The New Yorker ponders why and whether blackmail should be illegal. I have to say, I don’t get it: this seems really simple. You’re restricting the incentives that can be offered for committing a destructive act, while acknowledging that in some circumstances the act itself is necessary. In this way it is hoped that the destructive acts that are undertaken will be those that are most fully justified on their own merits, rather than being prioritized on the basis of external financial factors. There’s some similarity between this and the ban on compensation for organ donation, though of course the situations are not perfectly analogous.
But maybe I’m just saying this because I’m a Letterman fan.
