sábado, 17 de agosto de 2013

The #corruption #fact no cause - #Info

Corruption is certainly an extremely important issue and of great public importance. However, it is generally discussed superficially. It is seen as a political problem or police. Rarely discusses their origins. Identifying them, however, is essential in order to propose effective ways to combat it. Clearly virtually every country in the world, and certainly in Latin America, corruption deserves attention, concern and outrage. Permanently press stops there denouncing their many forms. certainly also all governments, either through the Executive or Judicial conduct regular campaigns against corruption, aided also by the interest of the media on the subject . We can then consider us ignore this problem, what we need to do is draw attention to a fundamental fact: Why, despite being all concerned about corruption and multiple programs exist against it, we have never been able to combat it effectively? In my opinion, the central element is that we have not understood what is corruption. Generally we take it as a cause, when it is an effect. This element I find capital to understand the logic of corrupt systems. We all worry about the problem but we think what happens is that as we are too corrupt, the system does not work, democracy does not work, does not the law, when it is exactly the opposite. Since there's no rule of law, as does the institutional system corruption occurs as an alternative for people to develop their different economic activities. Corruption is because, from my point of view, an effect and not a cause. It is an effect of the high cost of legality. While we do not see well, we can fill your mouth with rhetorical formulas and more or less general convictions, but never will produce more honest institutions. This misperception stems from a less common: the belief that the laws are free, that law is neutral. This idea is simply a mistake. The law is not free. The law is not neutral. It has costs and benefits. It alters the way people behave. Modifies the resources made ​​available to people to make decisions in the markets. What does this mean? That if the law is not neutral but expensive, she supposed to met a certain cost and a certain profit. I hope not to incur excessive economism, doomed by A. Chaufen, but the rule of law is not independent of its cost. What is that cost? The amount of time and information needed to meet them, ie the cost of the law is not necessarily measured in money. Not measured in money, but in the amount of time and information needed to be met, for it is said that the cost of legality is a function of time for the information. When you produce a law when the legislature or Congress or a judge produces a binding decision, law, or in the case law of the European continental system, what happens? They are telling the public that it takes a lot of time and a certain amount of information to comply with the law. What happens if you would therefore require citizens long time or a lot of information to comply with a law? This law is not enforced, nor obeys laws are only fulfilled whose benefits outweigh their costs. Only existing laws demanding an amount of time and information that is less than the benefit provided by the citizen to fulfill them. In this there is nothing moral or immoral. It is a decision devoid of ethical objective. It is a pure utilitarian decision, in which the citizen uses the law as a means at their disposal to make decisions. If the law requires a long time, people did not comply. If the law requires a lot of information, people will not comply. The way it is done in practice ...................!! Author: Freddy Escalona