Nobody said any such thing.It was enough to get me to respond to your claim, suggestion, implication, accusation that the separation of powers is more responsible for corruption than other more unitary political situations. Yes.
I did want to talk about corruption.What a foolish thing to say that I didn't want to talk about corruption. Why would you say that? Why would you say that I didn't want to talk about corruption when I brought it up?Then I repeat: If you boys didn't want to talk about corruption why did you bring it up.
What do you mean by saying that each separate branch is "supposed to be self-regulating", when the separation of powers is all about each branch regulating the others, through checks and balances?There.
That is what I wanted to say about corruption.
And I said it.
Nothing is "immune from corruption", and I never suggested otherwise. What I challenged you to show is that political situations where they do not practice the liberal institution of separation of powers are less corrupt than ones that do. You cannot do that, because it is not true. In America we have constitutional defenses against corruption stemming from our own particular application of this liberal principle. For one thing our executive and legislative branches are pitted against each other regularly depending upon whether we elect a president from one party and have our Congress be a majority of the other. We also have two houses which are equally strong (big difference from other countries where their upper house is weak), and a judicial branch with lifetime appointments and the power of judicial review of laws. This situation at once makes the US government susceptible to gridlock and inefficiency, but also enables us to act strongly when we do all agree on what to do. Also a lot of our 'corruption' is right out in the open, with bills full of pork barrel spending, rather than politicians just lining their own pockets which is what happens in other countries, especially those who don't practice the liberal institution of separation of powers.All governments are extremely corrupt, even your beloved "democracies".
Why would you believe that majority rule (direct or indirect) is immune from corruption?
Again, I never made such a claim. Beat that straw-man good and hard.Nothing is "immune from corruption", and I never suggested otherwise. What I challenged you to show is that political situations where they do not practice the liberal institution of separation of powers are less corrupt than ones that do. You cannot do that, because it is not true.
The opium of the masses is more and more going to be fentanyl addiction, thanks to Joe the Rapist's determination to have open borders.