I don't feel the need to be a dictionary every time discussion of terms
comes up. ...
no, you don't have to provide definitions all the time. But if you reject some
definition of some word (e.g., corruption) it seems that you have some alternative
definition in mind, which you should share
I have no idea how to define corruption. Corporate campaign contributions
seem corrupt to me, but not according to American standards. Appointing
right-wing hacks to the courts and other political positions since
corrupt. Giving away a public resources seem corrupt. Clinton using his
power of
Judge John T. Noonan has a big and interesting book on
the history of corruption, Bribery (1984), really a
fascinating read. Standards definitely evolve. In the
early common law, it was normal for judges to take
gifts from litigants. By the time of Francis Bacon,
impeached for corruption from the
In short, a concept like this defies definition.
I don't think that's true, Marx would say, definitions of corruption are
historically relative. But in the foundations of bourgeois society and moral
thinking, corruption just means unfair competition, and this is normally
legally defined. But
] The concept of corruption
In short, a concept like this defies definition.
I don't think that's true, Marx would say, definitions of
corruption are
historically relative. But in the foundations of bourgeois
society and moral
thinking, corruption just means unfair competition
Corruption is defined as the abuse of public power for private gain.
Alexander Sack, the author and legal scholar of the doctrine of odious
debts, included in his definition of odious debts, loans incurred by
members of the government or by persons or groups associated with the
government to serve
- Original Message -
From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corruption is defined as the abuse of public power for private gain.
===
This is way too thin a definition of corruption. It concedes too much to
methodological individualism.
Ian
Alexander Sack,
Corruption is defined as the abuse of public power for private gain.
===
This is way too thin a definition of corruption. It concedes too much to
methodological individualism.
Ian
The definition seems pretty good to me. What's methodological
individualism?
Joanna
- Original Message -
From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The concept of corruption
Corruption is defined as the abuse of public power for private gain.
snip
The definition seems pretty good
-Original Message-
From: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 11/2/2003 5:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The concept of corruption
Corruption is defined as the abuse
Science
(1993).
jks
--- Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The concept of corruption
Corruption is defined as the abuse of public
: Re: [PEN-L] The concept of corruption
Corruption is defined as the abuse of public
power for private gain.
snip
The definition seems pretty good to me. What's
methodological
individualism?
Joanna
==
It makes all politics and commerce corrupt by
definition
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we don't take capitalist norms for granted, then the _whole system_
is corrupt in that it involves the state enforcement of capitalist
exploitation (which benefits private interests). In that case,
conventionally-defined
13 matches
Mail list logo
