Because it bears repeating, at issue is your original claim that money(/power/influence) was not the "most influential" source of corruption, and that the impulse to "do good" was "far more effective than money".

> All of the "I know what's best for you" behaviors qualify.

Since behaviors themselves are a result of bias, I'll interpret this to mean 'All of the "I know what's best for you" sentiments or beliefs'.

Pick one, then, and show how it is all of the following:

a) consistent (i.e. remains relatively stable in how it exerts its influence)

b) corrupting (i.e. causes those involved to violate values/ideals to which they once claimed allegiance)

c) silent (i.e. can exert its influence absent a need for explicit discussion of implementation)

d) pernicious (i.e. causes, in certain conditions, a net "bad" when aggregated across the humans affected)

e) organizing (i.e. coordinates the behavior of multiple individuals)

For money, we have:

a) (yes) by definition, the system has been organized to consistently incentivize (i.e. reward) the accumulation of money

b) (yes) bribery (including, perhaps especially, the tacit "lean to the green" kind [1]). E.g., claiming that the most important thing is jobs and the federal debt, but devoting most of one's actual effort trying to lower taxes for rich people, thereby increasing the deficit and giving money to those least likely to spend it.

c) (yes) money's influence does not require explicit discussion or coordination for it to lead to bad behavior, witness the frequent tacit agreements of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" ([1] also applies here)

d) (yes) e.g. the retroactive extensions of copyright Congress has repeatedly passed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)

e) (yes) this is self-evident as it's the entire purpose of currency

In the case of "I know what's best for you":

a) (no) it's rarely consistent in its influence. Individuals are moody, and groups of individuals seldom maintain the same "best for you" impulse. There are thousands of causes (from wanting to better educate future generations to promoting birth control in order to decrease the population), each with tens or hundreds of methods for accomplishing them, all of which are changing over time.

b) (mostly no) It could be corrupting (as defined above), but is rarely so. Bureaucrats and politicians are criticized far more often of being overly fearful of taking principled risks and instead wanting to keep their comfy jobs[2]. In general, violating sworn-to ideals in order to promote some hidden agenda is a great way to get fired or lose an election[3]. An example of where it could be "corrupting" would be when a politician increases, say, fuel economy standards ostensibly to reduce smog but actually to reduce CO2 emissions (but here [3] again applies).

c) (no) Without explicit discussion and coordination, the variation and competition among individuals in "knowing what's best" tends to neuter its influence. "I know what's best for you" behaviors generally require explicit discussion and coordination (e.g. a "conspiracy") to have any significant effect. This is in large part because of (a). Where it can have some tacit effect may be at the intersection, among all those who have power, of myriad "know-what's-best-for-you" sentiments. When, say, these interests are representative of perhaps 40-55% of the population, this will be a slim intersection indeed. And it's very unlikely to include the commission of atrocities.

d) (yes) It's at least possible that this could happen (if, e.g., "knowing what's best for you" was responsible for Communism's poor outcomes)

e) (yes) Through speeches and, say, "community organizing" "know what's best for you" behaviors can certainly coordinate the behavior of multiple individuals.

So, could you explain how 'All of the "I know what's best for you" sentiments/beliefs qualify.' ? Especially how they satisfy a, b, and c?

[1] http://fixcongressfirst.org/blog/2010/lessig-on-neo-progress...

[2] hence "exception that proves the rule"

[3] absent regulation, avaricious private interests, who seek to increase their own wealth, will be a much more lucrative source of campaign funds than private interests that are promoting a cause that is remuneration-free