Resolved: Blackmail should be legalized

Ill make this short and sweet, 1) Blackmail and Extortion are fundamentally the same thing since you have one party being forced to give up something of great value to the blackmailing/extorting party who simply has leverage on the other party and is using said leverage for their financial gain, nothing more nothing less. 2) If a blackmailer uses false information as part of the deal it was conceded that there would be an investigation to see if the allegations were true or not. This would be a time consuming process that may or may not yield substantial results over whether or not the allegations are true. Then the contract making deal would reach an impasse since they cannot determine whether or not the blackmailer is lying or not, making this process insufficient and expensive. 3) If the party being harassed cannot meet the demands of the blackmailer then what happens after that? The contract system proposed by the Pro again reaches a stalemate which only reinforces how it can be insufficient. 4) " the blackmailer would be protected because it would guarantee that he would receive the promised money after handing over the incriminating evidence to the individual in question" - How do you "hand over" the truth? its not a physical thing one owns it is something that once someone knows it, they know it for life. This then leaves the blackmailed party unprotected since according to a contract now they are FORCED to give up something of value to a person who may or may not keep their mouth shut. .. . 5) There is little incentive. The Pro claims that "because it ensures payments whereas he was not legally protected under the current system", but the reality is blackmailers can still receive payments for blackmailing someone, often by using false information, so why would blackmailers accept a system that could jeopardize their payday? 6) This process would be very time consuming. Making the contract itself and agreeing on it would take a very long time if both sides constantly were haggling over the legality or truth of the claims and demands being met, and that requires the bureaucracy to step in and sort everything out which could be time consuming. .. 7) "there is no reason that taxpayers would have to foot the bill " so then the blackmailer and the blackmailee would have to pay perhaps thousands of dollars for investigations, lawyers, contractors, etc. under this new system, which only reinforces how little incentive there is for both sides to spend thousands for a deal that may not even be carried out. .. 8) "even if people do not take advantage of the contracts. .. " I was unaware that this expensive, time consuming process is an option. If someone has damaging information about another person or business and the blackmailer could spend thousands of dollars to extort the company or do it for free, then they would never choose the first option since their payday gets a whole lot bigger if they decide to forgo the "official" process, and that still leaves the blackmailee greatly unprotected. 9) "We can assume that many people would take the opportunity because it is mutually beneficial" - This is solely an opinion and I can prove that it is completely false. If you knew for a fact that the President of BP was knowingly damaging pristine environments, would you pay thousands of dollars to hire a team of lawyers and wait for possibly months before you got paid, or simply go directly against the company and get paid a larger amount of money far sooner? This just reinforces my main point that there is little incentive for blackmailers to adopt and use this system. So just to summarize: Extortion and blackmail in its basic form are fundamentally the same This process would be expensive and time consuming This process may not always work This process does not 100% guarantee the safety of both sides This process is unappealing to the blackmailers since it is costly, time consuming, and optional This process in some cases can be harmful to one or both parties.