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

For the sake of simplification I shall heed the advice to break this discussion into parts.If you have a population hierarchy like that in our democracy, there will be seats of power in excess quantity of what the above average can fill compared towards the average."Sun Tzu said: The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers." (The Art of War, 5:1, translated by Lionel Giles, 1910.) Base on this I argue, there need not be more men in politics than needed, because it is not a matter of dividing up the seats of power but the allocation of the persons controlled by existing seats and the citizens at large. A problem may be the size of the US, 200+ million people, we may need more men in politics. But I ask you is it easier to find capable men or remove marginal seats?Add to this the simple fact that the intelligentsia are drawn towards academics and sciences, and most certainly not in pursuit of military careers, and you have a situation where many average people will fill up these positions.Ah, the tragedy of the commons (Garrett Hardin, 1968), but more in reverse. Well, sort of. In our situation, the profitable positions of power are like the green pastures of limited resources and the intelligentsia herders who are not going for these pastures, but instead turn towards academics and sciences, broad deserts with even fewer resources and most end up poor. Don't even try to say it's a passion and not about the money, sure they get paid little money but money is always in the equation as it makes the world go round.It's even worse when you consider the personality types drawn towards these positions. The very intelligent have a tendency not to be interested in military duty and rank climbing. Neither are they interested in the political social game.This explains why we see some intelligent people in government and military, but a majority of average people.So the intellects continue to allow the less intelligent or even the unintelligent control their lives. This reminds me of the high school hierarchy (ah, good times). The most deceptive are always the most popular, and the geeks and nerds, well, anyone whose gone to public schools in the States or watched teen flicks knows. Not to say the popular aren't/weren't smart or the losers are/were. Personality wise, the more aggressive/competitive would end up in positions, not necessarily more important, but, lets just say, that require more socialization than the shy geek in chem class. Of course if you pick on the geek too much he'll try to slip arsenic in your water when you're older.Although, I'm still a wee bit curious as to why the geeks only 'grow a pair' in the movies but not man up in reality.Surely the more intelligent must realize those in power control their lives, to some extent, high school hierarchy or politics.Take taxes for instance, say you grossed one million dollars, you're single, no medical bills, independent (not business owner), not really any deductions; the government takes $103,791.75 plus 35 per cent above $357,700 or $224,805 (0.35($1,000,000 - $357,700 (or $624,300))), which equates to roughly one-third of your income. Oh I almost forgot, that's just federal income tax, State tax depends on your state. And then there's also other taxes for owning stuff, buying stuff, selling stuff, and other ones too. So depending on how much you own, buy, sell, and other activities, but lets not focus on these for the sake of simplicity, you may have to pay up half, or more, of your gross. Really?, smart people can't do the math and decide maybe, just maybe, it's best to place themselves in power.(This tax rate is for 2010, and subject to change in 2011, and again in 2013 as far as I know. Also note there was no major taxes before the Great Depression like in capital income, or investments. Ergo, dividend income was free of tax prior to Great Depression, and in 2013 it's 43.4 per cent. Food for thought.)