The first paragraph quotes are complaints about influence peddling, kickbacks, regulatory capture, cronyism, and nepotism, all of which are absolutely forms of corruption. I’m sure others forms probably apply as well.
I’m not sure what first paragraph quotes you are referring to, first paragraph of the report? Or of some comment here on Lemmy? Sorry if I’m missing something.
But are they? If the farmers band together to form a political party which gets voted into parliament doesn’t seem like definite corruption to me. If the farmers had judges and officials in their pockets that would be corruption.
If the majority of MPs have educated themselves within law, economics and social science to pursue a career of representing their communities, and they are then elected due in part to their experience ane expertise on state and governance matters, that’s not definite corruption to me. It’s not clear to me that someone like that cannot earnestly represent their electorate.
If someone is looking to make a hire, and they have many qualified candidates, them choosing to hire someone recommend by their peers in the field doesn’t seem like definite corruption. If they were to hire their family members or friends based despite lower qualifications, that would be nepotism.
The problem is all those ifs, and they’re giant ifs. Always assuming the best case scenario is the best possible way to get completely fucked over. Obviously those strawman statements are not proof alone of corruption, but to entirely ignore them as potential warning signs is beyond foolish. And to say they don’t describe corruption is demonstrably false.
Always assuming the best case scenario is the best possible way to get completely fucked over.
I agree, but here we are talking about reality, not assumptions. In this particular context, the majority of cases are as I describe. It’s completely justified to keep these things under intense scrutiny (Denmark is relatively transparent and has a functioning critical press across interests and political spectra), but if you assume the worst you start seeing corruption where there might be none.
And to say they don’t describe corruption is demonstrably false.
I’m not sure I see that, but I could well be wrong. Would you care to demonstrate?
The first paragraph quotes are complaints about influence peddling, kickbacks, regulatory capture, cronyism, and nepotism, all of which are absolutely forms of corruption. I’m sure others forms probably apply as well.
I’m not sure what first paragraph quotes you are referring to, first paragraph of the report? Or of some comment here on Lemmy? Sorry if I’m missing something.
The quotes in the first paragraph of your comment that you were passing off as mildly unpleasant but not corruption. They definitely are corruption.
Ah, of course, thanks.
But are they? If the farmers band together to form a political party which gets voted into parliament doesn’t seem like definite corruption to me. If the farmers had judges and officials in their pockets that would be corruption.
If the majority of MPs have educated themselves within law, economics and social science to pursue a career of representing their communities, and they are then elected due in part to their experience ane expertise on state and governance matters, that’s not definite corruption to me. It’s not clear to me that someone like that cannot earnestly represent their electorate.
If someone is looking to make a hire, and they have many qualified candidates, them choosing to hire someone recommend by their peers in the field doesn’t seem like definite corruption. If they were to hire their family members or friends based despite lower qualifications, that would be nepotism.
The problem is all those ifs, and they’re giant ifs. Always assuming the best case scenario is the best possible way to get completely fucked over. Obviously those strawman statements are not proof alone of corruption, but to entirely ignore them as potential warning signs is beyond foolish. And to say they don’t describe corruption is demonstrably false.
I agree, but here we are talking about reality, not assumptions. In this particular context, the majority of cases are as I describe. It’s completely justified to keep these things under intense scrutiny (Denmark is relatively transparent and has a functioning critical press across interests and political spectra), but if you assume the worst you start seeing corruption where there might be none.
I’m not sure I see that, but I could well be wrong. Would you care to demonstrate?