Hacker News Reader

Comment by ImSkeptical | Hacker News Reader

I don't see why this is a good argument. If you can't do business without breaking the law, don't do business. Participating in bribery because everyone else does it is immoral, perpetuates bad behavior, and risks infecting your company with people who act illegally.

View on HN

The argument you're leveling is equivalent to: never start a business in any country and never do business in any country. It requires a perfect bureaucracy in terms of government and requires perfect knowledge by all participants and at all times (ie it will never exist).

Even well run nations generally have very large numbers of regulations on the books, frequently outdated or poorly thought-through, requiring you to regularly break the law just to function on a day to day basis typically without knowing that you're doing so.

You might as well argue we should just all commit suicide by starvation or general mass economic deprivation. That's the only thing pursuing your premise to its logical conclusion could lead to. Alternatively, figure out a perfect system of government that never has flaws or malevolent actors and figure out how to get people to behave as strictly programmed robots.

You're right that there are more laws than any one person knows. There are also complex interactions between laws and interpretations of laws such that even diligent legal scholars acting in good faith would struggle to do complex actions without arguably violating some law. I definitely believe the law should be simplified and clarified to improve comprehension.

However, there is a world of difference between unwittingly violating subsection III A.15 of some act you've never heard of, and intentionally bribing a government official. In the latter case you are intentionally suborning the function of government for your own benefit, and corrupting the whole system thereby.

Bribery is inefficient. Systems that operate according to law are safer, cleaner, and more productive. The only argument in favor of bribery is that in the short term, the specific criminals involved, get what they want. That's not a great argument when compared to the harmony and productivity of a society.

Bribery is illegal for a reason. If you can't do business without committing a crime, then you shouldn't do business. If India's culture has rampant bribery, then firms from less bribery-inclined areas should not do business there. Either other countries will come around to India's policy of bribing people, or India, desirous of commerce with the outside world, will come around to the "Bribery is bad" school of thought. In either case, whole societies will be enriched and improved.

> Bribery is inefficient. Systems that operate according to law are safer, cleaner, and more productive

Not always. If bribery had been common in the US, Michael Brown would still be alive and the Ferguson scandal would not have happened.

A lot of other bad things would have occurred instead, but it's not 100% black and white.

I'm not sure what I understand what you mean. Could you explain how the illegality or rarity of bribery in the US led to the Ferguson scandal, or the death of Michael Brown?

As I understand it, one of the causes of the death of Michael Brown was the civil unrest due to law enforcement malpractice. The city needed money so they heavily enforced lots of minor traffic laws to increase the revenue from court fines and traffic tickets.

That sort of thing cannot happen in a corrupt city because people would bribe the cops directly instead of paying or disputing traffic tickets, and the city government wouldn't see any of that money. Such a city wouldn't even try something like that.

But surely the locals were upset that they were losing money, not that the money they lost went to city hall. In other words, I doubt they'd be relieved that their money was going to corrupt policeman rather than the city government.

If all the available money for fines was being extorted from drivers by corrupt cops, the city would have to get money another way, or cut services. This would likely upset the people of Ferguson even more.

Another way of looking at it is, what wealthy, safe, clean, productive societies regularly engage in bribery?

Cutting services is awful and harmful but it's not dangerous in the same way that using heavily armed police as emergency tax collectors is. It's bad but the depressingly stable self-perpetuating kind of bad, not the unstable riot-causing kind of bad.

My point is that, in a bribery society, the police would be collecting the tax anyway. The difference is that they would keep most or all of it for themselves personally. Thus, all of the anger would be there over losing money, plus anger at the injustice of having to bribe corrupt cops, plus diminished services.

I also think cutting services can be dangerous. For example, a service to feed the elderly, inspect water safety, maintain roads, deploy police to prevent or reduce crime, after school programs for disadvantaged teens who might otherwise get into or cause dangerous situations, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com