Corruption

[Arafelis]

"Corruption" is a word often mentioned when discussing politics.  Though the extent and variety of any individual politician's corruption is not generally known, one has only to watch their door or voting records for a few months to see the signs.  Special-interest lobbies; tens of thousands spent by big business to save millions from inconvenient legislation.  Adultery, hypocrisy, perjury, bribery, "mutually beneficial business arrangements."  Corruption.

There was once a man who was known in his home country as "The Incorruptable."  Such was his reputation for uncompromising virtue that he triumphed over more experienced, wealthier political opponents and rose to a position of singular power; he overthrew a tyrant and instituted humanist and democratic policies.  He has been and will be remembered for centuries.

For it is truly unlikely that history shall so quickly purge the crimes of Maximilien Robespierre.

Should there be a God or Gods, pray that we are preserved from the incorruptable.

What those quick to use the term forget is that corruption has a synonym: Compromise.  And even this more neutral term quickly adopts a pejorative tone... Listen, for instance, to "she has been compromised."  Even the elegant shift of voice to passive does little to disguise the weakness.

When we talk about corruption, we believe we are talking about failure.  Failure to stand up for what is good and right; failure to apply the law equally to all.  Yet that assumes the person in question is "good," that the law is just.  Who can corrupt the evil man?  I would call such a one angelic.  What is corruption of an unjust law, but justice?

It is easy to see the unrighteous receive some monetary grease to pursue some course of action and feel cheated.  They are, after all, being rewarded for being unrighteous, and that is clearly a corruption of justice.  Money should go to those who earn it by hard work, or who need it because they cannot, or are called to work in other ways.  Few want to see the cripple, the student, or the poet starve.

Yet the mantra of the realist is, it is more complex.  Cause and effect are easily seen in reverse, but here they must be untangled: It is not that the unrighteous one should receive money they have not earned and do not need, but that they are unrighteous exactly because they seek such opportunities.  A con artist doesn't run a scam with no profit, nor do they pass up equally easy profit that requires no con.  One can devote their life to policing the con-man or the statesman, and perhaps it is noble.  But what is probably more effective for administering a state that runs smoothly and pleases its citizens is to simply know that humans, especially those of the breed who seek out influence, will lie and steal -- and having acknowledged that, to discern in advance where it will be most apparently profitable for them to do so.  Or in other words: When you're building a treasury of rights, case the joint.

There is a paranoia I have observed in those who have no understanding of theft that I do not see in those who have stolen (and I do not differentiate here between those who have stolen to eat and those who have stolen for excess, though they are in other ways very different).  To the "honest," the thief can strike from anywhere, at any time: perhaps they will come through the window!  Perhaps they will appear in the shadows!  Perhaps they are already here!  This fear profits the thief, since they can do the easiest thing in the world and still appear unexpectedly.  (And a note here: The state is run by thieves.  I should need to say nothing else.)

But to the corrupt, this fear is nonsense.  They lock the windows and unbolt the door, then rest easy, because it is by the door that the dog sleeps.  Or they lock all the windows but one, and in the slightly open drawer of a table just down the hall they leave glass jewelery.  And in either case, they are as perfectly safe as they can reasonably achieve, because they are not afraid of shadows and monsters but of a human with simple motivations.

"Down with the corrupt!" echoes often.  But it is the crying of children who allow themselves to be bullied, and stupidly beg another bully to come and push the old one away when they know little or nothing of the new one.  Do they deserve what they get?  It is not my intent to argue either way.  Instead, I say: Do not be as children, who call the same thing "good" one day and  "bad" the next and think the thing has changed.  Instead, learn to think like those who oppress you, and become more free.
-----
(k) me

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Did anyone actually bother reading this?  If so, please let me know if it's hs usualy bullshit.

[Rumckle]

It was kinda interesting, you need to work on the ending though, it kinda loses the train of thought.

Hmm, investigating the etymology, corrupt originally was meant as something along the lines of "broken communication".

I guess the distortion (or evolution) of the meaning due to media (mostly) does bring up those ideas though.

[Arafelis]

It was kinda interesting, you need to work on the ending though, it kinda loses the train of thought.

Where do you see the train of thought falling apart -- the beginning of the last paragraph, or somewhere else?

[Rumckle]

Around the third to last paragraph, I can still follow it, but, it doesn't seem to flow as well as the rest, I thought.

[East Coast Hustle]

TL;KYSFTB

[Requia ☣]

OMFG

shut up shut up shut up.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

OMFG

shut up shut up shut up.

It's like having an ass polyp that talks.

[Requia ☣]

More like a hemorrhoid.