"The bribe was too seducing" is not a valid defense for citizens. The fact the gouvernements have an armed branch to enforce hegemony makes it more required, not more forgivable.
“But the officials accepted it” is not a valid way to discount Amazon from their nefarious practices.
Easy. Amazon spends several million every year to have their representatives discussing issues that affect them like that. We know for certain that they were indeed involved in the discussions, because that's what they are being paid to do (and it's not entirely objectionable for legislators to listen to industrial interests in the first place).
> to the bike shedding nature of a massive incomprehensible bureaucracy.
It may be incomprehensible to you, but like it or not these bureaucracy are what shape the modern world. Countries without an extensive bureaucracies are all failed state (and the first thing any emerging state actors, like the Taliban or HTS in Syria, do when they come to power is to set up a bureaucracy).
* Amazon paid politicians in EU to craft and pass packaging laws that they would have to enforce/abide by, but have the resources. [Who and how many is anyones guess].
* EU Politicians meaning well, created policy to clean up packing with enforcement in all EU countries, maybe hoping large companies pay for the cleanup. Unintended consequences mean small shippers have a higher burden.
Discussions are not bribes. Write to your MEP and charge yourself out at €500/hour to do so, and you'll soon be spending a decent chunk.
> Countries without an extensive bureaucracies are all failed state
This is such a ridiculous statement. There’s so many different levels of bureaucracy across the developed and developing world that you can’t really put them all in a single bag.