[BBC News] Islands' autonomy to be reviewed

[La_Dolce_Vita]

They undermine it by focusing more or exclusively on their personal financial gain, those who are corrupt are less interested in using that power over the people.

 

But their power, however it may be exercised in the pursuit of personal gain is de facto used over the people. Even were this not the case, by denying access to the political system to anyone but those with something to offer, he or she is exerting power over the populace - in this case it comes in the form of a closed door.

 

I don't know exactly what you mean in your first statement.

 

In the case of corruption where doors are closed to entry into the political system you are right, they are using their power. However, they undermine power in the sense of diminishing the likelihood to which it will be used to 'order' society.

 

But for there to be corruption in a government, it does not necessarily mean they use their governmental power for illegal purposes.

[pongo]

If it wasn't August this story would not even be reported. Everyone who would have any influence is on their yacht or at their holiday home.

 

The status quo best favors all of the vested interests and especially the City.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Quite surprised that the reasons for criticising this idea of absorption here have been made solely on the Island's economy and not at all on nationality.

[VinnieK]

However, they undermine power in the sense of diminishing the likelihood to which it will be used to 'order' society.

 

Are they? Some of those societies which are the most corrupt are also the most rigidly ordered, most notably along the lines of who can buy influence and who can't. As for how power is still exercised over the people as a result of corruption and vested interests, consider as an example that of a developer who wants to build a factory close to a residential area. The residents in question don't want it there, but the government is so corrupt that it's built anyway. Then say that the factory in question has an appalling record with respect to safety and local pollution. Criticism begins to appear in the press, but is soon silenced as soon as the company uses the political influence it can buy to intimidate and harass journalists. Some protests occur, but these are either ignored until they go away, or are suppressed using the police and threats against protest organizers, both of which are possible through the company's manipulation of corrupt officials.

 

Now, the politicians in question might only be interested in financial gain (although in practice, the corrupt are usually interested in both money and power), but nevertheless their corruption manifests explicitly as power being exercised over the populace (which you seem to deny). The outcome isn't an end to the 'ordering' of society; in fact, it's even more ordered than before because there are no avenues through which people can challenge this power. The difference is that it's ordered in a different way: one that favours the oligarchs and plutocrats who can afford to have the government in their pocket. The only thing being undermined here is the say that the ordinary individual or community has in how their society is ordered.

[gazza]

It is interesting, as I don't see corruption being a bad thing at all, more often it is a good thing. From my perspective it is good when such corrupt leaders undermine power.

 

They don't undermine power though, if anything they consolidate it in their own hands, undermine their own accountability, and restrict access to that power to a select few who can offer them personal gain in return for it being exercised in their favour.

 

They undermine it by focusing more or exclusively on their personal financial gain, those who are corrupt are less interested in using that power over the people.

 

so u saying that because thay dont use there power of the ppl its a gd thing,

 

have u been and seen africa lately, cause that is what corruption looks like on a grand scale of things, happy to know u like to see pll liveing in hell

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Are they? Some of those societies which are the most corrupt are also the most rigidly ordered, most notably along the lines of who can buy influence and who can't.

 

They are. I won't dispute that, but I don't see the relevance. Some of the most free societies are also very corrupt though, such as Britain, Italy, and United States.

 

As for how power is still exercised over the people as a result of corruption and vested interests, consider as an example that of a developer who wants to build a factory close to a residential area. The residents in question don't want it there, but the government is so corrupt that it's built anyway. Then say that the factory in question has an appalling record with respect to safety and local pollution. Criticism begins to appear in the press, but is soon silenced as soon as the company uses the political influence it can buy to intimidate and harass journalists. Some protests occur, but these are either ignored until they go away, or are suppressed using the police and threats against protest organizers, both of which are possible through the company's manipulation of corrupt officials.

 

I am referring more to corruption in the case of liberal democracies. Censorship of the press, intimidation of journalists, and extention of police powers are characteristic of extreme authoritarianism. In authoritarian regimes, it makes little difference whether there is corruption or not. The legality of behaviours is dictated by the state.

 

Now, the politicians in question might only be interested in financial gain (although in practice, the corrupt are usually interested in both money and power), but nevertheless their corruption manifests explicitly as power being exercised over the populace (which you seem to deny). The outcome isn't an end to the 'ordering' of society; in fact, it's even more ordered than before because there are no avenues through which people can challenge this power. The difference is that it's ordered in a different way: one that favours the oligarchs and plutocrats who can afford to have the government in their pocket. The only thing being undermined here is the say that the ordinary individual or community has in how their society is ordered.

 

But when the motivation behind political action is derived from the pursuit of money through illegal means it means their focus it less on the 'normal' state practices of a liberal democracy, a system where democracy has so little meaning when they are so heavily influenced by the most powerful forces in society, i.e. the corporations and business. Yes, a society can still be heavily ordered by the state, but in being corrupt it makes it far harder for the state to remain legitimate in the eyes of the people and stymies the normal influence that business have over liberal democracies. In Britain, the U.S., Italy, and probably the Isle of Man, the politicians ae already in league with business satisfying their interests primarily. Yet I think the control over people that business and corporations want is stymied by corruption, because such business don't want corruption considering they demand law and order as they want it. They therefore have to go through illegitimate means to acquire any favours. In such a way, there is less possibility for the control over people that businesses desire.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

so u saying that because thay dont use there power of the ppl its a gd thing,

 

have u been and seen africa lately, cause that is what corruption looks like on a grand scale of things, happy to know u like to see pll liveing in hell

 

You think the problem is with corruption? I think it is down to authoritarianism and the result of manner in which trade is conducted with the African states.

[Whimsy]

Well over a third of the countries in the world are run by despots.

 

And they want POWER

 

Because that brings MONEY

 

 

And POWER and MONEY bring much better SEX

 

It's the basics of life.

 

The strong men have more and better women - and more children

 

Exactly the same happens in the animal kingdom - the strong males get the females, and the pick of the crop and improve the 'breed'.

 

It was ever thus.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well over a third of the countries in the world are run by despots.

 

And they want POWER

 

Because that brings MONEY

 

 

And POWER and MONEY bring much better SEX

 

It's the basics of life.

 

The strong men have more and better women - and more children

 

Exactly the same happens in the animal kingdom - the strong males get the females, and the pick of the crop and improve the 'breed'.

 

It was ever thus.

 

Not sure I would agree. In the animal kingdom the males compete briefly in order maintain dominance over the female so they can mate with them. Money is a completely different thing. Power that is built upon wealth is not the same as bodily strength. I think you can make a superficial comparison between the effects that male strength and attractiveness has on women and the effects that money and power has on them, nothing more than superficial though.

[Whimsy]

You're not very bright are you?

 

The dominant human males do not have to be physically strong - they use use GUNS (POWER) and MONEY to make up for what the animal kingdom use - PHYSICAL STRENGTH.

 

How else would you explain Bernie Ecclestone?

 

Having said that, the strong human males still get more than their fair share of good sex and women, but women, because of the need for a good quality nest, will opt for Power and Money.

 

Big strong males, without power and money, are sometimes the bit on the side - and often, as science shows, the REAL fathers of some of the children from the women occupying the good nests provided by the RICH and POWERFUL men.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Ok. Is it simply that you are saying that people are attracted to others who have power? Or are you trying to say the determinant for power and wealth is the same as in the animal kingdom? I think the latter is not the case.

[wazir]

You're not very bright are you?

 

The dominant human males do not have to be physically strong - they use use GUNS (POWER) and MONEY to make up for what the animal kingdom use - PHYSICAL STRENGTH.

 

How else would you explain Bernie Ecclestone?

 

Having said that, the strong human males still get more than their fair share of good sex and women, but women, because of the need for a good quality nest, will opt for Power and Money.

 

Big strong males, without power and money, are sometimes the bit on the side - and often, as science shows, the REAL fathers of some of the children from the women occupying the good nests provided by the RICH and POWERFUL men.

 

This has to be a joke, surely nobody could be at once intelligent enough to operate a computer and at the same time stupid enough to post that drivel; I suspect it's a wind up.

[manshimajin]

Big strong males, without power and money, are sometimes the bit on the side - and often, as science shows, the REAL fathers of some of the children from the women occupying the good nests provided by the RICH and POWERFUL men.

Not quite sure what this has to do with our future autonomy? Back to Viking raiding parties?

[gazza]

so u saying that because thay dont use there power of the ppl its a gd thing,

 

have u been and seen africa lately, cause that is what corruption looks like on a grand scale of things, happy to know u like to see pll liveing in hell

 

You think the problem is with corruption? I think it is down to authoritarianism and the result of manner in which trade is conducted with the African states.

 

OMG you really do live in a glass house dont you,

[bellyup]

Ok. Is it simply that you are saying that people are attracted to others who have power? Or are you trying to say the determinant for power and wealth is the same as in the animal kingdom? I think the latter is not the case.

 

I think he was saying you'e intellectually challenged actually.