In the spirit of helping people understand economics, I'm submitting this argument to the judgement of the forums to see if it as useful as I think it is. Maybe it can be used by us in debating the non-economic theories of others.
The argument is a response to the question "wouldn't everyone be open to bribery under free-markets?".
First, if everyone was so influenced by bribes, then it would be possible for a bribed party to be counter-bribed. Secondly, if this process goes on, it will result in bribery itself being pointless since anyone can be bribed out of their previous bribe. So then the conclusion would be that there would be no bribery if it is assumed that everyone is infinitely greedy or malleable-by-bribes.
Even finite greediness or avarice is implausible because it assumes that every businessman is always more willing to keep money than to spend it (on perhaps, improving working conditions), from whence it follows that money itself would lose its value if every businessman just buried it in the ground indefinitely which is absurd.
So those are my arguments, any corrections are appreciated.
The second argument doesn't make sense, and I don't see how it directly addresses the initial question. There is no reason why one can't be greedy and inclined to spend and consume, but even if this weren't the case, the desire to hold money for the sake of holding money would mean that money still valued, just for a reason other than as a medium of exchange.
I don't know if I understand the initial question, but your responses don't actually say "no" to it, which seems to say that you agree everyone will be open to bribery, but that it isn't a big deal?
Most individuals in a position to accept a bribe are also in a contract with an employer who would certainly prohibit such actions if the law didn't prohibit it already, so I don't see why people would be anymore "open" to accepting one.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Ask them: how do free markets "open everyone to bribery"? What is it right now that's keeping everyone from being bribed that would be different in a free market?
The difference is that in a free market, you're bribe only buys you one company or something like that. With the state, you can buy an entire country through regulatory capture.
This reminds me of this one time I was talking to my friend about decentralization and he said: "wouldn't it be way easier to bribe people if they were broken down into states?" The answer is simply: No. Because that it is a dumb (or call it ill-considered) question.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
mikachusetts:I don't know if I understand the initial question, but your responses don't actually say "no" to it, which seems to say that you agree everyone will be open to bribery, but that it isn't a big deal?
I'm assuming that my opponent has some rather common idea like "the market is where money is exchanged for goods" or "people are motivated by money" or something. If that's true, then proving that bribery can happen but would probably quickly become useless, contradicts the second proposition ("people are motivated by money"). So if the opponent believes both that free-markets=everyone willing to take bribes and that people are motivated by money, then the opponent has to sacrifice one of these ideas by contradiction. And that is the point of the initial argument.
The second one is supposed to be contra "in the market everyone or some people (businessmen) are avaricious". Usually these opinions come hand-in-hand with the idea that all businessmen do want to hoard money at the same time and this is what causes depressions. If all these are true, then one can prove that money would have no value under capitalism (because the businessmen would never, at any time, part with it and so exchange, which is the substance of monetary value, is denied & w/it money).
Jargon:Ask them: how do free markets "open everyone to bribery"? What is it right now that's keeping everyone from being bribed that would be different in a free market? The difference is that in a free market, you're bribe only buys you one company or something like that. With the state, you can buy an entire country through regulatory capture. This reminds me of this one time I was talking to my friend about decentralization and he said: "wouldn't it be way easier to bribe people if they were broken down into states?" The answer is simply: No. Because that it is a dumb (or call it ill-considered) question.
Nice argument
The argument is insane to begin with.
"wouldn't everyone be open to bribery under free-markets?".
What constitutes bribery in the free market? Bribery is the exchange of services or goods for money... That's pretty much free exchange in a nutshell.
If he means, for instance, a boss abusing his powers thanks to someone bribing him, then he is likely to be fired because he's not following company policy and probably losing the company money. On a higher level if CEO's are bribed then they will be gotten rid of by the share holders, board of directors or whatever other institution.
If he means the courts will become corrupt through bribery then that's the problem of the court system or, in an ultra free market, that will be fixed because people will avoid coutrs which are open to bribes.
If someone bribes someone to come and work for him... Then that's employment! Sometimes even competition. If I were you I'd say 'yes. Everyone is open to bribery, the highest bidder, and the highest bidders will always be those who are the most productive because they have recieved the most money from their customers'
Finally, what type of social system prevents bribery? Is it the kind with free association, a lack of coercive power, and inherent consumer checks? No, it's the kind that uses the government to dominate one group and which is so complicated that it's usually quite unaccoutnable!