[quote=Tim_P]
You are not correct in your definition of corruption. Your incorrect definition of corruption stands as the foundation for the point you are trying to make. Once you understand the meaning of corruption, you will see that your assumption is also incorrect. To catagorize every single purchase as corrupt is simply narrow minded and represents the very two dimensional thought that you are crying out against.
Tim
[/quote]
I’m not sure his definition is such a far reach. An extreme example, yes, but sometimes illustrating an extreme is a good way to validate more subtle assumptions that we tend to gloss over in every day life, due to their commonality.
So at the risk of being pedantic, here is the Wiki definition:
In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal. In economy, corruption is payment for services or material which the recipient is not due, under law. This may be called bribery, kickback, or, in the Middle East, baksheesh.And
Political corruption is the abuse of public power, office, or resources by elected government officials for personal gain, e.g. by extortion, soliciting or offering bribes[2] It can also take the form of office holders maintaining themselves in office by purchasing votes by enacting laws which use taxpayer money.[3] Systemic corruption, the complete subversion of a political or economic system. Governmental corruption of judiciary is broadly known in many transitional and developing countries because the budget is almost completely controlled by the executive. The latter undermines the separation of powers, as it creates a critical financial dependence of the judiciary. The proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on the judiciary is subject of the constitutional economics. It is important to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the government (through budget planning and various privileges), and the private.[4]The notion that we are complicit in an act of corruption by simply making a purchase is distasteful and alarming, particularly by people who consider themselves (and usually are in every meaningful measure) completely honest and conscientious. The insinuation suggests that were are victims of a grand illusion, dupes in a sense, because of the cognitive dissonance between our perception (achieved at significant effort) of personal honestly and integrity, with the accusation of dishonesty. It does not add up. Are there some elements of truth in the accusation that we are all complicit in a corruption by engaging in a simple purchase- yes I think so. But a reasonable defense is that the lack of transparency incumbent in many if not most of these transactions makes it difficult to ascertain if there is culpability. But if you look hard enough it is certainly there. I read a Pew report (sorry no link) that concluded that if mutli-national corporations were prohibited from externalizing their costs, that somewhere between 1/3 and ½ of all the global profits would be consumed to cover these costs. Instead, these costs are passed back into society as a whole, where everyone else is forced to either endue the environmental and societal damage or remediate the cost extraction- with their own money. To add my own conjecture to this, I would surmise that if in addition to these externalized costs, if these same corporations were forced to a pay the same tax rates that I pay, that the financial burden would leave no profits at all. While one might well argue that this incongruence is the result of excessive taxation (as most here would suggest) there is a counter argument that suggests that the basic presumption of capitalism is invalid if the only way to show profits is to hide and externalize the true costs- and to not pay tax. A scary thought, but one that must be considered given the events of 2008, and one that looms on the periphery of the OWS protests. While the Tea Party movement of the last few years raises disturbing questions about government size and overreach as causality, the recent OWS movement raises some even more disturbing questions about corporations, capitalism, and the destructive elements of finance that props them up. It must be said, that the undercurrents and conclusions of these two disparate efforts are radically different from one another. They both cannot be right.
