I absolutely disagree. There is a difference between quid-pro-quo corruption and what we have now. And there are important differences in the way you architect a system to prevent one vs. the other.
I think it's because you're are defending your point from a deontological point of view, while the person you're responding to is arguing from a consequentialist point of view.
For a consequentialist, arguing on the ethics of the acts leading to the consequence is moot (and I think he's quite right that from a consequences point of view, the situation is hard to distinguish from quid pro quo corruption).
Of course, I'd love to see you too reconcile Kant and Machiavel, but you're fighting bad odds here ^^
For a consequentialist, arguing on the ethics of the acts leading to the consequence is moot (and I think he's quite right that from a consequences point of view, the situation is hard to distinguish from quid pro quo corruption).
Of course, I'd love to see you too reconcile Kant and Machiavel, but you're fighting bad odds here ^^