[DRAFT] Action On Bribery

[Tinhampton]

Why not use corruption to... depose traitors(even if they didn't deserve)

Yet you have the audacity to claim that you don't like this proposal because it will "depose dictatorships?"

[Dawn Kingdom]

Why not use corruption to... depose traitors(even if they didn't deserve)

Yet you have the audacity to claim that you don't like this proposal because it will "depose dictatorships?"

Deposing dictatorships is different from deposing traitorous citizens.

[New Min]

Yet you have the audacity to claim that you don't like this proposal because it will "depose dictatorships?"

Deposing dictatorships is different from deposing traitorous citizens.

"Very good, Mr Ambassador."

[Aureumterra]

“I’d still recommend changing the title to emphasize bribery, since that is the main focus, never hurt to be specific”

[The New California Republic]

Yet you have the audacity to claim that you don't like this proposal because it will "depose dictatorships?"

Deposing dictatorships is different from deposing traitorous citizens.

OOC: Never have truer words been spoken.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Because it truly isn't the best way of ruling a nation. It is inherently inefficient, and puts the means of governance out of the reach of the poor or poorly connected by arbitrarily increasing the transactional cost of governing."

Arbitrary isn't the best trait of ruler, but if you judge everyone justly it would cause more turmoil. Why not use corruption to ensure safety of loyal and influential people and depose traitors(even if they didn't deserve). Corruption won't give you ability to thrive in economy, but if you can regulate it then be sure that corrution will benefit governments.

"Alternatively, you can run your nation in a way that obviates the need to deal harshly with traitors, which does not generate turmoil, and which inspires a loyal people without the need to buy them off or threaten them into supporting you. You seem to believe that one can have a stable government or a stable economy. The C.D.S.P. is proof that you can have both. As usual, your insight travels as far as the the end of your nose, ambassador."

[New Min]

OOC: Based on all feedback, I have uploaded a new version of the draft (almost completely based on the rewrite Tinhampton made). Also, I changed the title of the draft. I am looking forward to any more feedback.

[Aureumterra]

It’s looking real good now, maybe change the strength to “strong” since you're mandating, and bribery is a large issue that needs to be tackled.

[The New California Republic]

It’s looking real good now, maybe change the strength to “strong” since your mandating, and bribery is a large issue that needs to be tackled.

OOC: Hmm, would it be significant or strong? Might need a passing GenSec member to weigh in.

[New Min]

It’s looking real good now, maybe change the strength to “strong” since your mandating, and bribery is a large issue that needs to be tackled.

OOC: Hmm, would it be significant or strong? Might need a passing GenSec member to weigh in.

OOC: The category itself isn't sure yet. I have talked with Sierra Lyricalia and he/she will come back with an answer soon.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC
This is not 'Political Stability'.

OOC: I don't think it's that clear.

Total Political Freedoms represent something akin to pure democracies, where every single citizen has a direct vote in every single matter. Zero Political Freedoms means that the citizens (or subjects, or slaves) have no say in the operations of government whatsoever. Imposing regulation on campaign finances is a mild form of reducing Political Freedoms.

(emphasis mine)

Based on stats, a resolution gutting bribery in nations where bribery is a way of life is Political Stability. Remember that political freedoms don't just number "good" things like an individual right to vote or the right to distribute a newsletter expounding your views. If some of these rights are a little bit of freedom, then more of them is a lot of freedom - so you have the right to vote as many times as you want, or the right to buy as much media time as you can afford getting your preferred candidate elected. This is why on your nation page, your political freedoms increase from "World Benchmark" to 'Excessive" and, in turn, "Widely Abused" and "Corrupted." Reigning in those corrupt moneybags and their pet politicians and bureaucrats is statistically a loss of political freedoms, even while in RL terms regular people benefit from increased political power.

But depending on how the state is set up, it's not just tycoons who lose power with the abolition of bribery. If there is a broad "middle class" of people who are used to greasing palms to live a reasonably well-ordered and prosperous life, those people will now suddenly be treated the same as the peons they look down on. The extent to which those peons now have more power within the system is necessarily less than the fall suffered by the middle class. If institutions suddenly start working as they say they're designed, everyone now has to fill out all the paperwork and navigate the bureaucracy and it still takes a long time. Granted, "a long time" is a new innovation for most applicants that is clearly (if marginally) better than Never; but the middle class still experiences this as a loss of power and it will take the lower class some amount of time to 1) internalize the fact of their new powers (cynicism reduction), and 2) learn the aforementioned bureaucratic navigation (application of political freedoms).

But, sez you, stopping bribes is definitely Furtherment of Democracy by the WA's own precedent! Just look at GAR #427 (the "Convention on Foreign Political Corruption")! Obviously that means a law against domestic bribes must also be FoD, right?

Except for two things. First, GAR #248 "Against Corruption" was filed as Political Stability, presumably because of the exact same logic I laid out above; and GAR #427 outlaws bribes by foreigners - thus increasing the political power of domestic persons of all classes, whether they engage in bribery or not! CoFPC explicitly has no effect on domestic bribery, and so could only have been filed as FoD.

So I can see the argument for making this FoD, but there's also a perfectly good argument, rooted in precedent and game mechanics, for PS as well.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Bearing in mind that the scope of [at least] clauses 1, 2, & 4, isn't limited to politicians & public officials, I'd make a case for Moral Decency.

[The Superior Peoples]

Strong disagree! Corruption should be ENCOURAGED, not made illegal.

Hail the Confederation!

[New Min]

Strong disagree! Corruption should be ENCOURAGED, not made illegal.

Hail the Confederation!

"I am not interested in the opinion of some Confederation lackey."

[New Min]

OOC: Bearing in mind that the scope of [at least] clauses 1, 2, & 4, isn't limited to politicians & public officials, I'd make a case for Moral Decency.

OOC: I have set MD as the category.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Bearing in mind that the scope of [at least] clauses 1, 2, & 4, isn't limited to politicians & public officials, I'd make a case for Moral Decency.

OOC: If that's the criterion you're going by, then this should be Free Trade, since bribes most immediately count as barriers to commerce. The major effect on society of bribes isn't the recipients getting free stuff, it's those who bribe getting big advantages (making this Political Stability) and those who don't or can't bribe being shut out of politics and out of fair contract bidding (making this either Furtherment of Democracy or Free Trade depending on the emphasis). Sure, giving and receiving bribes is morally wrong in societies not run according to feudalism, but the reasons for pay-to-play laws are the pragmatic ones involving taxpayers getting the most for any expenditure of public money.

I do try to be category-tolerant, but MD for rooting out corruption is a bridge too far.

[Kenmoria]

“I question the veracity of the ‘Believing’ clause. It offers up no option for this being merely a likely outcome, and ignores very plausible circumstances. For example, some corrupt individuals may demand bribery in order to complete simply administrative tasks that are good to be done, just not through extortion.”

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Bearing in mind that the scope of [at least] clauses 1, 2, & 4, isn't limited to politicians & public officials, I'd make a case for Moral Decency.

OOC: If that's the criterion you're going by, then this should be Free Trade, since bribes most immediately count as barriers to commerce.

OOC
Also a possibility, I agree, and arguably okay even with the current wording... but for any of the four potentially-valid categories, I think that the preamble -- and possibly the operative clauses as well-- should be modified to place more emphasis on the relevant aspect.
After all, as currently written it would even apply in cases such as a police patrolman taking minor bribes from local shopkeepers & purveyors of services to overlook their dealing in illegal goods or services (e.g. the butcher running a 'Numbers' operation out of his shop, who gives the cop a free joint of meat every weekend; or the grocer who, in an officially 'dry' nation,gives the cop an occasional bottle of the alcoholic beverages that he secretly imports [or even produces] & sells): If those businesses don't have local rivals, so that it's official suppression alone rather than competition as well from which they're buying protection then preventing those bribes & enforcing the law against the associated activities would technically cause a reduction in Free Trade.

[New Min]

OOC: I have changed the entire preamble, based on all feedback.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 1b should end with a comma. Also, the first two perambulatory lines begin with the same opening verb - believing - which is somewhat annoying. However, I am in favour of the reworked version.”

[New Min]

“Clause 1b should end with a comma. Also, the first two perambulatory lines begin with the same opening verb - believing - which is somewhat annoying. However, I am in favour of the reworked version.”

"Both fixed."

[New Cla]

Good job I would vote Aye if it was being voted on.

[Kenmoria]

“Also, in clause two, there’s no need to put in quotation marks the words ‘bribery’ and ‘being bribed’, since that is in no way related to the defining clause.”

[New Min]

“Also, in clause two, there’s no need to put in quotation marks the words ‘bribery’ and ‘being bribed’, since that is in no way related to the defining clause.”

"Fixed."

[Uan aa Boa]

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,

1. 'bribery' as the act of promising or giving an advantage to another person or organisation (the 'subject'), including:
   
   1. being aware or believing that bribery would be deemed improper functioning within the framework of their activity,
   2. regardless of perceived or known illegality, in the expectation that a relevant function shall be performed improperly by the subject or anyone else, and/or
   3. regardless of perceived or known illegality, as a reward for improper performance within the framework of their activity, whether concerning performance in the past or yet to happen,

You need to fix this definition. The use of the word "including" before the list means that the list does not exhaust what counts as bribery. You've therefore defined any act of promising to give an advantage to another person or organisation to be bribery. You're banning signing up to make regular donations to a charity, buying your friend a beer and a multitude of other harmless every day happenings.

I think that key to the notion of bribery is that you bribe someone to do something, there's an expectation of a result.