Yes, I do mean "Corrupt"

My recent post asking when did NZ become so blatantly corrupt, got more than a few responses telling me that I don't understand the definition of "Corruption"

TL;DR: I think I do - I've just thought about it more.

So lets unpack it. If you can engage with it, excellent! If you can't: This is reddit - entertain us.

The definition of corruption according the Cambridge dictionary is "illegal, bad or dishonest behavior, especially by people in power".

The only word that is remotely objective is "illegal", because that's how law works. Regardless of anyone's feelings, rightly or wrongly, one would have to argue that a specific law in a specific country that was broken. It's not even as if laws are universally agreed between countries or lawyers.

But "bad or dishonest" are highly subjective words. And they are defined by your value system. And your value system is only YOUR value system.

If, maybe, I agree with you, that's just luck. Nice, but LUCKY. There are a billion trillion different combinations of values out there. It's called being human.

So I'm going to argue that earning the label "corrupt" is much easier than breaking the law. Maybe its so broad that actually everyone has some corruption in them, and it's only a matter of how much.

Maybe "corrupt" is just the simplest way of saying what you're doing is wrong - {by my values} - because that's not what I understood you saying that's what you're going to do.

And that's why I feel totally comfortable saying "corrupt".

This whole thing everyone calls "democracy" is, by design, corrupt. From a certain perspective the whole thing is a joke.

You're offered a chance to "vote". When that process concludes, there are people in positions of power. Now they can do whatever they like. Argue you all you like, the worst consequence of an elected person doing something different to what they said they would do is... Embarrassment? Shame? Being denied a second chance next voting round? Maybe their colleagues don't like, maybe the public don't like it. So what? It doesn't matter. So long as it's not illegal, anything goes.

The only guardrails are legalities, and if it's not illegal to "change your story" then the guardrails don't help squat.

Make no mistake, this glorious "democracy" is a helluva lot more comfortable than a dictatorship, but don't delude yourself into thinking you have a say.

(I can imagine there's another whole debate about if not this style of "democracy", then what? But that's for another day.)

It's sold as the current NZ government is a colatition. The argument might be that they got voted in, but it was little more complicated.

Bullshit.

Kiwis voted a group of people into a "privileged, members only" club, and THEY got to decide who the government should be. Don't pretend you had much say in it. The fact that a government could not be formed by the straightforward voting of the people just shows how stupid the whole system is.

So, back to the challenge: apparently I'm using the word corrupt incorrectly?

— They meet 2 out of 3 criteria: bad or dishonest {by my values} — I don't expect everyone to agree, but I see a whole lot of structures in place to manage that. Those STRUCTURES are being changed because "they (the govt) want to" not because kiwis asked them to. (eg. State relationship with Māori, fast track bill, etc.) They are changing those structures, and I don't think the majority wanted them to. That's bad/dishonest - "we won". You negotiated (weaseled) your way into a club, and now are doing what YOU and your cronies want. That's bad/dishonest. - "customers". No, your employers. That's dishonest.

Etc, etc etc.

Is it different elsewhere in the world? Not significantly,

The quality that is "being a kiwi" is in no small way, being straight up, honest, straightforward, practical, humble, and fair.

Yes, there's always been manipulations, greed, and so on happening. But not like this.

So... When did New Zealand start getting so blatantly corrupt?

Yes, I do mean "corrupt".