4 ms·

Even if something is unavoidable, it can still be a barrier to freedom. Besides, I think there are lots of steps possible to limit bribery, from better living

Even if something is unavoidable, it can still be a barrier to freedom. Besides, I think there are lots of steps possible to limit bribery, from better living standards to closer scrutiny of money flows to the general culture of tacit acceptance, making it easier to report, etcetera. Also I don't see why bribery is different than e.g. violence or state persecution. "Even the freest institute is susceptible to state violence", you might say just as well.

nkozyra 6y ago
> Even if something is unavoidable, it can still be a barrier to freedom If it's equally possible in completely free and completely unfree scenarios how can you use it as a metric to show something is not free?
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  Sorry I really don't know what you're on about, I'm done with this conversation.
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    It's usually not necessary to announce you're done unless you want to get the last word for some reason. In the case that you are interested, ability to be bribed is not a feature or attribute unique to freedom or lack thereof and therefore cannot be a discriminator. Kites can be red. Shoes can be red. If red then kite is an example of the logical error.
    - gtsop 6y ago
      You are looking at things in a vacumn and that's what preventing you from seeing the point here. When a gov actively bribes media it's not "just" an act of bribing that could or couldn't have happened. It implies pre-existing relationships between gov and media. It implies allignment of interests between gov and media. It implies will to comply to yhe gov. It implies future bonding between gov and media. Technically, the media are still "free". But we don't really care about the freedom of media to allign with the status quo. We care about the opposite. The reason media is useful and thr reason we care for oppression of the press is because we want media that can report against the gov who may have potentially done something bad. In that context, in real life, bribery is an indirect form of control. It's an indirect form of restricting freedom

nkozyra 6y ago

> Even if something is unavoidable, it can still be a barrier to freedom If it's equally possible in completely free and completely unfree scenarios how can you use it as a metric to show something is not free?

bondarchuk 6y ago
Sorry I really don't know what you're on about, I'm done with this conversation.
- nkozyra 6y ago
  It's usually not necessary to announce you're done unless you want to get the last word for some reason. In the case that you are interested, ability to be bribed is not a feature or attribute unique to freedom or lack thereof and therefore cannot be a discriminator. Kites can be red. Shoes can be red. If red then kite is an example of the logical error.
  - gtsop 6y ago
    You are looking at things in a vacumn and that's what preventing you from seeing the point here. When a gov actively bribes media it's not "just" an act of bribing that could or couldn't have happened. It implies pre-existing relationships between gov and media. It implies allignment of interests between gov and media. It implies will to comply to yhe gov. It implies future bonding between gov and media. Technically, the media are still "free". But we don't really care about the freedom of media to allign with the status quo. We care about the opposite. The reason media is useful and thr reason we care for oppression of the press is because we want media that can report against the gov who may have potentially done something bad. In that context, in real life, bribery is an indirect form of control. It's an indirect form of restricting freedom