Question: What about Payers who commit crimes?
Answer: With millions of people becoming Payers, it is as certain as anything can
be that some of the Payers will commit crimes and some Payers will pay
unfairly: perhaps even in exchange for some consideration or other. Payers
are only
human and since they have power there will always be temptations.
If a Payer commits some crime
such as assault or another
crime of harming some person
illegally,
they would, no doubt, be dealt
with by whatever criminal justice
system existed. Such things
are beyond the definition
of the non-POM. I would expect
the Payers to pay for justice
as much as they could in
that only the appearance of
justice could satisfy the public
which dominates the Payers.
Crimes of property would be
pretty much limited to vandalism
and theft. Vandalism would
still be a normal criminal
justice system problem as with
assault.
But theft would almost always
be the taking of a luxury item.
This would not only be criminal justice
violation but also a violation
of their requirements and regulations
for their status
as Payers. In other words,
I would expect the Payer organization
to have its own trial and,
upon conviction, evict the
thief from the ranks of the
Payers. But the computer would
still not allow the transfer
of ownership of any luxury
to that ex-Payer. Therefore,
the former Payer, even if not
in confinement, would be known as
a cheating Payer and would
have no access to luxuries
and would be exposed to the
contempt and social outcast
status of the community. I
would expect such a person
to find life in the society
at that point quite impossible
even assuming anyone would
feed, clothe, or house such
a person. I would expect someone
who had disgraced themselves
in this manner to leave the
nation altogether.
Payers convicted of crimes
against the community and people
who become Payers while in
jail remain Payers and might
retain their ability to pay.
It's
like being a priest in that
way. Since they have not been
convicted of biased payments,
they could still be Payers
in good standing even if they
have
committed some other offense.
That, too, would be up to the
Payer Organization to decide.
But now let's get to the heart
of the matter, bribed Payers
who pay for some consideration.
This will happen as I say above.
But the consolation is that
it will be relatively rare,
certainly much more rare than
the current woes of political
corruption, corruption in
our law enforcement agencies
or violations of trust in our
financial institutions. You
see, no one can give a
Payer money. This cuts off the most
common means of corruption
in a POM economy. Secondly,
since no luxury is acceptable
for a Payer, any bribery using
luxury items would be limited
to those which are easily concealed.
Detection of such a bribe would
not only be relatively easy
but the source of the bribe
would be easily traced. All
payments by Payers identify
the person paying (the Payer),
the person paid (presumably
the person offering the bribe),
and the benefit for which the
payment is being made. Thus,
if the owner of the luxury
item is paid by a Payer who
is found in possession of the
item, the connection is difficult
to deny.
Next, remember that the people
who volunteer for Payer status
know they will be giving up
luxuries. Therefore, the Payers
would be far less likely to
be tempted by luxury bribes
than ordinary people like you
and me who love luxuries.
Therefore, the "considerations" which
might sway a Payer would be
more social in nature. But
the number of people who can
influence a particular Payer
must be relatively small and
the relationship, being obvious
in most cases, would mean that
the Payer would not be expected
to pay those persons because
of the appearance of bias.
But the most important reason
why bribery would be rare is
that the amount of money a
single Payer could pay will
undoubtedly be small. To get
a larger payment one would
have to bribe several Payers
who would conspire. This widening
of the bribery would make detection
almost certain. But let's assume
that somehow it was managed
and someone who deserved nothing
was credited with millions
of dollars. Remember that such
a large payment would have
to be matched by a similar
huge benefit to others. If
there were no such benefit
it would be an obvious scam.
If there were such a benefit
they would have to show what
the paid person had done to
create that benefit. In other
words,
serious cheating on a large
scale becomes very obvious.
And though the person who received
the money would be able to
keep it, they might find themselves
punished in some way (exile?)
anyway. Certainly all the Payers
involved would be barred from
paying anyone ever again.
Therefore, cheating would
happen but it would be quite
rare. The rate of cheating
would be so low and of such
a small scale that it could
reasonably be ignored by the
public at large.
|