Martin Van Staden's "Does the ‘free market’ lead to public sector corruption? Of course not"

[Gabri Rigotti]

Yet another excellent Martin Van Staden article ... 

https://dailyfriend.co.za/2024/05/02/does-the-free-market-lead-to-public-sector-corruption-of-course-not/

Martin writes in a structured and disciplined manner, he has the ability to see the forest instead of the trees, and his writings on liberalism are profound. 

Interestingly he sees libertarianism as an extension of liberalism.

Hence, although de facto mostly libertarian, Martin seems to identify as liberal.

Gabri Rigotti

--

" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "

—Anna Hazare

[Erik Peers]

The meaning of liberal has changed. Do you mean classic liberal?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN3A%3DB8C5C_J0W2Tc2qB%2BroDG8-gE0u%2Bg1UKbt-1EjuVAA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

Yes, Erik, although today's "liberalism" (say alla USA Democrats) is a far cry from classical liberalism, and more a faux liberalism ... 😊

In contrast, the South African liberals who argued against Apartheid are classical liberals, and perhaps South Africa is one of the last remaining outposts of classical liberalism? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uPk4_UuPJmeR3P2%3DSvqLYMUu%2Br%3DWZf6iPe-JB4%2BW3Xi3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Libertarians and Individualists advocate an extraordinary degree of freedom. You can do whatever you like so long as it doesn't harm anyone without their consent. 

This freedom applies to businessmen, government employees, and private individuals. The only thing that stops a government official giving a government contract to a friend are the state rules and regulations which we so despise. The government official may be spending taxpayers money, but accusing the official of theft of  taxpayer money is an argument for another forum. In our HCR (HarmConsentRule) dispensation, there is only corruption involved, not actual harm.

The businessman, whose goal is to make a profit for shareholders, can feel justified in obtaining a lucrative government contract for the cost of just a few bribes.

Viewed through this lens, Martin's friend Buddy might be justified in accusing business of being responsible for corruption, as it does not regard it as a crime, just a choice.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

--

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I also recall Leon making a compelling argument in favour of bribery & corruption a few years ago... and if I recall correctly this was also pointed out by Powell or someone at CATO... bribes are just a market price and since the bribe must be lower than the regulatory cost (otherwise you would simply take the regulatory cost and not bother with the bribe), the market price bribe should add net value to the economy as it lowers the price of the regulation. For example, I wouldn't bribe a cop with R500 to get out of a R250 fine, but bribing him with R50 reduces that cost by R200 and since the R200 would not have contributed to any meaningful value being produced in exchange, the cop is up R50 and I'm up R200 in this market exchange. Everyone wins. No ?

By the way, Trevor, I've been out of the loop for a few years... I've seen you refer to HCR a couple of time, but I have no idea what that is. Would you mind sharing / re-sharing / referring back to a definition of that for those of us who missed it ?

S.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2L%3D_BUXid5qJd5uiHy1PmmiQWbvkNoqHLiZ7kADTRhhOig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Erik Peers]

If the purpose of the bribe is to sidestep an efficiency reducing regulation, then it is indeed better for all to bribe.

If however, the bribe is to cause a sub standard product to he delivered, then the bribe is not in the general interest.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAMr06S7d3pZZ8zAXFCnzFtqKYTTLtTupjX_pkw3-X_R4giv%3DJA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Visit www.individualist.one for HCR details 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAMr06S7d3pZZ8zAXFCnzFtqKYTTLtTupjX_pkw3-X_R4giv%3DJA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I would argue that bribery is not possible outside of the context of government compulsion. You cannot bribe a PicknPay employee to let you walk out of the store having paid for only half of your groceries. For a start, they have several counter-acting incentives, like their own jobs and the sustainability of their employer. Secondly, if they did that it would be called theft or fraud, not bribery. Bribes imply that something was being shoved down your throat in the first place - hence my example of a speeding ticket rather than the hugs and kisses we've come to expect from our honorable members.

S.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAE3T5uMyNUyT-zc9uAr_8Xk%2BJXsKkQF%3DeUHaurGUrgc%3D8QCCzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Ok - thanks Trevor. Interesting. I think "Respect" is redundant in the context of the other points, but otherwise it's quite concise and to the point, but frames things nicely. Is there are reason for moving from Consent Axiom to HCR ? Is it because of self-defence ?

S.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2Lkvet0FMkEPoL874Z2ebCAvBRFnRn6gnqyy1GkE0D81SQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

I think "Respect" is redundant in the context of the other points

When thinking about the root cause of man's problems with coexistence, I came to the conclusion that they stemmed from a lack of respect for each other and each others' opinions. This is a point far more subtle than mere racism. Generally you do not act against people you respect. 

Is there a reason for moving from Consent Axiom to HCR ? Is it because of self-defence ?

My problem with the Consent Axiom was the word "action" in "No action without consent". Action is too broad, non-specific, undefined.  I decided that "harm" was a far better and more explanatory term. The HCR used to read "No harm without consent, unless harmed". When presenting that version I was constantly asked what was meant by "harmed". Although clumsier, I decided that "except in self-defense" was much closer to my meaning.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Ok... so if you're writing a personal manifesto of how you'd like to live your life, then that's fine. If you're writing a constitution for a society to enforce, then that's ok too. But I believe you're trying to write a definition of what an ethical & moral life should look like, a) for everyone to use and b) without relying on enforcement. That second bit is the challenge, because respecting others is ok, but expecting others to respect you whether you deserve it or not is a bit questionable. I'm saying this (and called it redundant) because I don't care if anyone respects me, so long as they don't do anything to or with me that I did not consent to. If someone hates my guts, but leaves my stuff alone for some other reason, then that's all I need. I can find touching other people's stuff unethical without the need to respect them. Maybe I respect the stuff... or maybe I fear some onlooking god... or maybe I'm afraid of his mob connections... how it happens does not seem as material as the action or inaction itself.

S.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/359a98be-c7b3-4514-8198-2e8b6889d1b7n%40googlegroups.com.