Diving Archeologists wrongfully detained by indonesian police

"Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143549708.249281.56240@t31g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> And more generally, would you prefer to see underwater exploration
> conducted in an appropriate way by professional types, or being looted
> at the expense of scientific knowledge and artifacts conservation?

What's to stop professional types from paying bribes?
Is it unprofessional to realise the social context that you are operating
within and conduct your business appropriately, instead of assuming that the
whole world is exactly like in the west?

Alun Harford

"Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143549708.249281.56240@t31g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> And more generally, would you prefer to see underwater exploration
> conducted in an appropriate way by professional types, or being looted
> at the expense of scientific knowledge and artifacts conservation?

What's to stop professional types from paying bribes?
Is it unprofessional to realise the social context that you are operating
within and conduct your business appropriately, instead of assuming that the
whole world is exactly like in the west?

Alun Harford

"Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143549708.249281.56240@t31g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> And more generally, would you prefer to see underwater exploration
> conducted in an appropriate way by professional types, or being looted
> at the expense of scientific knowledge and artifacts conservation?

What's to stop professional types from paying bribes?
Is it unprofessional to realise the social context that you are operating
within and conduct your business appropriately, instead of assuming that the
whole world is exactly like in the west?

Alun Harford

Alun Harford wrote:
> "Robert C. Helling" <robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de> wrote in message
> news:slrne2i8g7.u07.robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de...
>
>>I just happen to know one of the divers personally (better than I know
>>you) as he is an instructor in my club. I find your attitude somewhat
>>strange. These people specifically decided to do their excavation
>>legally in order to preserve the artefacts and make them available to
>>research and museums (besides making some money for themselves) rather
>>than use illegal methods which would make these artefacts go into dark
>>channels and effectively disappear. The whole point is that they are
>>not looters but scientists. If they "just bribe their way out" they
>>would be arrested next time again and then also charged for bribery
>>which would substantially increase the amount of cash needed to "just
>>bribe them out" for the second time otherwise not changing much.
>
>
> You've missed my point. In the west, we have taxation. You pay the tax
> people so that the police don't come and lock you up. In Indonesia, you pay
> the police etc directly. Governments need to raise income, and both systems
> work. Taxation has the disadvantage that you need far more layers of
> bureaucracy, while bribary has disadvantages with regard to fairness (people
> who cannot afford to bribe have less access to services provided by
> government).
>
> If they choose to go there and try to use the "western" system, they're
> going to get locked up, just like if somebody were to come to the west and
> try to hand out bribes.
>
> Alun Harford
>
>


BS. No government can continue with implicit funding mechanisms. If
the "direct pay" method is not explicitly required and enumerated, then
it is not only contrary to the concept of "rule of law" but it is also
arbitrary and capricious. It wouldn't take very long at all for a
government so funded to find itself the victim of "free-market forces."

After all, what's the difference between bribing an official and paying
protection money to the local "non-governmental militia"

Alun Harford wrote:
> "Robert C. Helling" <robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de> wrote in message
> news:slrne2i8g7.u07.robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de...
>
>>I just happen to know one of the divers personally (better than I know
>>you) as he is an instructor in my club. I find your attitude somewhat
>>strange. These people specifically decided to do their excavation
>>legally in order to preserve the artefacts and make them available to
>>research and museums (besides making some money for themselves) rather
>>than use illegal methods which would make these artefacts go into dark
>>channels and effectively disappear. The whole point is that they are
>>not looters but scientists. If they "just bribe their way out" they
>>would be arrested next time again and then also charged for bribery
>>which would substantially increase the amount of cash needed to "just
>>bribe them out" for the second time otherwise not changing much.
>
>
> You've missed my point. In the west, we have taxation. You pay the tax
> people so that the police don't come and lock you up. In Indonesia, you pay
> the police etc directly. Governments need to raise income, and both systems
> work. Taxation has the disadvantage that you need far more layers of
> bureaucracy, while bribary has disadvantages with regard to fairness (people
> who cannot afford to bribe have less access to services provided by
> government).
>
> If they choose to go there and try to use the "western" system, they're
> going to get locked up, just like if somebody were to come to the west and
> try to hand out bribes.
>
> Alun Harford
>
>


BS. No government can continue with implicit funding mechanisms. If
the "direct pay" method is not explicitly required and enumerated, then
it is not only contrary to the concept of "rule of law" but it is also
arbitrary and capricious. It wouldn't take very long at all for a
government so funded to find itself the victim of "free-market forces."

After all, what's the difference between bribing an official and paying
protection money to the local "non-governmental militia"

Alun Harford wrote:
> "Robert C. Helling" <robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de> wrote in message
> news:slrne2i8g7.u07.robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de...
>
>>I just happen to know one of the divers personally (better than I know
>>you) as he is an instructor in my club. I find your attitude somewhat
>>strange. These people specifically decided to do their excavation
>>legally in order to preserve the artefacts and make them available to
>>research and museums (besides making some money for themselves) rather
>>than use illegal methods which would make these artefacts go into dark
>>channels and effectively disappear. The whole point is that they are
>>not looters but scientists. If they "just bribe their way out" they
>>would be arrested next time again and then also charged for bribery
>>which would substantially increase the amount of cash needed to "just
>>bribe them out" for the second time otherwise not changing much.
>
>
> You've missed my point. In the west, we have taxation. You pay the tax
> people so that the police don't come and lock you up. In Indonesia, you pay
> the police etc directly. Governments need to raise income, and both systems
> work. Taxation has the disadvantage that you need far more layers of
> bureaucracy, while bribary has disadvantages with regard to fairness (people
> who cannot afford to bribe have less access to services provided by
> government).
>
> If they choose to go there and try to use the "western" system, they're
> going to get locked up, just like if somebody were to come to the west and
> try to hand out bribes.
>
> Alun Harford
>
>


BS. No government can continue with implicit funding mechanisms. If
the "direct pay" method is not explicitly required and enumerated, then
it is not only contrary to the concept of "rule of law" but it is also
arbitrary and capricious. It wouldn't take very long at all for a
government so funded to find itself the victim of "free-market forces."

After all, what's the difference between bribing an official and paying
protection money to the local "non-governmental militia"

Alun Harford wrote:
> "Robert C. Helling" <robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de> wrote in message
> news:slrne2i8g7.u07.robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de...
>
>>I just happen to know one of the divers personally (better than I know
>>you) as he is an instructor in my club. I find your attitude somewhat
>>strange. These people specifically decided to do their excavation
>>legally in order to preserve the artefacts and make them available to
>>research and museums (besides making some money for themselves) rather
>>than use illegal methods which would make these artefacts go into dark
>>channels and effectively disappear. The whole point is that they are
>>not looters but scientists. If they "just bribe their way out" they
>>would be arrested next time again and then also charged for bribery
>>which would substantially increase the amount of cash needed to "just
>>bribe them out" for the second time otherwise not changing much.
>
>
> You've missed my point. In the west, we have taxation. You pay the tax
> people so that the police don't come and lock you up. In Indonesia, you pay
> the police etc directly. Governments need to raise income, and both systems
> work. Taxation has the disadvantage that you need far more layers of
> bureaucracy, while bribary has disadvantages with regard to fairness (people
> who cannot afford to bribe have less access to services provided by
> government).
>
> If they choose to go there and try to use the "western" system, they're
> going to get locked up, just like if somebody were to come to the west and
> try to hand out bribes.
>
> Alun Harford
>
>


BS. No government can continue with implicit funding mechanisms. If
the "direct pay" method is not explicitly required and enumerated, then
it is not only contrary to the concept of "rule of law" but it is also
arbitrary and capricious. It wouldn't take very long at all for a
government so funded to find itself the victim of "free-market forces."

After all, what's the difference between bribing an official and paying
protection money to the local "non-governmental militia"

Alun Harford wrote:
> "Robert C. Helling" <robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de> wrote in message
> news:slrne2i8g7.u07.robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de...
>
>>I just happen to know one of the divers personally (better than I know
>>you) as he is an instructor in my club. I find your attitude somewhat
>>strange. These people specifically decided to do their excavation
>>legally in order to preserve the artefacts and make them available to
>>research and museums (besides making some money for themselves) rather
>>than use illegal methods which would make these artefacts go into dark
>>channels and effectively disappear. The whole point is that they are
>>not looters but scientists. If they "just bribe their way out" they
>>would be arrested next time again and then also charged for bribery
>>which would substantially increase the amount of cash needed to "just
>>bribe them out" for the second time otherwise not changing much.
>
>
> You've missed my point. In the west, we have taxation. You pay the tax
> people so that the police don't come and lock you up. In Indonesia, you pay
> the police etc directly. Governments need to raise income, and both systems
> work. Taxation has the disadvantage that you need far more layers of
> bureaucracy, while bribary has disadvantages with regard to fairness (people
> who cannot afford to bribe have less access to services provided by
> government).
>
> If they choose to go there and try to use the "western" system, they're
> going to get locked up, just like if somebody were to come to the west and
> try to hand out bribes.
>
> Alun Harford
>
>


BS. No government can continue with implicit funding mechanisms. If
the "direct pay" method is not explicitly required and enumerated, then
it is not only contrary to the concept of "rule of law" but it is also
arbitrary and capricious. It wouldn't take very long at all for a
government so funded to find itself the victim of "free-market forces."

After all, what's the difference between bribing an official and paying
protection money to the local "non-governmental militia"

Alun Harford wrote:
> "Robert C. Helling" <robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de> wrote in message
> news:slrne2i8g7.u07.robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de...
>
>>I just happen to know one of the divers personally (better than I know
>>you) as he is an instructor in my club. I find your attitude somewhat
>>strange. These people specifically decided to do their excavation
>>legally in order to preserve the artefacts and make them available to
>>research and museums (besides making some money for themselves) rather
>>than use illegal methods which would make these artefacts go into dark
>>channels and effectively disappear. The whole point is that they are
>>not looters but scientists. If they "just bribe their way out" they
>>would be arrested next time again and then also charged for bribery
>>which would substantially increase the amount of cash needed to "just
>>bribe them out" for the second time otherwise not changing much.
>
>
> You've missed my point. In the west, we have taxation. You pay the tax
> people so that the police don't come and lock you up. In Indonesia, you pay
> the police etc directly. Governments need to raise income, and both systems
> work. Taxation has the disadvantage that you need far more layers of
> bureaucracy, while bribary has disadvantages with regard to fairness (people
> who cannot afford to bribe have less access to services provided by
> government).
>
> If they choose to go there and try to use the "western" system, they're
> going to get locked up, just like if somebody were to come to the west and
> try to hand out bribes.
>
> Alun Harford
>
>


BS. No government can continue with implicit funding mechanisms. If
the "direct pay" method is not explicitly required and enumerated, then
it is not only contrary to the concept of "rule of law" but it is also
arbitrary and capricious. It wouldn't take very long at all for a
government so funded to find itself the victim of "free-market forces."

After all, what's the difference between bribing an official and paying
protection money to the local "non-governmental militia"

Alun Harford wrote:
> "Robert C. Helling" <robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de> wrote in message
> news:slrne2i8g7.u07.robert@atdotde.iu-bremen.de...
>
>>I just happen to know one of the divers personally (better than I know
>>you) as he is an instructor in my club. I find your attitude somewhat
>>strange. These people specifically decided to do their excavation
>>legally in order to preserve the artefacts and make them available to
>>research and museums (besides making some money for themselves) rather
>>than use illegal methods which would make these artefacts go into dark
>>channels and effectively disappear. The whole point is that they are
>>not looters but scientists. If they "just bribe their way out" they
>>would be arrested next time again and then also charged for bribery
>>which would substantially increase the amount of cash needed to "just
>>bribe them out" for the second time otherwise not changing much.
>
>
> You've missed my point. In the west, we have taxation. You pay the tax
> people so that the police don't come and lock you up. In Indonesia, you pay
> the police etc directly. Governments need to raise income, and both systems
> work. Taxation has the disadvantage that you need far more layers of
> bureaucracy, while bribary has disadvantages with regard to fairness (people
> who cannot afford to bribe have less access to services provided by
> government).
>
> If they choose to go there and try to use the "western" system, they're
> going to get locked up, just like if somebody were to come to the west and
> try to hand out bribes.
>
> Alun Harford
>
>


BS. No government can continue with implicit funding mechanisms. If
the "direct pay" method is not explicitly required and enumerated, then
it is not only contrary to the concept of "rule of law" but it is also
arbitrary and capricious. It wouldn't take very long at all for a
government so funded to find itself the victim of "free-market forces."

After all, what's the difference between bribing an official and paying
protection money to the local "non-governmental militia"