3 ms·

Doesn't the same thing apply to bribery? I can gift you something, and I can ask you to do something. But if I do the first conditioned on the second it's bribe

Doesn't the same thing apply to bribery? I can gift you something, and I can ask you to do something. But if I do the first conditioned on the second it's bribery.

OscarCunningham 3y ago
The illegal thing about bribery is that you give money to an individual for them to do something on behalf of an organisation. Paying someone to do something isn't illegal, but you're harming the organisation by encouraging the individual to act differently than in the best interests of the organisation.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  Is bribery legal when the two parties are entirely private entities (not law enforcement, not publicly listed, etc)? Is it still illegal if you own the entity? Presumably it would often be tax fraud, but an intangible assets maybe not so much? Aren’t intangible assets and ‘horse trading’ the fundamental underpinnings of politics?
  - OscarCunningham 3y ago
    As far as I know, the word 'bribery' is defined by the fact that the person you're paying has some duty to someone else. Otherwise it's just normal paying someone for something.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  In this analogy, it is the official demanding the bribe who corresponds to a blackmailer, and that is generally a crime. In many cases, a bribe is demanded in order to have done what should be done anyway. More generally, one cannot, in practice, blackmail someone over a harmless fact. This is so even if no one but the victim regards the fact as having any importance.
  - OscarCunningham 3y ago
    For example a border officer could demand a bribe to let you into the country. In that case they are threatening not to let you in unless you pay them. But not letting you in is in fact illegal, since they have an obligation to their employer (the government) to let people in or not based on whatever criteria the government set, rather than their own interest. So they are in fact threatening you with something illegal, unlike blackmail where they have the legal right to reveal embarrassing information about you.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      Point taken; your have improved your argument by basing it on the illegality of the bribe-taker's acts of omission or commission - though there is a third class of bribery (perhaps the most common of all), where the bribe-taker is legally allowed to exercise their own discretion, and in such cases, the bribe acceptance itself is the only illegal act by the bribe-taker.† This brings us right back to the central fallacy (the composition fallacy - thanks, cinq!) of the paper we are discussing. †Such as the recent college-admissions scandal in the US. That it is illegal, in some jurisdictions, to pay a bribe, is a point in your favor against the bribery analogy.
phkahler 3y ago
I'm sure you're very busy, but I'd be willing to compensate your expedited consideration in this matter. Blah blah. Now it's a facilitating payment ;-)
jongjong 3y ago
Good point. It both cases the existence of a crime depends on how closely the two actions are related. If you literally gift something to someone with zero expectation of getting anything in return and later that other person happens to do something which benefits you. It's impossible to prove that is bribery. There has to be a strong connection the money and the action. There is a similar principle with blackmail. There has to be a strong connection between the money and the inaction. It's interesting to note that in both cases, a transfer of money usually causes harm to external third parties who are not aware of the transaction. It would be better for society if people did not accept bribes and if people did not yield to blackmail (e.g. if they just went to jail instead of continuing whatever they were doing which made them the target of blackmail in the first place).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Doesn't the same thing apply to bribery? I can gift you something, and I can ask you to do something. But if I do the first conditioned on the second it's bribery.

OscarCunningham 3y ago

The illegal thing about bribery is that you give money to an individual for them to do something on behalf of an organisation. Paying someone to do something isn't illegal, but you're harming the organisation by encouraging the individual to act differently than in the best interests of the organisation.

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
Is bribery legal when the two parties are entirely private entities (not law enforcement, not publicly listed, etc)? Is it still illegal if you own the entity? Presumably it would often be tax fraud, but an intangible assets maybe not so much? Aren’t intangible assets and ‘horse trading’ the fundamental underpinnings of politics?
- OscarCunningham 3y ago
  As far as I know, the word 'bribery' is defined by the fact that the person you're paying has some duty to someone else. Otherwise it's just normal paying someone for something.
mannykannot 3y ago
In this analogy, it is the official demanding the bribe who corresponds to a blackmailer, and that is generally a crime. In many cases, a bribe is demanded in order to have done what should be done anyway. More generally, one cannot, in practice, blackmail someone over a harmless fact. This is so even if no one but the victim regards the fact as having any importance.
- OscarCunningham 3y ago
  For example a border officer could demand a bribe to let you into the country. In that case they are threatening not to let you in unless you pay them. But not letting you in is in fact illegal, since they have an obligation to their employer (the government) to let people in or not based on whatever criteria the government set, rather than their own interest. So they are in fact threatening you with something illegal, unlike blackmail where they have the legal right to reveal embarrassing information about you.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    Point taken; your have improved your argument by basing it on the illegality of the bribe-taker's acts of omission or commission - though there is a third class of bribery (perhaps the most common of all), where the bribe-taker is legally allowed to exercise their own discretion, and in such cases, the bribe acceptance itself is the only illegal act by the bribe-taker.† This brings us right back to the central fallacy (the composition fallacy - thanks, cinq!) of the paper we are discussing. †Such as the recent college-admissions scandal in the US. That it is illegal, in some jurisdictions, to pay a bribe, is a point in your favor against the bribery analogy.

phkahler 3y ago

I'm sure you're very busy, but I'd be willing to compensate your expedited consideration in this matter. Blah blah. Now it's a facilitating payment ;-)

jongjong 3y ago

Good point. It both cases the existence of a crime depends on how closely the two actions are related. If you literally gift something to someone with zero expectation of getting anything in return and later that other person happens to do something which benefits you. It's impossible to prove that is bribery. There has to be a strong connection the money and the action. There is a similar principle with blackmail. There has to be a strong connection between the money and the inaction. It's interesting to note that in both cases, a transfer of money usually causes harm to external third parties who are not aware of the transaction. It would be better for society if people did not accept bribes and if people did not yield to blackmail (e.g. if they just went to jail instead of continuing whatever they were doing which made them the target of blackmail in the first place).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]