I considered that, but it doesn't cohere with "This is a lot better than the corruption being widely known". That is, the poster I was replying to seemed to be advocating "don't investigate, or else corruption will be widely known, even though nothing is done against it".
Anyway, regardless of their intended meaning, my point about in- and out-groups stands.
You interpreted it pretty differently from what I mean: Investigation-less corruption is often unofficially known/suspected, but can't be acted on. Investiation enables acting on it.
Of course the laws need to he tight on corruption in the first place. The kinds of corruption seen in the US are typically perfectly legal (we also have loopholes that should be closed, which makes me wonder why people often choose the illegal forms of corruption).
routerl|3 years ago
Anyway, regardless of their intended meaning, my point about in- and out-groups stands.
solarkraft|3 years ago
You interpreted it pretty differently from what I mean: Investigation-less corruption is often unofficially known/suspected, but can't be acted on. Investiation enables acting on it.
Of course the laws need to he tight on corruption in the first place. The kinds of corruption seen in the US are typically perfectly legal (we also have loopholes that should be closed, which makes me wonder why people often choose the illegal forms of corruption).