Apptech wrote:

>>>> [...] but with respect to political philosophy I am still inclined to
>>>> believe that the constitutional republican government in the U.S. has
>>>> as close to a level playing field as possible, ideally.
> 
>>> I agree with that, with two additions. One is that what works as
>>> government structure depends a lot on the culture of a region; what
>>> works in one place may not work in another.
> 
>> I believe you are correct, Gerhard.  These are certainly important
>> considerations.  It is fundamentally true that culture and location are
>> to important to overlook.  Thank you.

> Assertion:    There are limits to what is acceptable cultural 'bias'.
> There is a limit beyond which it is by definition unacceptable to go,
> even if doing so looks to "make things work". 

Maybe, or maybe not. Unless we can find something that's definitely outside
and agree on that (and on that it is objectively outside), this may remain
subjective.

> An obvious example is "corruption". There are many societies where
> corrupt practices are endemic, ...

FWIW, there are forms of corruption that are widely accepted in most if not
all democratic/republican nations. By most voters, at least. Which seems to
show that the example is far from obvious. The practices I'm referring to
may be much less severe than the ones you're talking about, but they are
definitely corrupt. 

> ... where they form part of the fundamental basis of societal
> transactions and where, if they were removed, the society would not be
> able to function in a 'competent' manner - or perhaps that is "in an
> apparently competent manner'. 

Can you bring an example of a society where corruption is accepted by a
majority, even when -- and this is the important part -- it happens where
they don't have any advantage, and even disadvantages?

Brazil is (arguably) one such country where corruption is endemic. It is so
(arguably) because corrupt behavior is widely practiced by a majority,
and/or the practitioners and acts are not enough publicly despised. But it
is in principle not very well accepted, and it is usually despised when a
person is on the losing side. 

For me, this last attitude shows that there is something "wrong". A
principle needs to be a principle, even when I'm in a situation where I
have a (temporary, or situative) disadvantage. So the corrupt attitudes by
people who think there's nothing wrong with it but who definitely think
there's something wrong with it when they have a disadvantage through the
same attitude of someone else -- this is inconsequent IMO and shows that
here is not a working principle at work.

All this is to explain why I don't think that this fits into what I meant
with "structure that works". This is part of a structure in some places,
but I think it's part of what doesn't work, not what works. Not because
necessarily corruption is a bad thing per se, but because there is no
consensus in the society that it is not a bad thing.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist