Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Blue Warwick

Does Power Corrupt, Or The Corrupt Seek Power

Recommended Posts

Quite honestly I think in this Country I think it's more a case of the lazy, feckless, and incompetent who seek power, more than just the outright corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt that the sort of person who would serve on a committee, from your local council to the heights of government, is exactly the sort of person who shouldn't be doing it.

In answer to the question, I believe that when people have power, they always abuse it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always felt that the sort of person who would serve on a committee, from your local council to the heights of government, is exactly the sort of person who shouldn't be doing it.

In answer to the question, I believe that when people have power, they always abuse it.

Perhaps the ancient greeks had it right after all

Administrators chosen by Lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scratch the surface of most politicians and you could possibly find something sinister about them. However I would say exactly the same thing about 90% of the population given the chance.

It's kind of ironic that a lot of people who take the p!ss out of mp's also take the p!ss out of the system themselves :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should realise and accept that everyone is selfish, always.

No-one is truely motivated to help others, just to better there own situation. (There's nothing wrong with this btw)

The problem is that power is gained through 'public service'?

"Vote for me and I will place restrictions on your lives whilst improving mine"

What a phucking joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should realise and accept that everyone is selfish, always.

No-one is truely motivated to help others, just to better there own situation. (There's nothing wrong with this btw)

The problem is that power is gained through 'public service'?

"Vote for me and I will place restrictions on your lives whilst improving mine"

What a phucking joke.

If you'd said most instead of no-one I might agree, as it stands I don't.

For example, I fail to see how somebody who gives up their nights for free to man a samaritans phone line is just doing it to better their own situation.

I don't see how those who give up a kidney to a total stranger are helping themselves. link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
High speed weight loss?

That's a bit drastic, what does a kidney weigh...half a pound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you'd said most instead of no-one I might agree, as it stands I don't.

For example, I fail to see how somebody who gives up their nights for free to man a samaritans phone line is just doing it to better their own situation.

I don't see how those who give up a kidney to a total stranger are helping themselves. link

Actually I suspect there is often a selfish, greedy or guilt ridden motivation behind all 'charitable' people if you dig deep enough. I am certain that charity does not exist as a quality in it's own right, without further being driven by some other emotion, want or need. Just because it isn't obvious or some characteristic doesn't directly relate to the persons charitable status / qualities does not mean to say it doesn't drive those qualities!

Example, on TWO occasions I have helped old people regain their feet after a fall (witnessed one fall came across the other on boxing day one year!). On the first occasion it was evening rush hour, lots of cars on that side of the road traveling slowly (about 15 mph at most). I was passing on the opposite side of the road and witnessed the guy fall. I got to the next junction, turned round and went to his aid. Not one single other car bothered to stop and I do not believe non of the other drivers had not seen him as it was quite obvious!

Was I any more charitable than the people who failed to help? Well, I suspect the fact that I have a heart condition and am at risk of fainting perhaps meant that I somehow felt that by actually going to help this guy, it would somehow reassure me that someone would go to the extra trouble if the same should happen to me! A sort of self preservation I guess.

On the other hand, maybe I have got it all wrong and it was purely down to my own 'charitable' qualities that set me aside from others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess

I think that the extent to which someone will abuse power is an interaction between how much power they have and the calibre of their character - ie how much moral fibre they have. Low moral strength plus a lot of power - watch out!

High moral strength and a lot of power, it will affect them to some degree but they won't suddenly turn into Mr Hyde overnight, IMO.

The way I have always assessed a person - even since before this became part of my work - is to see how they treat others, who have far less power than they. If they treat them badly - ie kick a man when he is down - then I know what manner of creature I am dealing with. Also if someone is kind to someone, who is not in a position to reward them in some way, then that too forms the basis of my opinion of them.

Gotta say, it's never let me down yet. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Actually I suspect there is often a selfish, greedy or guilt ridden motivation behind all 'charitable' people if you dig deep enough. I am certain that charity does not exist as a quality in it's own right, without further being driven by some other emotion, want or need. Just because it isn't obvious or some characteristic doesn't directly relate to the persons charitable status / qualities does not mean to say it doesn't drive those qualities!

Example, on TWO occasions I have helped old people regain their feet after a fall (witnessed one fall came across the other on boxing day one year!). On the first occasion it was evening rush hour, lots of cars on that side of the road traveling slowly (about 15 mph at most). I was passing on the opposite side of the road and witnessed the guy fall. I got to the next junction, turned round and went to his aid. Not one single other car bothered to stop and I do not believe non of the other drivers had not seen him as it was quite obvious!

Was I any more charitable than the people who failed to help? Well, I suspect the fact that I have a heart condition and am at risk of fainting perhaps meant that I somehow felt that by actually going to help this guy, it would somehow reassure me that someone would go to the extra trouble if the same should happen to me! A sort of self preservation I guess.

On the other hand, maybe I have got it all wrong and it was purely down to my own 'charitable' qualities that set me aside from others?

I think it is the way you are brought up plus the kind of character you have. Nature AND Nurture. So many things are down to an interaction not just one single cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 of one, half a dozen of the other

The ones who actually achieve power are, sadly, those who are sneaky and corrupt (like for instance Peter Mandelson); whereas the honest and good-natured souls get bullied out long before they meet their ambitions.

The best leaders in any field - politics, industry, education or otherwise - lead by example, because example is one of the biggest motivators of humans. Sadly, there are few politicians who set a good example. Our politicians lie, cheat and steal from the taxpayer. Hardly the epitome of fine examples. How many people will now feel guilty if they get one over on the taxman? ("Well," they will cry. "Our politicians do it. Why shouldn't I?" And they will have a point.)

THe new speaker is an absolute joke, and instead of "cleaning up parliament", which is what our idiotic jaw-dropping nail-biting clown of a prime minister is reckoning to do, it has taken it hundreds of steps back. Just to remind everyone: the new speaker is a cheating, lying, corrupt house-flipper who is despised by his own party and who couldn't keep order in a kindergarten.

The inhabitants of our Parliament are a rotten disgrace. All our MPs should be sacked; the Houses of Parliament should be demolished. It's finished. We need to start again. We need a proper, representative, modern democracy. Not the archaic lunatic-show that presently runs our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
I've held this view for some years now. Of course it would have to be a rolling programme, so we dont end up with parliament (or whatever) full of rabbits-new-to-the-headlights.

Yes. Summat like the jury system with obvious exclusions - like career-criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
If you'd said most instead of no-one I might agree, as it stands I don't.

For example, I fail to see how somebody who gives up their nights for free to man a samaritans phone line is just doing it to better their own situation.

I don't see how those who give up a kidney to a total stranger are helping themselves. link

Altruism DOES exist,IMO, although a lot of those who had these tendencies died during WW2. :(

Stands to reason if all those with noble tendencies don't live long enough to breed, and those with "the world owes me a living" mentality are paid by DSS to breed, then the outcome is far from promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

There are decent MPs who actually do as they say, Vince Cable and Frank Field spring to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are decent MPs who actually do as they say, Vince Cable and Frank Field spring to mind.

True. There are still some decent MPs, like the two you mentioned, and I also the "characters" like Dennis Skinner.

But these decent MPs are in the minority.

Most are greedy, lyin, corrupt careerists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we could expound a law: The corruption by power is proportional to the number of noughts on the lefthand of the decimal point?

Quite obviously, the bigger the risk, the bigger the potential gain.

And where the potential gain is big enough, then the chancers take greater risks.

Nothing new here: Benjamin Disraeli was a plunger: and was about to be banged up in Debtor's Prison and disgraced.

So he sneakily married his major creditor's widow and under the law then (Pre Married Woman's Property Act et al 1882 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pldVMWQ...lt&resnum=1 )

and she as beneficiary of her late husband's estate, was unable to sue for recovery.

And Disraeli became eventually PM and Queen Victoria's favourite politician!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.