing voters are able to vote just fine. This ensures that the younger generation will have a hard time voting, and you'll win the election.
The first-past-the-post system also helps you with this. If you only have a small percentage of citizens that like you, that's fine. Just make sure that the others are spread out. Remember, 2 votes is enough to win if the vote count is 2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1. So if you end up in such a situation and you aren't using first-past-the-post, you can switch to first-past-the-post to help yourself out.
And that's basically how it works in other voting systems too. No voting system is without its faults, and all can be exploited in one way or another. Choose the one that most directly benefits you, and you will stay in power.
But let's assume that you are non-corrupt and decide to spend the money on the citizens fairly. That's fine, but if I want to run in an election against you, and I choose not to do that, then you will lose, because I am taking advantage of the way the system works. You'll get voted out of office because the election isn't fair, and then, once again, you have a corrupt leader in charge.
Whether dictatorship or democracy, the rules of the game are the same: spend money only on those that keep you in power, and ignore all others. Failure to do so will mean that you will be replaced with someone who does follow the rules.
This is how corruption looks from the top.
And this is why it can never go away.