Corruption is, by definition, bribing government officials for personal gain. Therefore corruption can only exist in the areas that are not fully free, but are regulated by a government.
So I set up "toms safety certification" in libertopia and a company that sells children's toys that cause children die from choking on small parts bribe me to let them pass and I accept, this is not corruption?
Corruption by definition is not bribing government officials. Show me that definition? Corruption by definition is actually fraudulent activity by those in power, where government is one entity that has power. Removing government to remove corruption is quite frankly insane and only makes sense if you change the definition of corruption to mean "government corruption".
The difference is that if private institution that issues "toms safety certification" takes a bribe it is a very shortsighted strategy - such certificates will be very soon considered untrustworthy and general public will start to ignore them, therefore putting certificate institution out of business. Government-powered institutions can take bribes for years, or even decades without ever being punished for that, or being put out of business.
And yes, limiting government competencies is the best way to limit corruption.As one of Polish politicians put it:
"You don't fight the leeches by catching them by their tails, you fight them by draining the swamp they live in."
> The difference is that if private institution that issues "toms safety certification" takes a bribe it is a very shortsighted strategy ... Government-powered institutions can take bribes for years, or even decades without ever being punished for that, or being put out of business.
That's a theory, but the theory does not describe reality. Reality is that human beings defraud each other frequently, and in fact that is one of the main reasons we have governments, laws, and regulations. When you buy a house or obtain a loan or some software, or walk down the street, do you assume nobody would be doing anything corrupt or fraudulant, just trusting everyone? Of course not.
Anarchy leads to chaos and conflict. Caveat emptor.
Maybe I'm confused, but reality definitely includes several independent certification organizations.
e.g UL, NSF International.
And of course when I buy a house the government doesn't provide an inspector, instead I have to choose from any number of independent home inspectors (some better than others).
Now of course they're often confirming that construction has been done to code (plumbing, electrical, etc), but it's not a far jump to say that these codes could be established and maintained by independent groups like IEEE rather than the specific city and state authorities.
> it's not a far jump to say that these codes could be established and maintained by independent groups like IEEE rather than the specific city and state authorities.
It's a bit of a jump. The "independent" groups are not independent but are run by the inudstry being regulated, and will act accordingly. Government is responsible to its citizens.
Ok, I can see I need to clarify my point. I am not opposed to a government or laws or regulations as such. What I am opposed to are laws and regulations that give some officials power to make arbitrary decisions granting one individual or company permission to do something and declining similar permission to another individual or company. Such decision-making power is the root of corruption. Some regulations are inevitable, but we should try to keep their number at the minimum.
I'm glad you understand that corruption is not exclusive to societies with government now.
Safety certification businesses competing with each other will become a function of publicity above all else, who can market and present themselves in the best way over which certificate authority actually is most stringent.
Individuals generally do not have the time or skill to evaluate which safety certification meets their own values (and if in fact their own values are even sensible and rational!).
This is why it's generally better (note: not perfect) to trust this function to a government who probably will do a better job and can be more trusted of it than a for profit institution that has conflict of interest baked into their entire model.
