Email from LPNY Chair Mark Axinn:
As many of you know, NYC Councilmember Daniel Halloran was arrested this morning in connection with a purported bribery scheme to obtain the Republican Mayoral nomination for a Democratic State Senator.
I am deeply saddened for Dan and all of his supporters.
While Dan is a Republican first, he has been a good friend of the Libertarian Party for several years. He has spoken and participated at many LPNY, Manhattan LP and Queens LP events. He joined us in anti-TSA rallies, anti-eminent domain marches, Anarchy NYC events, Ron Paul events, and several more. He even was part of the NYS delegation to the 2010 National LP Convention in St. Louis.
Dan frequently stated that he could not have won his 2009 City Council race without Libertarian Party support. (He was elected in an overwhelmingly Democratic district on the Republican, Conservative, Independence and Libertarian lines.)
Quite properly, he frequently chastised us for eating our own with useless in-fighting instead of concentrating on sticking a finger in the eye of the oppressor, something Dan did well as a minority member of the City Council.
While the initial press and Government complaint against him appears bleak, we do have a presumption of innocence in this country in our court system and therefore I will not pre-judge him.
Dan was a friend to this Party and now that the chips are down, I hope that he can weather this set-back.
Mark N. Axinn
Chair, LPNY
KL: You can read about Dan Halloran’s arrest here :
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/04/nyc-councilman-dan-halloran-arrested/
LOL. Funny image. Makes me thing back to the old school arcade game.
Some of the line is artificial due to contribution limits and, arguably, reporting requirements. But there are also well intentioned laws that prohibit exchanging political favors for contributions. I don’t think those laws work very well in practice. The problem lies in politicians having way too much power. The more power we take away from them, the less incentive there is to bribe them. The less they get tempted with bribes, the less they get used to it (which leads to expecting it as business as normal), and the less power drunk they get.
that should be “900 foot” – not even an alien centipede has 900 feet
Some Randroids discovered their leader was an egocentric charlatan and they joined the Cult of Rothbard. Then he too proved to be fallible and the X-Randroids felt betrayed. Like the jilted obsess over their former lovers, the Rothbardian X-Randroids became obsessed with their former cult leaders once it was discovered that they were much shorter than the 900 feet super-human entities were thought to be. That’s my theory, anyway.
What I want to know is where the fine line between bribe and political contribution is located. How many winks, nudges and/or knowing nods of the head does it take to transform a contribution into a bribe?
Why the obsession with Rothbard?
That’s just one of the different flavors of libertarianism.
30 P, fer sher I don’t have all the answers. I’m just trying to ask better and better questions.
From his tone, it sounds as if MNR thought he had all the answers of the major political questions. He displayed great courage spinning his little formula out in as many directions as he did. Unfortunately, his little logic game was flawed at the beginning, based on assumptions not in evidence.
Thanks. I actually knew that. It was a typo.
paulie // Apr 4, 2013 at 8:21 am
“… I also think that’s besides the point …”
FYI. The correct English expression is “beside the point,” not “besides.”
Yeah, I’m OK with that. I don’t think any human, whether it be the Pope or Rothbard, is infallible or has all the answers. And than includes me and you.
p, yes, by definition!
IIRC, “Moses” himself probably couldn’t come up with a specific formula. I think he generally deflected such questions by saying he didn’t need to do those sorts of details. He was the Master Theorist. He left the specifics to others.
I don’t know that there can be an exact science to it, but there are degrees of mitigating circumstances. I guess that makes me something other than a Rothbardian absolutist?
26 sk, thanks for clarifying. Is there a list of exceptions? Can the exceptions include pols who reject the notion that fetuses are parasites and therefore support laws against abortion?
I ask because I know of no pols who wish to reduce government CONSISTENTLY – on every issue – across the board.
My dormant Rothbardian circuitry also would conclude that ANY government official being prosecuted for pretty much anything would be helpful, as the State and its agents are serial criminals, so taking them of circulation is a blow for liberty.
Yes?
Generally speaking, yes, with a small number of exceptions (the few government officials who actively fight to reduce government across the board, being prosecuted for things that they didn’t do or which should never be crimes at all).
Taking politicians out of circulation doesn’t prevent them from being replaced, but if it ties up government resources and lowers public confidence in monopoly government it’s probably a good thing.
P, so stipulated. So, from a neo-Rothbardian perspective, IF Halloran did what was alleged, to the extent there is a State (i.e., “government, when instituted”), the bust is righteous, at least on a relative basis. In a nonarchy, of course, the alleged bribe could not happen, as this “aggressive bribe” would have no brib-ee.
My dormant Rothbardian circuitry also would conclude that ANY government official being prosecuted for pretty much anything would be helpful, as the State and its agents are serial criminals, so taking them of circulation is a blow for liberty.
Yes?
I don’t think the two are equivalent, but I also think that’s besides the point. I’m willing to stipulate that government monopoly power will continue for the foreseeable future for this discussion.
I think this is the example which is more analogous to paying political bosses to exclude other, competing would-be political bosses from a fair shot at advancing among the ranks of political bosses. Which would be none of my business, if they weren’t taking our money and interfering in our lives “or else.” But they are.
Yes, that’s more defensible. Of course, you can say that the person with enough money to bribe the police or politicians to allow him to operate is in effect pricing other would-be competitors out of the market because they can’t afford equivalent bribes, which is just a roundabout way of getting back to the first example. It depends on how much the willingness to pay a bribe helps set a market floor for what level of bribe is accepted. But as a whole the second example is relatively more defensible than the first.
In this case, I think the situation is closer to the first example.
20 p: The point would be moot if there was no government power to initiate force and fraud, but there is.
me: It’d be even MORE moot if there were no oxygen! 😉
Ask and you shall receive, My Son:
“Let us consider in this light the question of bribery of government officials. We saw above, that, in a free society or free market, the briber is acting legitimately, whereas it is the bribee who is defrauding someone (e.g., an employer) and therefore deserves prosecution. What of bribery of government officials? Here a distinction must be made between “aggressive” and “defensive” bribery; the first should be considered improper and aggressive, whereas the latter should be considered proper and legitimate. Consider a typical “aggressive bribe”: a Mafia leader bribes police officials to exclude other, competing operators of gambling casinos from a certain territorial area. Here, the Mafioso acts in collaboration with the government to coerce competing gambling proprietors. The Mafioso is, in this case, an initiator, and accessory, to governmental aggression against his competitors. On the other hand, a “defensive bribe” has a radically different moral status. In such a case, for example, Robinson, seeing that gambling casinos are outlawed in a certain area, bribes policemen to allow his casino to operate—a perfectly legitimate response to an unfortunate situation.”
From Genesis, Ch 2, or
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyfour.asp
@18 How would that work? Do you mean an L candidate in a big two party primary, who could then win the election? Or do you mean bribing the people who count the votes in the general election? Bribing the general voting public, say by passing out money with a Vote for LP candidate postcard attached?
If it brings the results of the election (and thus anything that comes from it) into disrepute that would not be good. I’d favor doing away with campaign contribution limits, so that such influence can be exercised openly and above board rather than surreptitiously. I’m undecided about contribution reporting requirements; on one hand there are legitimate privacy and retribution concerns. On the other, there’s something that doesn’t sit right about swaying the election without making it known what interests are behind the swaying.
The point would be moot if there was no government power to initiate force and fraud, but there is.
@17 Thanks!
The article is about private sector bribes – payola to radio stations and contracts between one company and another.
I’d be interested if you or anyone knows of Rothbardian articles which defend the practice of political bribes.
16 P, let’s play. Say the political bribe was intended to get a L elected. Say the L was instrumental in significant rollbacks of State coercion.
Does the intent of reducing force and fraud justify bribery in your mind?
12 P, the Talmudic cite is here:
http://mises.org/daily/2578
Why would anyone care who gets into the Republican primary?
Only because the Republicans have the illegitimate ability to initiate force and fraud – dispense money, favors, jobs etc., by being elected to office.
Since we are talking about government elections, run with government money that is taken from taxpayers under the threat of government force, to elect the people who direct where and how government initiates force and fraud, illegitimately influencing those elections is all about force and fraud, albeit in a less direct manner.
Yeah but this isn’t about govt force, it’s about whether Dan votes to let Malcolm into the Repub primary. Not force, not fraud, is that a crime?
I’m far from being a Stevens fan but that one is a stretch. Hosting a birthday party for a politician elected with an LP endorsement who had been at numerous LP functions seems pretty natural for his county LP. And that was before the scandal broke. So foul play can’t be presumed there.
The Tom Stevens connection.
The good “Doctor” & his Queens County LP just hosted a birthday party for Councilman Dan Halloran. This event was held at the aptly named venue Shenanigans.
http://www.meetup.com/QueensLP/events/107463252/
Is there a cite for the Rothbardian position on bribery per Capozzi? I don’t recall that from my reading, although it’s been a while. Sounds like something Block might have written in Defending the Indefensible, but I don’t remember that chapter.
If a politician takes a bribe to do something he should already be doing, then that’s messed up because he’s already supposed to be doing it. If he gets a salary, that’s what he’s being paid to do. If he doesn’t get a salary, presumably he ran for the position knowing he wouldn’t get a salary.
If a politician takes a bribe to do something he SHOULDN’T be doing, well, it’s something he shouldn’t be doing, bribe or not.
And if it’s an “either/or” thing (politician could support A or B, is bribed to support A), that’s still fucked up, because what he was offering when he ran, and what he’s being paid to deliver (if he gets a salary) is precisely the judgment that he’s now stealing from his employers and selling to someone else.
It also is force and/or fraud against whoever is not getting a fair shake by virtue of the corrupt politician doling out favors to the person or entity making the bribe.
Bribery is fraud. When you take an office, you own the people who gave it to you the duty of honest service, not ‘enriching yourself regardless of the consequences’. Until recently (Chicago v Bush) this was a Federal criminal law matter, the law on fraud by wire.
Hmmm // Apr 3, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Do Libetarians think bribery is OK? Not force, not fraud
Ben Smith // Apr 3, 2013 at 12:53 pm
IF there was no government force that was being bought, why would anyone pay? And if there was no fraud, why wouldn’t it be above board?
robert capozzi // Apr 3, 2013 at 1:19 pm
37 H. Yes, some Ls are OK with bribery…just a market transaction, for them. Presumably, they want to abolish bribery laws.
Ben Smith // Apr 3, 2013 at 1:23 pm
which Ls?
Robert Capozzi // Apr 3, 2013 at 1:50 pm
40 BS, Rothbard and his followers, for starters.
Andy // Apr 3, 2013 at 3:33 pm
“Robert Capozzi // Apr 3, 2013 at 1:50 pm
40 BS, Rothbard and his followers, for starter”
I don’t think that bribery is OK. It seems to me that bribery is the initiation of fraud, and force indirectly, since bribes often lead to the person receiving the bribe initiating force. Our current government basically exists on a system of bribery. Corporations and unions and other special interest groups pay off politicians to (ab)use their positions by initiating force and fraud so the corporation or union or other special interest group can gain some kind of advantage and/or to punish their competition or opposition.
Wes Wagner // Apr 3, 2013 at 3:47 pm
A@44
When the government has guns and can apply laws in manners that are not universal and instead selective and punative… bribery is not unlike murder for hire.
Both parties are guilty.
Murray Hill // Apr 3, 2013 at 3:49 pm
If bribery is not initiation of force or fraud, what exactly are the people selling bribes buying, and what are those who accept them selling? Is it something they produced or rightfully own?
NF,
That’s being discussed in the other thread:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/04/nyc-councilman-dan-halloran-arrested/
Actually, I meant would anyone care if he really did accept a bribe? I realize that conviction by the government does not necessarily mean he did it because they can plant evidence etc. I mean how do libertarians feel about an elected official taking a bribe?
Paulie is correct.
I interpreted NF’s question to mean if the govt. can prove a crime.
According to the press, conviction for two counts of wire fraud, bribery and conspiracy could result in 45 years imprisonment.
Significantly more than most crimes.
That’s if he is convicted, which may or may not have some relationship to whether he did it.
He will lose his job, his car, his house, his law license, whatever money he has left and his freedom.
What if he did accept a bribe?
I certainly hope nothing comes of this.