[ajkjk]

Well if you need it spelled out: the "invisible hand" refers to indirect social impacts of free markets which are typically meant to be good things. So any example of market-ish behavior causing things that seem incontrovertibly bad, like buying a department chair under the guise of targeted donations to influence policy to (presumably) protect a certain class of actors, is an example of the "invisible hand" doing a bad thing, hence an example of how this "feature" of free markets, often used to defend them, is actually a bad quality.

This is totally unsurprising to most people who aren't directly benefitting from an unchallenged free market and it usually seems like the "invisible hand" is brought up as a bullshit argument by those already in power to justify accumulating more power, so it's a point of bitterness, hence the OP's sarcasm.

[Arson9416]

Bribery is not "market-ish" behavior in the sense that it is connected to capitalism and free markets. But you also mention bitterness, which explains the reactions to my question. I think that means people want to be bitter at the idea of capitalism and free markets, whether or not it actually makes sense in this instance of bribery.

[ajkjk]

They are naturally and righteously bitter about the annoying status of secretive manipulations in our version of free-market capitalism. Their reaction to you, however, is simply because you are being an obstreperous asshole.

[Arson9416]

This reaction is uncalled for, especially for hackernews. I've been nothing but level-headed and fair, even though I disagree on the topic.

If you're looking for someone to criticize, you should look at your own behavior: "Fairly obvious, right?" an unsubstantive, smug, miserable response to my question, setting the tone for our interactions.