tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8973162.post6982465312097030201..comments2024-03-27T16:44:31.600+05:30Comments on Stranded in the Present: Random Thoughts - IX_aManju Edangamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00474338169829802934noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8973162.post-25472405700698864642011-05-20T08:48:30.806+05:302011-05-20T08:48:30.806+05:30To each one his own definition.
Well, if that'...<i>To each one his own definition.</i><br /><br />Well, if that's the case then none have understood the phenomenon and each definition is wrong!<br /><br />What you describe is a criminal act. But defining it as corruption you are equating the customer with the official (who is actually corrupt). And this is illogical. Let us consider three parameters that come into play here and how it corresponds to both of them.<br /><br />1. Motivation<br />Customer: Need for a cylinder<br />Official: Greed for money<br /><br />2. Action:<br />Customer: Pay extra money thus incur loss<br />Official: Get extra money thus gain undeserved monetary benefit<br /><br />3. Consequence:<br />Customer: Deny or delay a deserved customer<br />Official: Deny or delay a deserved customer<br /><br />You can see that in two out of the three counts the customer and the official are not equivalent.<br /><br />In the third count they are but that is a criminal act.<br /><br />A criminal customer is justified in protesting against the official's corruption as they are not equivalent.<br /><br />Then there remains the criminal act. If the corrupt official is controlled then there doesn't exist any criminal act. Here we understand the most important aspect in this equation, 'power'.<br /><br />A common man, paying extra to get his need doesn't have the power in the entire situation whether he is denying someone else's right or not.<br /><br />I think that's the reason we need to be careful while defining 'corruption' but define we must.Manju Edangamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00474338169829802934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8973162.post-22071246331155304602011-05-18T06:37:47.612+05:302011-05-18T06:37:47.612+05:30To each one his own definition. Corruption to me i...To each one his own definition. Corruption to me is an act that takes away someone else's right. So, for example, paying money to get away from the cop for not carrying RC is not corruption but paying to get a cylinder out of turn is. (because you are actually taking away some one else's cylinder)SHEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8973162.post-819907762128895992011-05-08T23:01:42.484+05:302011-05-08T23:01:42.484+05:30Your points are quite matter of fact.
Then I suppo...<i>Your points are quite matter of fact.</i><br />Then I suppose this is a good post. The <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/the-sad-reason-we-reason/" rel="nofollow">reasons</a> are not meant for arguments but are analysis as a matter of fact. Instead of viewing any point of interest either from optimism, pessimism or cynicism prism, taking it as a matter of fact would be better, I guess.Manju Edangamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00474338169829802934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8973162.post-73600655167009928782011-05-08T09:32:05.494+05:302011-05-08T09:32:05.494+05:30Your points are quite matter of fact. I cannot thi...Your points are quite matter of fact. I cannot think of rebuttal or an answer. Do you have one ?anilkurup59https://www.blogger.com/profile/07961961217418715354noreply@blogger.com