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

I thought it was obvious, but the statement was implying that the majority of people that make up a nation are not particularly smart, and that government is made up of many common people.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?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.What does common mean? A person who is representative of the population, unexceptional.Corruption comes from common people treating their position of power like it is a job.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?The power that a government position has, how any edicts or legislation will last for decades and may pave the way for other legislation that is undesirable, how the immediate wants and needs of this common person supporting his family and living comfortably are less important that maintaining a system that doesn't spiral out of control due to special interests or personal gain.Common people focus on small things like family, love, happiness, friends, etc.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.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?