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.)