Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] RM Nixon and GW Bush

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> Mike Miller wrote:
>
> > Seriously, I think democracy is the way.  It does require either some 
> > degree of altruism on the part of the leadership, or a reasonably 
> > educated and engaged voting population.
>
> People seem so amazed when they see corruption in high places, when 
> there is so little historical evidence that anything else ever takes 
> place.  Why anyone thinks that democracy can be more effective than any 
> other system in ridding us of this, I don't know.

I think it's pretty simple.  A free press will report on corruption.  An 
informed electorate will vote corrupt officials out of office.  A system 
of "checks and balances" where some officials are pitted against others 
also helps.  If we had a monarchy, for example, how would we deal with 
corruption then?  You have one corrupt official leading everything, 
including the military, your votes don't count and there are no checks and 
balances.  I think it's easy to see why democracy will control corruption 
better than monarchy will!


> To quote Ecclesiastes 5:8
>
> If you see oppression of the poor and denial of justice and 
> righteousness in the province, do not be shocked at the sight; for one 
> official watches over another official, and there are higher officials 
> over them.

I hope that isn't meant to justify corruption.  Sure, we shouldn't be 
surprised when it happens, but we should act to punish corrupt officials 
and reduce the rate at which this occurs.

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion