City EthicsBreaking the oxymoron: "City Ethics"
The Principal Goal of Government Ethics
I think it's important to remind ourselves about the alternative
government and economic system that exists in much of the world (and partially in islands throughout the U.S.) and
which government ethics programs are intended to protect us from.
That system was described succinctly in an
Economist article this week: a system in which "existing
institutions are just a device for the redistribution of property."
Many American conservatives base their criticism of our own government on the fact that it takes and redistributes property. But all governments do that to some extent; there is no way for taxing and spending to be neutral.
What the Economist was referring to was redistribution not on the basis of need, or even on the basis of political support, which is more problematic. It was referring to redistribution of property on the basis of personal and business relationships with those in power.
Here is a more specific reference, but to the same country, Russia:
It is these Russian islands in America, and the effect they have not only on local government finances, but also on the morale and participation of citizens, that conflict of interest, transparency, and procurement laws are supposed to prevent. When we discuss these laws, it is important to recall the alternative, and to recognize that it does exist here in America, although you don't have to be a former intelligence official to reap the benefits. We should be thankful that we have the right sort of institutions, and that our society respects the rule of law.
It is those who try to manipulate and undermine our institutions, and who show disrespect for the rule of law, who are the principal targets of government ethics.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Many American conservatives base their criticism of our own government on the fact that it takes and redistributes property. But all governments do that to some extent; there is no way for taxing and spending to be neutral.
What the Economist was referring to was redistribution not on the basis of need, or even on the basis of political support, which is more problematic. It was referring to redistribution of property on the basis of personal and business relationships with those in power.
Here is a more specific reference, but to the same country, Russia:
-
Putin ... practices a peculiar form of free enterprise that has
included a massive redistribution of property from one set of Kremlin
insiders close to Russia’s first president, Boris Yeltsin, to a new set
of cronies, most of them former KGB officials. (Michael McFaul, Hoover
Digest 2008, No. 1)
It is these Russian islands in America, and the effect they have not only on local government finances, but also on the morale and participation of citizens, that conflict of interest, transparency, and procurement laws are supposed to prevent. When we discuss these laws, it is important to recall the alternative, and to recognize that it does exist here in America, although you don't have to be a former intelligence official to reap the benefits. We should be thankful that we have the right sort of institutions, and that our society respects the rule of law.
It is those who try to manipulate and undermine our institutions, and who show disrespect for the rule of law, who are the principal targets of government ethics.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---