What corrupts people in any position and how would we keep our institutions as clean as possible?
(Hint: It might have something to do with democracy and "working on your behalf".)
Edit: Where does the notion, that an EU body is behind the campagne come from?
Incentives rule the world. The question to ask is what the incentive structure of a politician's world looks like.
But the bad outcomes are just decisions, most of which are neither illegal nor plainly unethical, made so quickly and relentlessly that real people get chewed up by them.
It's literally what the linked article is about.
You are implying that these reasonabl good willing not-politians but people dont exist. All i have to do here is show you one exception (which there are plenty of) and also point to the filtering characteristics of a democracy.
I dont like the conclusion that "evil politicians just exist". To me, its the same populism ala "migrants are just criminals".
More subtly I am not arguing that many people get into public service twirling their mustache and going "MuuuuAHAHAHA!". I am arguing that many people go in with their adolescent ideals and are convinced that they are doing good by doing the evil that they do. That is "banal corruption". They are not corrupt because going after money. They are not corrupt because going after fame and power. They are corrupt by letting their own ideals / philosophy / religion get in front of more provable, cold realities of what the polis actually needs done now.
Let's take a very banal example: Traffic engineers in one of the cities I live in (there might be only one traffic engineer). Their duty is to make traffic work ever better - that's required for the city to work well for its inhabitants. Other people have other missions. For that office, that's cars and bikes mostly - I don't know if public transit is this particular office's duty - and to keep pedestrians safe from that traffic and vice et versa. However in practice they work much more specifically to make it ever harder to drive cars. Based on the evidence of living in that city, they are actively working against car traffic. They are now NOT working to "honorably discharge" their duty. They are instead working on "what THEY think is good". That is NOT the same thing. It has a name. That name is "corruption".
Fine, another example at a different scale: You might remember the quote [The piece of paper is not a suicide pact] - as justification for one high office politician to ignore his sworn duty and do whatever he wanted. To which much of the country then cheered. Now that one is Corruption with a capital C.
Does the EU commissioner think they are doing the right thing? Probably yes. Would they acknowledge privately that they are stretching the limits to breaking point? Quite likely - they didn't get there by being stupid. Would they (privately) argue that it was worth doing "for the cause"? Yep. Corruption.
> the accumulated failure of voters, that enables the sociopathes their careers
Well, sure. I believe that in democracies, the buck does not stop with the president but with the voters. But I think this is at a deep level. That is, our current institutions are very vulnerable to this kind of takeover. And many voters cheer on that corruption (because it furthers THEIR ideals, and fuck the constitution.) Which is why I feel that "How we run institutions" is one of the current Big Challenges on humanity. How we do that currently really doesn't cut it. We have to find ways to do better.
> [libertarians vs democracy]
Facts not in evidence! Democracy as we run it currently is a fantastic breeding ground for this kind of corruption.
Authoritarian regimes are a different thing: They are completely dependent on whether the leading person or group is enlightened. It's a "luck of the draw" kind of thing. But yeah, they are "by design" there to pursue the obsessions of the leaders - whether good or bad.
To repeat: simply beeing convinced that bicycles are the future of urban transit is not corruption.
The other examples you give are clearly corruption, because there is more involved in the decision making than plain reasoning or ideology (which again, is ok).
> in democracies, [it begins and ends with] the voters.
> "How we run institutions" is one of the current Big Challenges on humanity. How we do that currently really doesn't cut it. We have to find ways to do better.
You are agreeing with me here but you are still not concluding like me, that humans are the ultimate root of all our human made problems. So when you say
> Facts not in evidence! Democracy as we run it currently is a fantastic breeding ground for this kind of corruption.
You have to extend your criticism to any other governmental form and not singling out democracies!
Do you agree with my previous statement too?
> A democracy is the only form of government that enables peacefully revolutions by design.
If so, you also have to conclude, that education and critical/constructive discourse is the only basis for lasting solutions. This is my reasoning, im discussing on HN with you.
imo, no governmental form will be perfect but only educated citizens in a democracy will get a chnce to fix it.
So, in the example of "beeing convinced that bicycles", yes it's corruption. The traffic engineer could discharge their office faithfully WHILE advocating and showing up at city councils. At a council, (1) in one intervention - as a citizen - promote bicycling while (2) in another intervention - as traffic engineer - promote a balanced response which serves all constituents (who mostly drive and have an equal right to have their time not wasted). You can be convinced of a proper long term course while serving your office diligently - that much is demanded by this thing called "honesty". It's not okay to ignore the facts on the ground when you are supposed to do your job. That's not mistake, it's willing blindness. Which currently makes a great defense when all else fails: "I was carried away by my enthusiasm; I apologize" - and gets a pass far too easily. Discharging one's office, doing one's job, demands a little more - at least when it's a job of responsibility.
> no governmental form will be perfect
We should still strive to do better because our current pace of progress is shameful. As for democracy, humanity runs many different forms of claimed democracy. The bar is not very high. The choice is not between democracy and autocracy - it's more subtle than that. And I'll agree that autocracies that succeed do it through blind luck - which is not good. Not good either, that is.
You throw in education: Yes! And here again we (humanity) don't do very well. For example in not giving much weight to civics, practical life skills, logic, ethics.
Just within a business or bar or family, dissenting opinions are everywhere. Unlike a business, every little opinion and workgroup and project are a matter of public record and are aimed at affecting public policy. So yeah, it sure seems like "They" are a bunch of hypocrites.
And if you want to go further and lump _all pollsters_ into the group of like-minded, coherent entities that never dissent from eachother ... well, why stop there? Why not the "other party" as well? Or reptile people?
But it is actually a person-like entity. It is a weak hivemind composed of humans who have (for the most part) had their own individualistic tendencies suppressed or even eliminated.
It's the most human-like non-human you'll ever see.
It's not unfair to think of it as person-like. It's not unreasonable to think of it as person-like. It is, in many cases, dangerous to think of it in any other way.
But, there are people out there who find it inconvenient to their political ambitions if you think this way (or, really, there are politics-entities out there for whom it is inconvenient and who dangle their semi-individual chelicerae out to belittle and chastise you for it).
> Or reptile people?
Reptile people would be a relief. They just want to eat babies and impersonate the queen or something.
This is simply not true. See e.g. here, how the commission does not publish dissenting internal comments in the official meeting minutes: https://www.ftm.eu/articles/controversy-between-european-com...
> matter of public record
referring to
> every little opinion and workgroup?
I think we're discounting inches. Perhaps not public record always in all countries, but my broad strokes comment stands.
I can assure you that the censoring goes much deeper than this. EU and especially the commission are not being open, while working hard to create the impression that they are.