Chapter Two: The Ethics of Bribery

"Legally, there should be a property right to pay a bribe, but not to take one." - Murray N. Rothbard

Bribery is considered immoral by many who believe it should be outlawed. Although, some may find this statement true, many still do the act and ignore naysayers.

From any person’s point of view, he or she would be almost content to pay the regular price of having services or products be served or delivered for convenience; and, we live in a society that puts a premium on time in order to earn profits and gain as soon as possible to at least recover the losses he or she might have incurred.

Still, the inner workings of other people and externalities, who support an ideal or a friend should be also considered here.

The obvious action here, in any form or manner—deductively, is the taker of the bribe. But, again, as any friend would support an ideal to make anything possible, to the best of his or her ability, should be the interest of providing ethical service from the ground up.

The consequence, as a result of bribery, constitutes the inability to perform a task prescribed by anybody’s predisposition in life.

But who is at fault?

Anyone caught bribing someone, ethically speaking, is not at fault. Instead, he or she commits a moral crime, ascribed by the world’s religions. A crime, which almost anyone is predisposed to perform—free from the guilt of having services done to accomplish a mundane task. Most important, what he or she does is merely exercising the privilege society accorded him or her in the first place.  

"If you suffer your people to be ill-educated and their manners corrupted from infancy, then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them what else is to be concluded, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?"

In any case, one only violates his or her moral compass and invades the property rights of others to be free from the decision to take the bribe or not. Therefore, the person who gave the bribe does not do anything illegal. Instead, it is the taker of the bribe who is at fault, because others, who could be involved, are made to suffer for it.

Legally, there should be a property right to pay a bribe, but not to take one.

This, according to Murray Rothbard, should be the sole responsibility of the bribe taker because he or she is denied the free will and the responsibility of each individual involved in the transaction for his or her own action.

In a moral sense, moreover, the public and government agencies involved in such acts, betray public trust and undermines the sincerity of any person or company to provide equitable service or goods without favours.

First, because of any existing inquiry that might result from an isolated case, the public may no longer have the trust to continue believing the government (or society). Second, government agencies involved in these dealings may find themselves under suspicion from government officials because of indiscretion.

Finally, it is the bribe taker, in particular, who deserves to be prosecuted, not the briber, because he or she is just doing his or her job without moral fault. What happens in this case is a temporary suspension of morals (and ethics), which, more often than not, happens because God could be absent in these dealings.*

Reference:

Reference withheld for Intellectual Property Rights purposes.