>>All govts selectively enforce laws. The "bad" cases get called corruption.
>Agreed, but I don't see what this has to do with our discussion.
The relevance is that you charged in arguing that govts weren't all that relevant to corruption, your best argument being that they "enforce laws". I merely pointed out that how they enforce laws is where most corruption occurs.
> That's just false. Ever heard the word "externality"?
Yes, I have, and it has nothing to do with biz-only corruption.
>>How about three examples? [of biz-only corruption that affect other people unwillingly]
> Nepotism, price fixing and protection rackets.
You seem to think that every bad thing that a company can do is corruption. It isn't.
You're not owed a job at a given company, so nepotism isn't interfering with something that you're entitled to.
Price fixing and protection rackets aren't even (necessarily) violations of a company's rules (which is a necessary condition for corruption).
>The relevance is that you charged in arguing that govts weren't all that relevant to corruption
No, I didn't say that.
> I merely pointed out that how they enforce laws is where most corruption occurs.
I don't really understand what this sentence means, or what you mean by "selective" when you say that corruption results solely from selective enforcement of the law by governments. Your original statement was this:
>Corruption requires a govt from which to extract special privs via illicit means.
This is clearly false. It requires only some or other party from which to extract special priveledges by illicit means. There is no requirement that the party in question be a government.
>Yes, I have [head the term "externality"], and it has nothing to do with biz-only corruption.
Are you claiming that the corrupt actions of a business have no externalities? I don't understand how you can possibly think that is true.
>You seem to think that every bad thing that a company can do is corruption. It isn't.
Nepotism, price fixing and protection rackets are examples of what is ordinarily called "corrpution." You are free to define the word so that it only applies in cases where a government is responsible, but then your claim that all corruption is preconditioned on government is just a tautology. I've already said that I'm happy for you to use the word "corrpution" however you please -- we can choose to use some other word if it makes you happy.
>You're not owed a job at a given company, so nepotism isn't interfering with something that you're entitled to.
This depends on what you think you're entitled to. I personally think that I'm entitled to a fair assessment of my job application. And in an earlier post, you admitted that bribing someone to get hired was a "form of corruption." In any case, the entitlement issue has nothing much to do with the question of whether or not it is corruption. Same goes for your other examples.
> price fixing and protection rackets are examples of what is ordinarily called "corrpution."
No, they're not. Corruption requires that an organization violate its own rules. Price fixing, while illegal/bad, is an example of an organization doing something that it wants to do. The same is true of a protection racket - it's the purpose of the organization.
You seem to think that every instance of bad activity is corruption. It isn't.
Let's go back to your definition "It requires only some or other party from which to extract special priveledges by illicit means."
According to that definition, all theft is corruption. As is all extortion. As is anything that results in some gain to the "bad actor".
That's absurd. Corruption implies a loss of integrity. Protection rackets and other thieves haven't "lost integrity" - they're criminal enterprises and their acts are completely consistent with that.
> Corruption requires that an organization violate its own rules.
Does it? Where did you get that requirement from?
>According to that definition
You're misinterpreting the scope of "only", as should be obvious from the context. I was not proposing a necessary and sufficient requirement for something being corruption, I was just saying that the party from whom privileges are extracted doesn't have to be a government.
>You seem to think that every instance of bad activity is corruption
>Agreed, but I don't see what this has to do with our discussion.
The relevance is that you charged in arguing that govts weren't all that relevant to corruption, your best argument being that they "enforce laws". I merely pointed out that how they enforce laws is where most corruption occurs.
> That's just false. Ever heard the word "externality"?
Yes, I have, and it has nothing to do with biz-only corruption.
>>How about three examples? [of biz-only corruption that affect other people unwillingly]
> Nepotism, price fixing and protection rackets.
You seem to think that every bad thing that a company can do is corruption. It isn't.
You're not owed a job at a given company, so nepotism isn't interfering with something that you're entitled to.
Price fixing and protection rackets aren't even (necessarily) violations of a company's rules (which is a necessary condition for corruption).