Yes, decoying does constitute entrapment. If a drug addict is seeking drugs and you provide them, you are guilty of pushing drugs. The law is quite clear on that, except, of course, when it is the law that is breaking the law.

I can bet that there is not a single day that you are not breaking some law in your everyday activities (well, perhaps you sleep all day). Honesty and law abiding have nothing to do with being susceptible for entrapment.

People will do or not do whatever they have a propensity to do or not do. Entrapment is just a legal definition to test their propensity.

Don't be an entrapment sucker.
Your successful entrapment and perhaps lifelong ruination is but a feather in some government worker's war bonnet. You are his step closer to a raise and/or even promotion.

Good example is soliciting prostitution for the purpose of trapping someone into violating their "law". There shouldnt be anything wrong with prostitution or drug smuggling, selling, or using in the first place.,

As to violating laws, I really do make my own decisions and would never listed to someone else trying to get me to violate some law. That said, I am perfectly capable of figuring out if its worth it, or morally justified, to violate a law.

Getting convicted of violating one or more of their laws is insanely easy. Most of the laws are over reaching, impossible to actually understand, and contain generalities about what is forbidden instead of specifics.

Conviction seems to be based on how things "look" more than what actually happened also. Government people are expert at making things look bad- example if you are carrying $15k in cash when you fly. They make it look like you made the money in some illegal activity.

Our government has succeeded in creating such a web of laws that it's difficult for anyone not to break one or more nearly every day, or be vulnerable to being entrapped into a violation. With the increasing pressure of a flood of regulations, fear of terrorism, and unrealistic demands for a delusional "pure" environment from an army of special interests, the temptation to use entrapment is growing stronger.

The Ruby Ridge incident was a classic case, with the BATF and FBI badgering a gunsmith into making a shotgun barrel that was short enough to be changed into a "sawed off" configuration. The tragic fiasco that followed, with the deaths of an agent and an innocent young mother was the result of this stupidity.

Entrapment often involves a friend or relative who's been threatened with legal action by a government agency, and are forced to cooperate in the entrapment. Money laundering by complex transactions may not be obviously illegal to the entrapped party, as one example.

While the target of entrapment is usually already a person with an inclination toward illegal activity, it is possible to entrap people with good intentions.

Randy Weaver (of Ruby Ridge fame) fell for an entrapment scheme to keep his family from starving. Going down that path cost him the lives of his wife and son, though he was, eventually, acquitted of all charges. So...was it entrapment, or something else and how does one tell the difference?

An honest, law-abiding citizen cannot be a victim of entrapment. That being said, it is not true in our society. Because of the lack of morality on both sides of the so-called entrapment everything becomes an amorphous blob of right and wrong. Those using entrapment are supposed to be the good guys. But because of thousands of laws and regulations, many of them contradicting one another, anyone can be outside the law for any reason since black and white are both reflected in the morass of a no longer functioning judicial system.

To answer your question, oh HELL yea!!!!

The true corruption is to have accepted the government's word that whatever behavior it outlaws is automatically wrong. Once you have taken that step, you can be led into such evils as convicting the innocent on some judge's say-so.

The government knows no moral restraints. We must know none in defending our freedom against their actions.

What constitutes entrapment? If the subject actively looks for help to do a bad thing, does decoying him really constitute entrapment?

No...no more than power corrupts. Only the corrupt will be enticed by the entrapment's of the FBI or power itself.

Yes. Maybe the article is talking about people who would not think of violent action unless someone goaded them into it when they're already in an upset state.

Gov't should get out of the business of encouraging crime.

Violent action is not suggested in the article, CG. In fact the author explains that violent action would be counter-productive and that people must think for themselves and NOT be goaded into such action by unethical agents of the state (or anyone else.)

I think it's awful we pay people to try to convince people to commit crimes.

This article seems to be written from the perspective of someone involved with groups who think some kind of violent direct action against the gov't is a good idea. That's so far from my world. I actually forget such people really exist. I can kind of put myself in the author's mindset though by thinking he just has a very different threshold line between what constitutes light and transient causes and what is a long train of abuses. To me we're not even close, esp when we account for all the things that have gotten better for liberty against things that have gotten worse. From my point of view violent action is just crazy talk. It's a weird glimpse into another world.