So then I start to compare two more closely related conditions — i.e., paying hush money to keep some one quiet about an affair vs. paying money to keep some one quiet about a career-threatening medical condition — then it gets interesting.

In the closer conditions, would paying hush $$ (because I feared exploitation) be an okay-this-should-be-a-legal thing to do? I mean, if it were me in that position (i.e., feeling compelled to pay), I’d say, “I have no choice. I’m protecting myself.” And there’s the rub, because the real question isn’t that. It’s why would I feel as if I have to pay some one off in the first place?

In a world once filled with five minute, sociopathic millionaires (they’ve all gone broke recently), the rule of law is about the only compass around for them, since they often lack the internal compass. So if it isn’t spelled out in the law — i.e., there might be punishment for performing a selfish, reprehensible act of exploitation for self gain — then they might perform the action. [Heck, it's great for them.. Why not? It's the American way...]

So that leaves me with your conclusion. There’s that old hackneyed axiom, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. And in this case, I don’t see legalizing blackmail as a valid argument. Rather, I think we might want to look at making certain conditions of exploitation ILLEGAL, not LEGAL. (Of course, that opens a whole other issue of law enforcement, but that’s for another blog entry…)

And yet, then again (disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer), I didn’t hear the speech and I’m just reading your blog’s take on the arguments presented…