Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I do not believe there is a definitive answer to the question, all we can do is argue our positions to arrive at a better understanding. Lets take tic-tac-toe, it's a simple game. First player has only one move in nine different places, and player two has only one move in eight different places; then player one goes again with one move in seven possible places; the conclusion is that if no player makes a mistake then the outcome will always be a tie. This is also applicable to chess: the first player has twenty possible moves, and to each of the twenty moves, player two has his own possible twenty moves to respond, or a possible four hundred moves only the first two moves, and so on so forth; ultimately, if no mistakes are made, chess should always end in a tie, but no man nor machine can account for all possible moves, thus no perfect game can ever be had. Both tic-tac-toe and chess are finite games, but human interactions are infinite and evolving, so we can't have an answer. The only thing we can do is improve our game for the best possible payoffs and remember there is always a bigger game.Contradictory? a bit, first I gave Marcus Aurelius as an answer and now say there is no answer. Well to the best of my knowledge Marcus ruled with dignity and virtue, he did not take from his people, nor did he cause them any harm; and the worst thing he did was secure Commodus' ascension to the throne, but even this was done legitimately for he must have believed his son was a capable man to rule the Roman Empire. So Marcus was consider as an uncorrupted king and the last of the 'five good kings' by Niccolo Machiavelli . But the times have changed and we do not have a king here in the States to rule the nation. We've privatized principalities and call them corporations, however, even these are not as private as they once were.Foremost, before I state my arguments I have some ground rules I would like to list; let us not allow this discussion to result in a need to change the regime of any existing nation, and thus as only a theoretical debate on principles which may or may not result in the in-existence of corruption of the government and its members defined as the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. And any person(s) who may wish interpret what is discussed here in the manner of their own consideration is free to do so, and actions which may take place as a direct result there from is of no fault to any persons who have participated in this discussion.I have a feeling this is going to be fun! :)Corruption of the government is a small portion of a large image (the nation as a whole). So is the nation 'corrupt' (or allow corruption to take place) or is it 'morally' just and do not tolerate corruption? First, let's focus on the leader of the government, then move on to other offices and the rest of the populace.Bohemian suggests that we allow corruption to occur because we are human. Thus all we have to do is remove the 'human' factor from government and we shall have an incorruptible sovereignty. The Church of Rome does this by labeling the Pope as a vessel which voices the words of God, therefore he cannot be 'human' per se. If there were to be a second pope, the first cannot retain his status as 'the voice of God'.In the States, by limiting the role of the leader, or president, to ten years or two terms, he cannot be a prince, and the nation is not his regime. And all presidents before and after only act as a representative of a nation without a regime, a Prince-less Principality. This effectively places the human factor into the government, which may be subject to corruption.Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in The Prince "The best Prince is one who is loved, the next one who is feared, and the worst is one who is hated. Thus a Prince must avoid being hated by the people." In Machiavelli's treatise, when a prince rouse the people to anger, they will rise up against him, make one of their own the new prince and rebel. In the US, the babysitter of the prince-less throne can be removed by non-hostile means, and thus creates no cause for fear in the presidents to do wrong.In the modern world, execution of one another is view as barbarous and uncivilized. The opposite is true, laws must be set and violation of them must be punished without leniency. If the president of the US is allow to be human, he must be treated as one. Meaning he is not above the law. Failure of the government to uphold the law cause the people to not uphold the laws, and corruption of all forms will ensue. If crime remain unpunished or if the punishment does not deter crime, chaos will ensue.To remove the human factor from the government, there must be only one leader, and not a representative. If the prince is the sole person responsible for the overall wellness of the State and its people, it would be in his best interest to retain that power for as long as he can because he is effectively 'a god' in his own right. Also, no one can be above the prince; for if one is better than the prince, then one would replace the prince. Furthermore, only a few, at most, can consider themselves equal to the reigning Prince; if many consider themselves his equal, they need not obey him. When a prince is place in power by the good grace of the oppressed people, he has no equal; but if the nobles place the price in power, they are all his equals.To deter a prince from corruption, we must identify factors that may lead to corruption. These are status, money and sex. As the prince, he need not worry of status. This leaves money and sex. The prince must not take from the people for they remember the loss of personal property far longer than the death of their parents. (I know this following statement is a little sexist, or a lot, but regardless, it must be stated.) Though women are of great influence to their lovers and husbands, they are somewhat held as the highest possession. Case-in-point, Helen of Troy.As stated above, the prince must refrain from being despised by the people. If he is feared, no matter what he does, it cannot be consider corrupted by definition. If he is loved, or well-liked, he ought to remain in that state, and do so by not angering the people with mis-deeds, then he would only fear trouble from outside.A bit more on sex and money. Sex is fun, sex is great, but sex is just sex. Any person who acts upon his viceful wants to fornicate with countless women has serious issues and is unfit to be prince. Of money, there are three aspects to money. It acts as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. A prince must have money, he cannot be poor; if he is without money, the people need not respect him, and he must take from them, which result in their hatred. Those who have do not need to respect the 'have nots'. Therefore the prince must take from his enemies, the neighboring States. The most alluring facet of money is its purchasing power, the ability to buy whatever one may desire to. Let the prince then categorize the use of his money into two--wants and needs. The first he may ignore for they are disastrous and can never be fulfilled. Of the second, he must break them into three subcategories: store of value, long-term needs, and immediate needs. Store of value ought to be clear and simple. Long-term needs are the need to maintain an army, servants, and other lengthy expenses. Immediate needs are basic physiological needs such as food and water.If he must do harm to his people, this generally occurs when he comes into power, he must do it swiftly. Let evils to the people be done all at once and kindness to them be gradual and lengthy, so they may forget the first and remember the latter.A prince cannot be a man, and he is not. He is a prince, above the people, not one of them. And it takes a prince to understand the people and one of the people to understand a prince.