Comments on: Why Not Legalise Corruption?

By: Brian Masinick

Brian Masinick — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:16:32 +0000

While there may be some elements of truth in the idea of going completely counter intuitive to the typical thought process, I am not sure that I would actually employ many, if any, of the tactics, though in a think tank the notion of “thinking outside of the box” and “brainstorming” unusual ideas has some merit. As a project manager, from time to time I will deliberately employ some potentially difficult or “dangerous” practices, that risk either putting me at odds with others or putting my credibility to question. Typically though these risky moves get me very rapid answers to the questions or issues at hand; they’ve cost me my job at other times; not everyone understands what I am doing.

Regarding drinking or drugs, you are proposing a dangerous idea. Some people will choke on a gulp of whiskey, but others will like the rush they get. Same with drugs: change your drug of choice to either Cocaine or Heroin and a frightening conclusion emerges – you generally cannot even touch either of them without significant risk of addiction and also significant health risk. They are extremely enticing, otherwise they would not have such a high addiction factor.

Though your arguments have some merit, the analogies lead me more to question than to accept the whole notion. What it really tells me is that this strategy CAN work, but it MUST be used with EXTREMELY GREAT CAUTION, with significant risk of a serious and major disaster far greater in scope than the typical benefit to be gained. Consider it, but consider the cost, too, and BEWARE!

By: Wolfgang Kummer

Wolfgang Kummer — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:25:20 +0000

Counterintuitive Thinking And Problem Solving is for sure a thing to bear in mind.
I’ve enjoyed the article, but have to limit the idea. In cases where the officer in charge or the decition taker has a big lever to influence costs – lets say factor 10-times or even 1,000-times what he personally receives – then it turns out to be very unhealthy for the whole of the society. The renderer of service saves a lot of money by not providing the services he has been paid for, while the owner of the site is the one being betrayed. Simply remember the last earthquakes in Mexico or Turkye where most of the collapsed building are not done to standards. Therefore I won’t take it THAT easy (imagine you may be living in such a building)

By: Amit

Amit — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:36:10 +0000

when so called great people in society agree on something deciding who gets what and make others to follow. It becomes legal.when those people dont agree and thearten people not to do that.It becomes illegal.we call this as GOVERNMENT.

By: Prfdg

Prfdg — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:46:53 +0000

There is an error in the logic that increasing fees and distributing the fees among office members will reduce corruption. The underlying cause of corruption is lack of transparency, not that people are not getting paid enough. To believe otherwise is to assume people will become honest at some income level. The world (incl. India) is full of rich, corrupt people. You also assume people are co-operative in revenue sharing. What prevents one of them from doing side-deals? The same result can be achieved by paying the people more, but true answer to corruption is tough, fair legal system.

My thinking is people will be honest if the cost of being corrupt is higher than cost of being honest. It is simply a matter of making the numbers available to outside world and reward people for better service while taking harsh action against corruption (both giving and taking). It will take time, but eventually people will realize that economic costs of corruption are too great. Those who invent clever ways to dodge the law will fall more spectacularly as the society learns to abhor corruption.

Also, passport office is a bad example – you want these places to be honest to make life difficult for terrorists.

I tend to like the US system of checks and balances with independent 3-branch government. Each has incentive to keep tabs on the other. In parliamentary system like India, the nexus between politicians, police and judges encourages corruption instead of competition to expose the bad elements. That is where the change must begin.

By: Prashant

Prashant — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:42:10 +0000

This final part of the author’s script was what happenned to me as well. SOme nostalgic moments. Thanks You Ravi.

However, legalising corruption is a crude way of projecting a very good idea. This can and will certainly work is my thought.

Lets see where this all ends!

By: Randy Canadian

Randy Canadian — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:11:30 +0000

I really enjoyed your article and think it is extremely creative to use this type of thinking to deal with various issues.
I just wanted to clarify that CANADA has only legalized marijuana for MEDICINAL PURPOSES and it must be attained through a licensed pharmacist and very strict controls are in place to eliminate any abuse. Typically you wont be charged for small amounts if caught as it would be for personal use but you will be charged for traficking under Canadian law if you are caught selling or growing it.
It might seem legal in the Province of British Columbia as it is a port town and has good climate for growing it and like most warm places illicit drugs are a means of earning an income without having to work to hard.

By: Bharatbhushan Nirmal

Bharatbhushan Nirmal — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:42:34 +0000

It is as good as pulling the elephant with a hair.

without putting any defense.

By: pvv satyanarayana

pvv satyanarayana — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:51:59 +0000

A thought-provoking and educative article one cannot miss. congrats!

By: Sudhindra Jalihal

Sudhindra Jalihal — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:35:56 +0000

While I agree that counterintuitive thinking would work in certain situations, what would happen if the child to whom you are offering whisky actually likes it?? Would you then stop him doing what he likes??

By: Sharadkumar

Sharadkumar — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:14:21 +0000

Dear Ravi

Definately thought provoking and thats exactly what I told my son too….infact he is just 5 but made him understand that his father has a drink and there is nothing wrong with it and I have made sure that I have never acted or behaved unnuturally after the drinks. and yes….thats what Lalu did with in railways….the tatkal scheme was in a way of telling passengers….pay the govt rather the TT themselves.

cheers
sharad

By: David

David — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:00:39 +0000

A well written and very true article, in all the issues I truly agree, but sadly the one thing that will bring this whole idea of legalizing corruption will be destroyed by inflation. Let me explain. A man used to charge $10 extra under the table for delivering prompt service, now you go and legalize that and he now gets the $10 legally, but greed will dictate whether he will charge you another $10 under the table to ensure that you are now 1st in the que. When the government legalise that as well, he will once again increase the fee, until the true market force tells him him to bugger off as they are no longer willing to pay the excessice amount.

Just my opinion.

Thanks again for a wonderfull article.

By: Jean Philippe

Jean Philippe — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:52:17 +0000

I absolutely agree with you!
Your first example symbolizes educating children “not to do” things. The opposite is better. Let them try things. They are not stupid and even though they are young they already have a keen sense of judgment sometimes much better than adults.

Another example, around the world is the fact that we ask our children not to talk to strangers. Well, I believe we should, under fair circumstances, do the opposite. If they were allowed to talk to strangers, their social senses would develop much better. They could just by talking a few sentences feel someone fishy. Shielding children from any danger is robbing them from life experiences.

Thanks for this great article!