> 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?