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

The point wasn't about this, however, merely that normal people aren't very deep thinkers and have very small concerns, hence the ease of corruption.At the dawn of our kind, say the homo erectus species, primary concerns are food, water, and safety. Since there was no refrigerator they had to hunt every day and their preys are also predators that can kill them, so they generally plan only one day at a time. But not everyone can hunt, so they started specializing their jobs, the hunters hunt and gatherers scour the land for whatever they may need to trade amongst each other. Now the average homo erectus can think two days ahead. Time progresses. Move on to the medieval era, here people are civilized, each person has a job to do. The job of the shoe maker is to make shoes, the job of the hunter is to hunt, the job of the farmer is to forage, the job of the fisherman is to fish. Here, lets say the average homo sapien can think one week ahead. Fast forward to Benjamin Franklin discovering electricity, then to Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb. With all the advancements in technology and information available, are people still only able to think a brief period of time ahead, or just of immediate wants and needs?The government is run by many people, not merely the heads, but the bureaucrats, law enforcement, and local politicians. Most people who occupy these positions have a common intellect. They aren't big thinkers, and it's more like a job to them, or a way to support their family.I can see how the IQ thing might make you think I want smart people in office, well it wouldn't hurt, but all I am saying is that persons of better caliber than the general public ought to be elected. I meant superior should be placed in power. (Not to say we should have a superior race or anything of that nature.) For instance, you own a basketball team, would you prefer Michael Jordan or Michael Jackson on your team?A job is something you use to merely support your life. It isn't your passion, nor is it something you have a crusading or incorruptible spirit towards. It's merely a means to keep you existing.A career is something you chose to dedicate many years towards. It's something you probably like and want to make a mark in.I've never really differentiated jobs and careers because anything you do ought to be worth doing, and anything worth doing is worth doing right. If there is no passion in a job, why remain there, what needs does it fulfill? I can understand a college student taking a job at McDonald's, but an executive-type office job isn't much of a job, you can consider it a career. A job/career that requires a significantly greater skill set than flipping patties would require lots and lots of training and experience to achieve these skills. Any person who acquires all these skills but hate the 'job' they do with these skills must be a glutton for pain. I believe I said that governments are made up of people like this. If a population is full of normal people then it stands to reason that normal people will make up the brunt of government.In a population of average people, the above average will rule. In a population of below average people, the average will rule. In a population of only above average people, no one will rule and they all disperse to different populations. In a population of only below average people, another population will come and control them. In a population of only average people, one of two things can occur: they will do as the superior people or as below average people.I refer now to the Hawk-Dove game, or chicken of game theory. In a population of hawks, it is better to be a dove. In a population of doves, it is better to be a hawk. In a population of only one or the other, the opposite will emerge in time. In a population of fifty-fifty, hawks will become the majority.In no occurrence have I ever seen in history or modern time is one person equal to another. A person born into poverty is not equal to the person born into great wealth. A person born blind is not equal to a person born deaf. A handicap person is not equal to a non-handicap person. A man is not equal to a woman. We all have different skill sets, psychological mind sets, physiological and anatomical make ups. So I must disagree with you on the 'population is full of normal people part'.A government that is resistant to corruption needs a population of scholars, intellectuals, people who have high principles and lofty goals. This way legislation has more care paid to it, more thought is put behind actions.Can't argue much here. A person who only thinks is half complete, a person who only does is half complete. Therefore a person of intellect must do as well, this one is complete. As history has demonstrated, no army respects a king that does not know how to fight. Sparta would have kneeled to Athens if the Athenians can fight up to par with Spartan. A person who thinks and not do is just as loss as the person who does but not think. Why heed the words of a man who does not empathize with you?It's not a matter of fault. It's more a matter of the shoes not fitting the job. I read that as an example, when the PATRIOT Act was passed, most of the senators did not even read through the entire document. This is an example of what I'm talking about.Most college professors don't read the papers they have to grade. If I give you one hundred documents to read each day, each documents have seventy-five pages written in Times New Roman font size twelve, how many can you read? During the passing of the Patriot Act, as a nation, the United States was in a state of confusion. Most, if not all, citizens demand immediate results. The pressure of creating results trumps the need to fully understand the process to achieve these results.Let's look at conflict escalation. Suppose you and I are playing the dollar auction game. The highest bidder gets a hundred dollars but the second highest bidder also pays. How much would you bid for the hundred dollars?