I've been reading "The Ethics of Liberty", and have come across what I believe to be a contradiction. In the book, it is claimed that bribery is to be allowed, and that the briber is not a crimimal in bribing, only the person who is bribed, even if that infringes on someone else's property. But the book also says that a state should not receive foreign aid because it would increase theft from people in another state. In both cases, theft is being encouraged. Could anyone please explain to me how, when normal bribery is moral, foreign aid isn't?
How is theft being encouraged?
If someone accepts a bribe they are violating a contract that they freely agreed to with their company.
If someone offers a bribe they are under no contractual obligation to serve as an official representative of the company who's employee is accepting the bribe.
The only person who is guilty of theft is the person misrepresenting their employer.
For a country to give foreign aid they must get the money from somewhere and since States generally get their money from theft...
If the money were voluntarily given by the citizens that would be called charity but since it isn't it's forced wealth redistribution from the citizens of Country A to the government of Country B.
By encouraged, I meant it in the sense that theft/contract-violation would not have happened without the briber. I'm not commenting on the morality of bribery by using the word 'encourage'. What I am trying to understand is why Rothbard claims that it is unjust for a state to accept aid from another. Clearly the state which receives the money is not the thief, and the briber is not the person who violates a contract.
Justin Paston-Cooper: By encouraged, I meant it in the sense that theft/contract-violation would not have happened without the briber. I'm not commenting on the morality of bribery by using the word 'encourage'. What I am trying to understand is why Rothbard claims that it is unjust for a state to accept aid from another. Clearly the state which receives the money is not the thief, and the briber is not the person who violates a contract.
If I sell you a gun which you go on to use to shoot somebody, am I encouraging murder?
If you say yes then there is simply no way to can defend the free market consistantly, if you say no then there's your answer to the question of bribery.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Justin Paston-Cooper: even if that infringes on someone else's property.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, Rothbard says nothing of the sort, in fact if I bribe you to give me a monopoly of providing a certain good in a certain area I am infringing upon somebody's property rights and hence the bribe is in violation of the NAP and is not consistant with libertarianism.
I'm sorry. I might not have used the correct words. What I mean to say is that of course the briber is not liable. But in actuality, why should bribing to give a monopoly be a bad thing? In both cases, the person being bribed is breaking a contract.