The Son Also Rises.

[Seth]

The damage that legal bribes do is well illustrated by the case of Israel.

Every US president has been bought and paid for by the Israel lobby before they even get to the White House. And that includes Obama. They don't give a fuck, they just want to get elected.
The palestinians are small change to them.

If they didn't have the backing of the US, Israel would be under crippling sanctions for their vicious apartheid policies. The bribes paid in Washington are well worth the money.

Of course you have absolutely no evidence of this allegation, whereas the Occam's Razor answer is that every US president happens to agree with, as do the vast majority of American citizens, the Israel lobby that their actions are fully justified self-defense given the continuous string of attacks on Israel by Palestinians and other Arabs who wish to exterminate every Jew and abolish Israel entirely.

[Seth]

Never mind the popularly accepted connotation that goes with the word "bribe". The fact is that a bribe does not have to be illegal to be a bribe.

I won't "never mind" because that's clearly the connotation you wished to impart in your argument, notwithstanding the technical definition.

My argument is that a bribe does not have to be illegal to be a bribe and that you are clearly wrong in arguing otherwise.

I partly agree with Seth, in that there is no doubt that the term "bribe" is pejorative, notwithstanding the legal status of various types of political donations. However, the fact is that large donations made by the wealthy and powerful to politicians to induce them to support policies which help the rich and powerful can be socially damaging, whether or not it is legally sanctioned. In other words, the pejorative nature of the term "bribe" is justified, so Hermit has no need to dismiss the "popularly accepted connotation". If the cap fits, the bribers and bribees can wear it...

Only if one accepts your argument that such donations are inherently "socially damaging." You impute a pejorative connotation to the use of the word because your socialist ideology forces you to do so, not because you have made a rational judgement. The point being that the use of the word "bribe" in this pejorative sense is nothing more than a statement of opinion that does not necessarily reflect either facts or reason. What he calls a "bribe" others call "exercise of freedom of political speech and the right to petition government for redress of grievances."

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

..."exercise of freedom of political speech and the right to petition government for redress of grievances."...

And the wealthy can do that with vastly more effect than anyone else, thus using the cover of democracy to ensure they maintain their power and position...

[Blind groper]

A bribe is a payment given to a person with power, with the clear understanding that the person in power will respond by giving an agreed service to the person giving the bribe.

When the person in power is paid by the public (via taxes) to deliver specific services to the public, and the service given to the briber goes against this duty, then accepting the bribe is immoral and corrupt.

In my country, politicians who do this (a very rare event) are charged with a crime, and if found guilty, are locked up in prison. On release, they are forbidden ever again to enter politics.

The example I gave, bribes by gun makers to politicians in return for gun friendly policies, is clearly corruption, since such policies do not serve the public good. For example, the current ban on taxpayer funded research into the impact of guns on society is clearly against the public good, since this is data desperately needed.

In fact, even in cases where the public good is not harmed, it is corruption, since the duty of any politician is to the people, not to small but wealthy lobby groups. If NZ had your system of government, but NZ's policy on corruption, half the people in congress would already be in prison.

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

..."exercise of freedom of political speech and the right to petition government for redress of grievances."...

And the wealthy can do that with vastly more effect than anyone else, thus using the cover of democracy to ensure they maintain their power and position...

Adapt or derp, Jim! :crazy:

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

..."exercise of freedom of political speech and the right to petition government for redress of grievances."...

And the wealthy can do that with vastly more effect than anyone else, thus using the cover of democracy to ensure they maintain their power and position...

There are way more poor people in the world than their are wealthy ones. All they have to do is agree on what they want and act as a unit.

And there's nothing wrong with "maintaining their power and position" because that's what life is all about. You want to maintain your power and position, and so does your neighbor down the street, and the CEO on Wall street and the hooker on the corner. Just because everyone doesn't have the same amount of power or the same influential position doesn't change anything. Life is not fair, and all it gets you to try to make it fair is universal misery, something that Marxism has demonstrated absolutely time and time and time again.

You're just pissed because you're not top dog. But if you were top dog, you'd be ripping the omega dogs a new one just like Donald Trump does because you're as human as anyone else, and until your basic needs are met, you'll do anything to meet them, including tromping the guy below you into the mud.

[Seth]

A bribe is a payment given to a person with power, with the clear understanding that the person in power will respond by giving an agreed service to the person giving the bribe.

So what? If I contribute to a pro-life candidate you're damned right I have a clear understanding that he will vote a particular way on abortion issues. If I didn't have such an understanding I wouldn't give him money. I give him money because he says he'll do things for me and I expect him to keep his word. Big deal. Who cares? Everybody does it, left and right and in the middle. That's called "politics."

When the person in power is paid by the public (via taxes) to deliver specific services to the public, and the service given to the briber goes against this duty, then accepting the bribe is immoral and corrupt.

Indeed. And therein lies the distinction. It's about time somebody's nickle dropped.

In my country, politicians who do this (a very rare event) are charged with a crime, and if found guilty, are locked up in prison. On release, they are forbidden ever again to enter politics.

And here's the nuance that has been going straight past you all this time. A "bribe" in the "illegal bribery" context is the giving of money to an official for his own personal benefit in order to induce him to do something for the briber that violates the authority delegated to him by the public.

In other words, if you give the building inspector money to inspect your wiring, you have done nothing illegal because he inspects the wiring, renders a decision and puts the money into the public coffers. If, however, you give him money to inspect your wiring over and above the ordinary fee, and you give it to him for his personal benefit with the understanding that he will overlook deficiencies in the wiring, THAT is an illegal bribe. The important elements of the offense are that the money has to be given for the personal benefit of the official, and that the official agrees to do something he is not legally authorized to do, or to refrain from doing something that he is legally obligated to do by virtue of his office.

The example I gave, bribes by gun makers to politicians in return for gun friendly policies, is clearly corruption, since such policies do not serve the public good.

Again, that is a matter of personal opinion on your part. In my view, getting pro-gun politicians elected is exactly the opposite and doing so does in fact serve the public good by defending the rights of individuals set forth in the Constitution to keep and bear arms. And therefore I would say that campaign contributions to anti-gun politicians, according to your logic, would be a "corrupt bribe" to induce them to violate the constitutional rights of the citizenry. In fact, I'd go further and say it's treasonous to offer such a bribe and it's even more treasonous to accept and act on such a bribe, to the point that both parties to the corrupt transaction should be hung from a lamp post at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue so the crows can peck their eyes out and strip the flesh from their bones.

For example, the current ban on taxpayer funded research into the impact of guns on society is clearly against the public good, since this is data desperately needed.

And the reason the ban exists is because such taxpayer funded research is a corrupt activity to begin with, and forcing gun owners, or indeed anyone to fund biased and pre-determined "research" by people everybody knows full well have a strong, well-known anti-gun bias is forcing them to fund an attack on their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and is justifiably banned as doing so would be unconstitutional. If you want such research done, then pay for it yourself. I'll not agree to lending either the purse or the inherent power of the government to any kind of "research" that threatens such a fundamental and well-protected right. That is not within the mandate of the government, you see. The federal government has absolutely zero authority to engage in any activity that disparages the rights of citizens merely because some leftist wanker thinks it would be a good idea to do so. That's why they are "rights" and that's why it was explicitly expressed in the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law..." and directed that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." For the government to take upon itself, sua sponte, an attack on the 2nd Amendment because some people think it ought to is a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition against doing that very thing. The government cannot be allowed to pass judgment on the propriety or necessity of any of the rights of the People because the government is explicitly forbidden from doing so.

If the People want the 2nd Amendment repealed, then the People have the necessary power and procedure in place to do so, if they so choose. Government however cannot be permitted to arrogate to itself any power or authority to pass judgment on our fundamental civil rights, not even to the extent of "researching" why it thinks some right should be infringed.

In fact, even in cases where the public good is not harmed, it is corruption, since the duty of any politician is to the people, not to small but wealthy lobby groups. If NZ had your system of government, but NZ's policy on corruption, half the people in congress would already be in prison.

The "small wealthy lobby group" called the NRA is actually the combined contributions and will of more than seven million citizens who have a right to express their desires and seek redress of grievances before the Congress. So it's not really "small" at all. It just appears that way because you choose to ignore the realities, which are that the majority of "small" lobby groups are actually just representatives for many, many people, each of whom has an absolute right to hire someone to speak for them before Congress.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

You're just pissed because you're not top dog. But if you were top dog, you'd be ripping the omega dogs a new one just like Donald Trump does because you're as human as anyone else, and until your basic needs are met, you'll do anything to meet them, including tromping the guy below you into the mud.

What an inspirational view of humanity...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

You're just pissed because you're not top dog. But if you were top dog, you'd be ripping the omega dogs a new one just like Donald Trump does because you're as human as anyone else, and until your basic needs are met, you'll do anything to meet them, including tromping the guy below you into the mud.

What an inspirational view of humanity...

Facts is facts dude. Adapt or die.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your view on gun research is revealing. You are assuming before the research is done that it will show guns to be bad. I suspect that you know, deep down, that guns are a net detriment to society, and that is why you oppose people actually doing the research to find out.

On the NRA.

They are wealthy, not because of the membership of a minority of the USA, but because they are fed tens of millions of dollars by the gun manufacturers. Such bribes make organisations corrupt.

[Hermit]

...there is no doubt that the term "bribe" is pejorative...

"You can have ice cream for dessert tonight if you don't fight with your sister this afternoon." Here the bribe is not pejorative. It consists of the promise of a reward, and thoroughly positive and constructive - a standard part of operant conditioning taking place millions of times a day in ordinary life.

Still, you too seem to be missing my point, which is restricted to saying that Seth's assertion that part of the definition of bribe is that it is an illegal act. I made no mention beyond that until I said that we all think of bribes as either good or bad, depending on what we think about the cause or motivation they are made for.

[Hermit]

...we all know that's not what Hermit meant or said.

What I did say - and mean - is that a bribe does not need to be some illegal act to be a bribe, and that you are wrong for claiming the contrary.

[JimC]

...there is no doubt that the term "bribe" is pejorative...

"You can have ice cream for dessert tonight if you don't fight with your sister this afternoon." Here the bribe is not pejorative. It consists of the promise of a reward, and thoroughly positive and constructive - a standard part of operant conditioning taking place millions of times a day in ordinary life.

Still, you too seem to be missing my point, which is restricted to saying that Seth's assertion that part of the definition of bribe is that it is an illegal act. I made no mention beyond that until I said that we all think of bribes as either good or bad, depending on what we think about the cause or motivation they are made for.

No, Hermit. It may be very mildly pejorative, but it still represents a motivator to human behaviour which is considered to be at least somewhat reprehensible. If individuals/children have to be "bribed" to do a certain action, the consensus would be that it is problematic in the long run...

[Hermit]

No, Hermit. It may be very mildly pejorative, but it still represents a motivator to human behaviour which is considered to be at least somewhat reprehensible. If individuals/children have to be "bribed" to do a certain action, the consensus would be that it is problematic in the long run...

No, what? I've already acknowledged that the popularly accepted connotation that goes with the word "bribe" is as more or less pejorative. I do not, though, agree that popular sentiment can serve as a justification for asserting what something is, even when that sentiment is shared by you. As for me, I do not cast aspersions on operant conditioning. It is what makes us tick. If that tramples over people's tender sensitivities concerning nobility of mind, pride in an individual's autonomy through free will and the proverbial dignity and nobility of the human being as an individual, so be it. I'm with B.F. Skinner all the way. The smartest thing we can do is to accept that we react to certain stimuli in a pretty predictable way and to engineer our environment accordingly. The best thing about that is that by engineering the things that control us we attain self control. On the surface that seems paradoxical, but once you jettison old fashioned conceptions of what constitutes a human individual it makes sense and is not even slightly demeaning.

[pErvinalia]

You should post more Hermit. You are one of the few people who post intellectual and interesting comments on the forum now.

(By the way, this is absolutely not a comment on anything Jim has said in this debate. I'm barely following along. Whether Hermit's comment is right or wrong in the context of this debate isn't my point. His comment above is interesting and intelligent on it's own).