[throwaway123989]

> and the reason the govt doesn't do anything about it despite flooding being a major political issue is corruption

Could you provide evidences of governmental corruption that actually result into this?

Something like: * A given amount of budget were allocated to hire public sector workers to do necessary management work (coordinating, communication, planning of non-flood-hazard residential zones etc.)

* A proof that the above budget meets the required efforts

* Evidences that the people are cooperating with the government, if the government actually carried out such campaingh.

Corruption is everywhere. In the sense that individuals not doing what they suppose because of selfish motivations.

But to blame a government on systematic corruption, there has to be evidences that resources are available, but the government choose to neglect.

The liberal fantasy that "eliminating corruption, then your imagination will become reality" does not exist in reality at all.

[LeafItAlone]

> The liberal fantasy that "eliminating corruption, then your imagination will become reality" does not exist in reality at all.

Is that a liberal fantasy? That seems pretty bipartisan.

[bequanna]

I think the parent comment is referring to how corruption seems to be a given for everything the government is involved in.

There are a lot of reasons we can come up with to explain this, but it does seem to be a fact that the more control the government has over something, the more inefficient and corrupt the process.

However, this inherent corruption seems to be ignored when (typically liberal) people argue for more government control.

[samus]

Most "liberals" are aware that government structures tend to be inefficient in the best case. This is unavoidable simply because even the most "liberal" people want their government to stick to the rule of Law. Thus, stringent procedures, bureaucracy or political deliberations, and auditing are required.

However, this inherent inefficiency and risk for corruption is seen as a lesser evil compared to leaving a matter completely unattended, or in the hands of market structures that have evidenced that they are utterly uncaring about their impact on society at large. Entrenched market structures often exhibit the same behaviors that "conservatives" dislike in governments.

[bequanna]

I think it is more than just “inconvenient”.

Government control can destroy value on a pretty massive scale, see Venezuela.

[aendruk]

“small l” liberal, not the political faction