[adamrezich]

> If I started from the assumption that if someone has a motive to do something nefarious then they probably did it, and then had to work to disprove it, that would be corrosive to all human relations. How could you even function in society under that worldview?

again, for most individuals, you're right. when it comes to those in power, incentivized by large sums of money, with basically zero means of being caught, it's only pragmatic to assume that it happened. to what extent is up for debate to be sure, but only a few posts up, you instinctively deemed any amount of this hypothetical corruption a "conspiracy theory." why is that the reflexive term you reach for when presented with the scenario I outlined? why do you assume that those in power are uncorrupt until proven otherwise? where does this inherent, implicit complete trust in authority come from?