[quote=@Vilageidiotx] Well, people are more complicated then that. Money in general isn't innately evil (you aren't being evil when you purchase a stereo for instance, unless it is an evil stereo), but money does represent power in our system. Arguably more so than individual government office does, especially in our system of checks and balances. Power isn't innately evil either, but the quest for power taps into a lot of strong human desires and emotions, and the maintenance of power does the same. So if you take an especially rich donor - any rich donor, I'm not specifying which political affiliation - they will be most likely driven quite strongly to maintain their money. Even if what they do is morally questionable, the fact that that thing is why they are so wealthy can easily blind them to it's moral problems. And if they can use their money to buy legislation, and they can buy politicians so that popular opposition is quenched, that is corruption. The problem with making it your own political goal as an average citizen to protect these people is peculiar, because they can clearly look after themselves politically at the moment, but the same can't be said for the rest of us.[/quote] "Maintaining ones money" isn't a thing. Sure, government takes a shit ton of your money if you are in a higher tax bracket, and for a country that isn't supposed to be taxed like that per Constitutional regulation, it is 100% understandable that people would want to change that. Other than that, the only way to "maintain you money" is to not spend it. [quote=@Vilageidiotx] As for 1 percenters, that is a meaningless phrase really. I have an uncle that technically fits in this category but he isn't exactly influencing the political process with his wealth. What makes a person part of the super-wealthy (or aristocracy, lets call it what it is) is their ability to live souly off of the interest on their capital. And in that case... [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2015/09/29/the-richest-and-poorest-presidential-candidates-from-hillarys-millions-to-marco-rubios-debts/]surprisingly, not all candidates fit that bill.[/url] It doesn't even cut completely across political boundaries.[/quote] One percenters refers to people in the top 1 percent of the tax bracket. It has nothing to do with who a person is politically affiliated with, nor does it have anything to do with how they spend or use their money. [quote=@Vilageidiotx] So anyway, to your thesis, I don't think corruption is an innate trait. Clearly you need something to be corrupt for, and money is the most obvious candidate. There are plenty of snake-oil salesmen and con-men in this world being corrupt among us commoners of course, but they don't have the capital to purchase politicians like the aristocratic hucksters have, so it would be dishonest to paint both as equally problematic. And there really isn't any reason to make excuses for them unless you think you will somehow get that much money (hint: [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-social-mobility-parents-income/399311/]you won't.[/url]) [/quote] Again, I am not saying that money can't be used in a negative way. I am saying money is an amoral thing. Just like a gun. You can pick up a gun to rob a store, or you can use it to stop a woman from being raped. You can use money to build a homeless shelter, or you can use it to fund drug runners. Blaming it on the money, for the intent of the person who is using it, is naive and doesn't make sense. Government is something that, throughout the ages, has been highly corrosive. Government has the power to control masses in ways that make people like Stalin or Hitler fawn over and kill to keep. Pol Pot killed all the white people in his country when he took it over just so he could maintain economic power over then, and ended up destroying his entire counties economic system for it. And American government is proving each day that its corrupt and flexing those muscles. Fmr General Portreaus was completely destroyed by his mistress handling classified materials inappropriately, but personal email using Hillary Clinton does the same thing (and so far according to the FBI, quite a bit of) with classified materials and she skates the system like its highschool. You clearly are stuck in your position and it really might not be worth continuing this little debate. So, enjoy your Halloween and I'll see you around eventually.