Corruption and Libertarianism

System-relative corruption can be desirable and moral because politics is inherently and objectively corrupt

corruption  In one germane ^*moral and legal sense this is breaking agreed rules or trust for personal ends. Whether this is a bad thing must depend on the rules or trust. If a ^*state ^*policeman or customs officer takes a ^*bribe to allow some ^*libertarian activity such as ^*drug-dealing or ^*smuggling, then that “corruption” is a good thing even though his motive might be entirely self-regarding: it is a case of the ^*invisible hand. Why some ^*economies have surpassed others might even be because they have more “corruption” in just this way. Directionally-libertarian reform would, of course, be a better option still.

Despite the system-relative sense of “corruption”, some things appear to be ^*objectively corrupt (which is not to imply they are objectively immoral). ^*Initiated impositions on people must be a corrupt form of ^*social interaction in the sense that it is an abuse of ^*power (see ^*social contract). And such impositions are exactly what ^*politics does systemically and intrinsically. Therefore, corrupt politics can, in principle, be preferable to uncorrupt politics. It matters not that an official is “incorruptible” in their system-relative values. They are objectively corrupt and so owe ^*restitution according to ^*natural ^*law.

See ^*outlaws; ^*political criminals.

(This is an entry from A LIBERTARIAN DICTIONARY: Explaining a Philosophical Theory [draft currently being revised]. Asterisks indicate other entries.)