The solution to government corruption is more government!

Man, this thread is great for a chuckle. The same people saying that wouldn't say, "The solution to police brutality, is more police to watch the police." Then we'll need more police to watch the police to watch the police. Then we'll need police to watch the police to watch the police to watch the police. ad nauseam.

How about we all agree that international politics and corruption in government is not a simple topic with easy catchphrase answers? What's government consist of? People. And money/power. The two hardest things on the planet to keep from becoming corrupt. Anywhere you have lots of ONE of them, it's a nightmare of security, regulations, and social engineering. Government has both. Limitless nameless faces all trying to climb over each other to get ahead. It's Hollywood without the talent or the regulation.

So what is your solution? you haven't made an argument that there is an alternative choice other than 'more government'. Sure, bureaucracies are sprawling beasts of inertia, but what's the alternative here? Less government hasn't exactly proven to be less corrupt - it might just look like that because less corruption is outright visible.

It’s not that hard.

Like most problems, the defense is isolation and segmentation.

You build a bureaucracy where the folks running said bureaucracy are disconnected from meddling by the people at the top. When you go to DMV, there isn’t significant corruption in that process. It’s equally painful for everyone. There’s some reshuffling of appointees between administrations, but the bureaucracy does what it does.

Thats why you build constructs that gets all the people climbing over each other, to be busy backstabbing?

Can't they consist of people from all countries?

The original comment suggested countries only from Western and Northern Europe, thus my comment. I find it disturbing that this subtle discrimination is supported. I do not oppose the idea of all countries being involved.

No, the original comment by <flexie> did not suggest "countries only from Western and Northern Europe". Therefore, your allegations of subtle discrimination are based on your own mistaken reading of the comment:

> ...quite frankly, it would be nice also in Western and Northern Europe to have a supranational investigative body in stead of or in addition to parliamentary hearings, commissions etc. that often require parliament majority which rests with the government parties anyways.<

Alleging discrimination is serious, so you should at least make sure to actually read and think aobut a comment before accusing it's author of being discriminatory.

I have read it, obviously, since I have made a comment. I could have misinterpret it due to wording, commas and ideas inwrought in the other part of the comment, which has actually happened.

Okay, I'm sorry for being overly critical. It was first thing in the morning where I am, must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed!

No need to be sorry, my downvoted comment was overly defensive in the first place, so I take the blame for that :) I have misread it and that goes on me!

That's not what the original comment was suggesting - the line about Western and Northern Europe was that the author feels that such a supranational instigative body would also be helpful there.

Got it, sorry. I misinterpreted it. My apologies.

I believe you misread the post. I think what it meant to say was that such a police force would also be nice in Western and Northern Europe, where big cases of corruption usually lead to long winded hearings and commission processes and take years and years to investigate often ending with few concrete results.

You are correct sir, my bad. That makes more sense now, thanks for clarifying. Sorry!

What kind of harassment do you mean? Could you give examples?