Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Good point norm, why have any laws at all? People will find ways around them anyway.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the influence of money in politics and/or corruption are not equally problematic everywhere.

How is banning bribery more "control freak" than setting prices in the private advertising market?

Good point norm, why have any laws at all? People will find ways around them anyway.

Point made. We have way too many laws, most of which are unenforceable, and serve only to attack discreet groups when someone in power wants to do so.

Bribery is already banned.

Originally posted by normbenign
[b]Good point norm, why have any laws at all? People will find ways around them anyway.

Point made. We have way too many laws, most of which are unenforceable, and serve only to attack discreet groups when someone in power wants to do so.

Bribery is already banned.[/b]

What is a "political donation" in the US would be bribery and a criminal offense in many other places in the world, and you would be tried and convicted for it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What is a "political donation" in the US would be bribery and a criminal offense in many other places in the world, and you would be tried and convicted for it.

We pride ourselves with greater freedom than most of the rest of the world, including what we can do with our money. We like being difference, and better.

Originally posted by normbenign
We pride ourselves with greater freedom than most of the rest of the world, including what we can do with our money. We like being difference, and better.

I think I can manage without the freedom to bribe politicians but you are obviously free to take this freedom as a point of your personal "pride."

Originally posted by normbenign
Bribery is already banned.

It most certainly is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery

Bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter.

The US political system legalizes, and in fact encourages, a significant amount of bribery.

Originally posted by normbenign
It really doesn't matter, because people will find ways around such limits anyway. In principal, it's their money, and you can't tell them how to spend it, however foolish it may be.

But you can tell politicians how not to receive it. And many countries do manage to largely enforce limits on donations to politicians.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you can tell politicians how not to receive it. And many countries do manage to largely enforce limits on donations to politicians.

To prove a charge of bribery, anywhere, you have to directly link the money to some specific action.

Political agreement in general doesn't count.

Many countries limit freedom in many ways. I don't want to copy those anti freedom initiatives.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think I can manage without the freedom to bribe politicians but you are obviously free to take this freedom as a point of your personal "pride."

Which is better?

A. People may freely support politicians or parties of their choice, and openly contribute to the campaign.

B. People slip an envelope full of cash in secret, along with a list of things they want done in return.

You do see the difference.

Originally posted by normbenign
To prove a charge of bribery, anywhere, you have to directly link the money to some specific action.

Many countries just make it illegal to receive any money whatsoever. After all, a politician receiving money for any reason other than bribery just doesn't make sense.

Many countries limit freedom in many ways. I don't want to copy those anti freedom initiatives.
Freedom to be corrupt may seem like a good thing to you. But it seems to me to be the antithesis of equal representation democracy. I understand that you may not support equal representation democracy, but at least be honest about it.

Originally posted by normbenign
Which is better?
A. People may freely support politicians or parties of their choice, and openly contribute to the campaign.
B. People slip an envelope full of cash in secret, along with a list of things they want done in return.
You do see the difference.

I see the difference. But asking 'which is better?' is a false dichotomy. The first results in encouraging bribery as part of the political process. The second can be strictly controlled and prosecuted. The first does not prevent the second and the second is not an unavoidable outcome of stopping the first.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It most certainly is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery

Bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter.

The US political system legalizes, and in fact encourages, a significant amount of bribery.

Anybody who thinks he is going to get a specific related action to his political contribution is desperately fooling themselves.

Originally posted by normbenign
Which is better?

A. People may freely support politicians or parties of their choice, and openly contribute to the campaign.

B. People slip an envelope full of cash in secret, along with a list of things they want done in return.

You do see the difference.

I prefer:

C. People may not contribute financially without limit to political campaigns, and when they get caught "slipping an envelope" or receiving said envelope they should be tried and convicted for bribery. Criminals can and do get caught committing crimes now and again, in case you hadn't noticed.

Originally posted by normbenign
To prove a charge of bribery, anywhere, you have to directly link the money to some specific action.

Political agreement in general doesn't count.

Many countries limit freedom in many ways. I don't want to copy those anti freedom initiatives.

"I don't like X because it is different from Y" is not the world's most compelling argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see the difference. But asking 'which is better?' is a false dichotomy. The first results in encouraging bribery as part of the political process. The second can be strictly controlled and prosecuted. The first does not prevent the second and the second is not an unavoidable outcome of stopping the first.

If you ban open contributions, then you push the process underground, where bribery is more likely to occur.

Originally posted by normbenign
If you ban open contributions, then you push the process underground, where bribery is more likely to occur.

If you ban murder, then you push the process underground, where homicide is more likely to occur.