That cuts both ways. There's no law of nature requiring the hideous monstrosity of coercive power that we've created.

Please be clear: are you talking about

- the NSA, CIA, and FBI,

- Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google, or

- AT&T & Comcast,

or something else?

Very few of those who would use a pathetic excuse like "don't blame me blame the privileges inherent to the towering position of authoritarian power I have battled to attain" would be comfortable with the obvious rejoinder: let's get rid of that towering position of authoritarian power. So, it's difficult to take that excuse seriously, whether it comes from a CEO or LEO or whatever.

The forces shaping the society we live in are much deeper and more pervasive than 3 letter agencies and big corporations, bad as they may sometimes be.

This is also my line of thinking but would love to read more about your perspective.

Would you be willing to elaborate on "the forces" you think shape our society?

just Google "Hegel ideology"

I think the absolutism here is erroneous. Nomads/hobos may have less power, and therefore less incentive, but there is still plenty of opportunity to take advantage of opportunities immorally. That's mentioned in the code.

I've lived life travelling the world on a shoestring, hiking some of the world's most famous trails, living in cars, camping on beaches, etc. Of course it's a bit different as it's easy to do this and there are lots of backpackers about--most of them quite casual in their pursuit of freedom.

Anyways most people without lust to follow the dictations of the almighty dollar (or other forms of power over others, like becoming a police officer) but still have enough ambition and gumption to put in the effort to do this sort of thing, tend to be really wonderful people... Occasionally a bit of the rails, though.

>It's easy to be incorruptible when you have no power.

Are you excusing corruption because it's hard to be disciplined enough to not be corrupt when you have power?

Doesn’t sound like it. I think the parent is more likely insinuating skepticism that hobos would be able to maintain their moral clarity after being given all the power of a politician.

Chris Rock has a great standup bit where he points out that you can’t really know how faithful a man is to his wife if the man has never had the opportunity to cheat. Celebrities are often in the news for cheating on their wives. This may not be an indication that they have any weaker morals than ordinary men, but rather simply that they have far more opportunities to cheat than ordinary men. How many ordinary, faithful men would make the same mistakes if suddenly given all the wealth and social status of George Clooney or whoever?

I see. That's a good analogy. I'm not sure I understand the driving force of political corruption though. Obviously with sex, it's natures very powerful sex drive. With corruption, if the politician is already wealthy, what's the point in soiling their self worth by being corrupt? Maybe it was corruption that got them wealthy in the first place.

It seems like US politicians are plagued with it. I consider constant giveaways to the wealthy while mostly ignoring the majority of the population to be corruption, like this recent tax bill.

It is probably not always as simple, or even as logical, as that. For one anecdote, Planet Money did an interesting piece following the motivations of an inside trader: 671 - An Insider Trader Tells All (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/03/23/596533461/epis...). As mieseratte says in another comment thread here, "it's not black and white as you paint it." What I'm saying is, that one of the (perhaps uncountably many) driving forces of corruption might be misplaced altruism – a few skilled con men who know how to present the right argument to persuade others. To hack their neural network, if you will. Or another answer might be: "why not? it was possible to do". Another recent episode to follow a similar line of investigation would be "Episode 685: Larry vs. The IRS".