> In theorizing the bribe, Mumford had warned that after enough people accept it, “no other choices will remain.

Makes me think of Richard Stallman when we apply this to software.

Interesting that this was formulated so long ago.

But, point of language: "bribe" only applies when you're inducing someone to breach their responsibilities to someone else or "the system" as a whole, such as bribing someone to make a purchasing decision with the company's money or a policeman to leave you alone. While you can induce someone to make a decision on their own account, it's no more bribery than my employer is "bribing" me to write software.

>"bribe" only applies when you're inducing someone to breach their responsibilities to someone else or "the system" as a whole

so, what would you call a payment for them to perform their legal duties, like issue a document for example, which they must perform by law, yet aren't going to until you pay?

That is also a breach of their responsibilities, and therefore a bribe, because they should be doing it anyway. I'm reminded of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_rupee_note

(does raise the question "if you pay a bribe with something valueless is that still a bribe")

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act calls that a "grease payment".

A.K.A. Facilitation/facilitating payment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitating_payment

checked Russian law (below, in Russian) as this is where my understanding formed - it is all bribe there as i always thought, only for the "breach" (part 3.) the punishment is stronger

http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/6411e00...

Mumford's work influenced Jacques Ellul, author of The Technological Society https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...