> On Sep 16, 12:56 pm, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> It seems to me that free market theories depend to a considerable
>> degree on the thesis that the state will enforce laws and contracts.
>> The unfortunate fact is that no state is completely efficient at this
>> task, and some states are abysmal.  As the size and economic  power of
>> a corporation increases it’s opportunities to “cheat” the system with
>> bribery, fraud, corruption and theft increase.  It is easier for
>> CitiBank to bribe a state legislator than it is for Joe’s Deli to do
>> so.  Where the corporation has more economic resources than the state
>> the situation is exacerbated as is the case in Africa in some
>> countries.

>

>> Does any of this have any theoretical impact on free market theory?
>> If corruption is rampant and the state is unable or unwilling to
>> combat it, is it still the case that competition in a free market is
>> the optimum solution?

>

>> Even in a country like the US, where some consider that the rule of
>> law is extant, the state is inefficient at detecting and prosecuting
>> fraud.    Perhaps like Roman markets fraud should be ignored by the
>> state, “caveat emptor”, but as of now it’s an important part of
>> contract enforcement law.  Can there be a free market if there is no
>> enforcement of contracts?

>

>> Should the inablity of the state to enforce some laws change how it
>> writes those laws dealing with the market that it *can* enforce?

>
> Since states exist to control scarce resources, it is evident that
> there can not be a market operating optimally when there is a state.
> States further interfere in markets by granting monopolies in various
> ways through licensure, patent laws and so on.
>
> In asking whether something is an optimal solution, as you do, you
> must specify what the goal is.
>
> -tg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -