> You're not really addressing what I said there.

I am - you basicaly said that public sector is more corrupt than average, and you try to prove it by saying:

a) people working in public sector are selected for corruption

b) even if not - all people are suspectible to corruption.

My argument against a) is - you haven't shown any data suggesting that public sector is more corrupt, and you haven't shown any mechanism which should select for corruption in public sector, that isn't also present in private sector.

My argument against b) is - if all people are suspectible to corruption - then why assume they are corrupt by default, when you don't assume the same for people working in private sector?

> Why does someone work hard to get into a position of political power, if not to use it to his benefit? Not using it would be like working hard to be able to buy a BMW and then just letting it sit in the garage forever.

Because he wants the job? You know - to get paid? Or even to do sth he really wants to do? Same reason as people working to be a programmer, architect, lawyer, banker, etc have. All of these positions can be abused, but we don't usually think majority of these people only started doing it to get into position they can abuse.

> That's far-fetched, considering the programmer is being paid with private money, to do whatever the company wants him to do

And public officials are paid with public money to do what people want them to do. They may do that, or try to cheat. Same as the programmer. If you work for a big financial company you have bigger opportunities to steal than most local public officials. And bigger amounts. And it's not nessesarily money of people that hired you - you can just as well steal from clients.

Yes there is source control and they will catch you eventually.

And the same is true for public officials - they have to sign under their decisions.

May I remind you of the reasons for 2008 crisis? It wasn't corruption in public sector. BTW Poland had no banking crisis, because we had strict (and conservative) bank controlling institution (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego) that didn't allowed banks to play with derivatives too much.

I fail to see the difference, especially in practice. I've had no first-hand experience of corruption in public sector. I've had experience with small-scale corruption in private sector (ticket controller in bus offering to let it go for a small bribe).

IMHO it's just that people think "they are bad and we are not".

> You also ignored my last point. If the building quality is fine because people want good quality, why wouldn't the other stuff be fine too, considering it's guided by what people want (instead of legislation)?

I've said it's a combination of many factors - quick predictable feedback loop (harsh weather every year) forces people to look for good quality or predictably and quickly suffer the consequences. Strict legislation forces developers to provide good quality in matters that aren't frequently and predictably tested by forces of nature (fire protection, not falling into pieces).

Esthethics is just higher up the Maslov hierarchy than "being warm and dry", and there's almost no legislation.

Also, the billboards situation is straightforward example of tragedy of commons. If you can't see the actual city behind advets anyway - you may as well put another on your plot and get the money, too.

And you failed to address my point about construction and advertising law in Germany being much stricter than in Poland. It's obviously possible without encoding "good taste" in law.

> They'll get better. In the meantime, move out if it bothers you enough.

That's disingenious. If people moved out instead of trying to improve what they don't like - nothing would get changed, ever. I might have got carried away to start this discussion on international forum. The suggestion of The Economist that making construction law less strict is the way to go triggered me ;)