Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

If the majority of the people of the population are not smart, is it not the job of the government to educate them to a certain extent, because no matter how much education is available, the majority of the population must be inferior to some; for instance, if the average IQ of a person in a country is 140, he would be only average, if the smarter few have an IQ of 160+, would you still consider these 140 IQ individuals to be not particularly smart? And if the average person's IQ is 70, and the smarter few have the IQ of 110, would these smarter few be smart?You need to look at bell curve distributions and the definition of IQ.Suffice to say, by definition, the common person will have an average (normal) intellect of 100 on the IQ scale. It is also the case that raising the population's overall intellect so that they score on average 140 on current IQ tests would require some sort of eugenics program to raise the distribution of intelligent people, which is largely an inherited trait.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.Even if the government wishes to retain control over the majority of the population, it must educate at least some people to be superior than the rest. (BTW, an IQ of 70 or lower is consider to be retarded.) But if the majority of the population is retarded, the nation will in due time collapse; however, if the majority of the population has the IQ of 110, the government must have people with higher IQs in charge, otherwise the people will not obey the government, which would then have to use force; and since no one in command is smarter than the commanded, nothing can be accomplished.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.Are the positions not jobs? Is the job of a general not war? Is the job of a teacher not teach? Is the job of the politician not to represent his people and satisfy their wants and needs (in a Representative Democracy)? These jobs should be specialized knowledge that only a few possess so that they may do their jobs? And how did common people even enter positions of power? If you are just as smart and just as successful as your neighbor, would you allow him to control you? If inferior members of society are placed in power so that the majority can control them, would the majority not in formal power then be in control?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.If all the common people care about are immediate wants and needs, and ignore tomorrow, is it not the job of the government then to change their perception by first explanation, education and logic, then (if the first option failed) by mean of force? In this second option, would it still be corruption of the government to 'course correct' what the people fail to see/do? But if all the government and the people of the nation care about are immediate pleasures, then the people allow the corruption to take place, and the end result is destruction of the system of governance and death or enslavement of its citizens by the hands of foreign threats.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.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.Lastly, did the people not set up the system of government and relinquish their control to a certain extent so that they may enjoy certain pleasures of today and have the government take care of them tomorrow? After all is it not the duty of the government to establish a stable economy, create an armed force for defense, and allocate resources of the land and people accordingly to remain in homeostasis for as long as possible (which ought to end when a more powerful force take over or depletion of resources)? If the population of the nation failed to elect officials that may carry out these tasks and fulfill the role of government, is it the fault of the government or the fault of the people corruption occurred?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.