people tend to assume that a certain level of corruption is baked into the cake to begin with
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
For something to have been corrupted, it must have tainted something that was once considered to be pure in some fashion. If these institutions were always impure through having it "baked into the cake", it was never really corrupted, that's simply how it was made from the very start. The description of being corrupt inherently relies upon the notion that it's not meant to be that way, and that it was once not that way at all but instead pure in some fashion.
It's a misnomer. To call these institutions corrupt gives them the benefit that the only issue is how they've been misused, and not the fact that anyone using these institutions will inevitably be using the very same powers and abuses as before with little more than a self-appointed rationalisation of "legitimacy". The reality is that these institutions have always been festering cesspools, and they'll never be anything else, no matter who is in charge in any given hypothetical.
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
Except it wasn't.
When I say 'low level corruption', I'm referencing stuff like nepotism, social networks, 'who you know'. People(normies) assume that you pass through the ranks of organizations via meritocracy, when if you have any experience whatsoever with how this shit actually works, anyone past a certain level of power is either really, REALLY fucking good at their job(rare) or knew the right people and sucked the right dicks.
So when all this was originally setup, I'm sure it was done with the best intention possible that the best people would fill the positions and do the best job.
And maybe it even worked, for a short while.
Then reality hit. And hit hard.
Most of the time, this isn't noticed. It goes by, and works... kinda well enough. Yet the moment anyone learns about this, or encounters it, or is forced to accept it, I'd bet good money the very initial, instinctive reaction is 'This isn't fucking fair. This is wrong.'
Corruption of this nature survives because most people just... aren't aware of it. They don't notice. They can't, because they don't have to deal with it. And if they don't notice, is it... really that bad? (Answer: Yes. But others may disagree.)
I'm sure it was done with the best intention possible
This is an irrelevancy. Their intentions, best or otherwise, mean jack fucking shit to their good or evil of their actions. Most people always have the best intentions. It doesn't stop them from transgressing against others, and having access to power doesn't change that.
Corruption of this nature survives because most people just... aren't aware of it.
I disagree. I think more people are definitely aware of it, but they don't care because they don't have to directly deal with it. They don't fully understand how that corruption impacts them directly. They think it impacts other things like office politics and not the real world and therefore their lives. It's another case of being short sighted, not on being uninformed.
If the only issue was informing the people, then these problems wouldn't exist too much. The issue is getting people to understand enough to see how it impacts them. It's apathy that's the challenge.
That is a good point. I remember reading on America during the late 1800 and early 1900s, and how there were feuds and political fights. Politicians would win elections and move into areas of power while bringing their minions and allies in to take over control over key positions in cabinets and industries. Methinks America was always a bit shady.
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
For something to have been corrupted, it must have tainted something that was once considered to be pure in some fashion. If these institutions were always impure through having it "baked into the cake", it was never really corrupted, that's simply how it was made from the very start. The description of being corrupt inherently relies upon the notion that it's not meant to be that way, and that it was once not that way at all but instead pure in some fashion.
It's a misnomer. To call these institutions corrupt gives them the benefit that the only issue is how they've been misused, and not the fact that anyone using these institutions will inevitably be using the very same powers and abuses as before with little more than a self-appointed rationalisation of "legitimacy". The reality is that these institutions have always been festering cesspools, and they'll never be anything else, no matter who is in charge in any given hypothetical.
Except it wasn't.
When I say 'low level corruption', I'm referencing stuff like nepotism, social networks, 'who you know'. People(normies) assume that you pass through the ranks of organizations via meritocracy, when if you have any experience whatsoever with how this shit actually works, anyone past a certain level of power is either really, REALLY fucking good at their job(rare) or knew the right people and sucked the right dicks.
So when all this was originally setup, I'm sure it was done with the best intention possible that the best people would fill the positions and do the best job.
And maybe it even worked, for a short while.
Then reality hit. And hit hard.
Most of the time, this isn't noticed. It goes by, and works... kinda well enough. Yet the moment anyone learns about this, or encounters it, or is forced to accept it, I'd bet good money the very initial, instinctive reaction is 'This isn't fucking fair. This is wrong.'
Corruption of this nature survives because most people just... aren't aware of it. They don't notice. They can't, because they don't have to deal with it. And if they don't notice, is it... really that bad? (Answer: Yes. But others may disagree.)
This is an irrelevancy. Their intentions, best or otherwise, mean jack fucking shit to their good or evil of their actions. Most people always have the best intentions. It doesn't stop them from transgressing against others, and having access to power doesn't change that.
I disagree. I think more people are definitely aware of it, but they don't care because they don't have to directly deal with it. They don't fully understand how that corruption impacts them directly. They think it impacts other things like office politics and not the real world and therefore their lives. It's another case of being short sighted, not on being uninformed.
If the only issue was informing the people, then these problems wouldn't exist too much. The issue is getting people to understand enough to see how it impacts them. It's apathy that's the challenge.
That is a good point. I remember reading on America during the late 1800 and early 1900s, and how there were feuds and political fights. Politicians would win elections and move into areas of power while bringing their minions and allies in to take over control over key positions in cabinets and industries. Methinks America was always a bit shady.