Something is okay if it's free, but is illegal if it's paid for. Does this make sense?

Sharon: of course I mean sex :) I was trying to think of other examples where something is illegal if paid for, but okay if it's free...and couldn't. It doesn't make sense to me at all. People have sex all the time, yet when money is involved, suddenly it becomes a criminal act?

Matthew and Christine: why?

darkangel: I'm not sure if you realized that I was referring to sex. Regardless, I meant it to sound exactly as you interpreted it, because objectively I don't see what the difference is.

Caoedhen: fortunately, my 15 sec came elsewhere :)

Fernando: good point. I think this is an example of what Steve (further below you) was referring to about things the government is unable to tax.

Stevey: I think that is sort of an intentional loophole. We don't really want to throw a bunch of teenagers in jail. It's much easier to regulate from the sales aspect.

mike: very good point. I would have to stipulate that the affair is a personal/private one. It's the government official's job to work on behalf of his constituents. So accepting a bribe would violate an aspect of his job description.

Steve: good point. In the case of the sex trade however, I would think this would be classified as a service which is generally not taxed.

Chris: another good point. How about this for a twist? Why should it be illegal to pay for votes? In a democracy, shouldn't the people be allowed to vote for whomever they want, no matter how ill-advised? That's the thing about democracy--the people get the leader they deserve. If they want to vote for the guy who is promising them $100 each, why can't they? To nudge the premise a little farther, when a presidential candidate promises to lower taxes (or give a tax rebate, etc), isn't that exactly what he's doing--offering a bribe for votes?

Christine: using Thailand as your example really undercuts your argument. There are many illegal things that are overlooked there besides underage prostitution. It has nothing to do with what has been formally legislated--it's an enforcement issue. I recall a story on Yahoo News a few months ago in which a pimp was arrested for this offense. He publicly railed that the only reason he was arrested was that he hadn't bribed the local police like he usually does. That wouldn't be as much of an issue in the US. If you really want to stop underage prostitution, you have to go after the pimps. As long as prostitution is a hidden activity it is very difficult to find the them let alone arrest them. Bringing prostitution out in the open would make this easier since the brothel owners would now be known and could be more easily held accountable.

Matthew: some would argue that the profession of the rodeo clown also fits that description.

The fundamental difference between an elected office and the example you cited of a private company is where the citizen's responsibility lies. When choosing who to vote for, the citizen's responsibility is to his own prerogative. That's the fundamental principle of a democracy--you vote according to your own conscience, not what other people tell you is right or wrong. If you want to vote for a white supremacist, that's ok. If you want to vote for someone because he has a nice smile, that's ok too.

If a private institution is offering to pay a citizen to overlook something criminal, the citizen's responsibility is to the laws of his society. In this case, right and wrong has been established by society--not you. You may be doing what you think is right by taking the bribe, but if that conflicts with what society thinks is right, then you will be subject to prosecution.

Matthew: one other thing--no is job degrading, as long as the person doing it makes an effort to do it well.