I'm conflating their purposes because they are both created and enforced by the existence of a government entity, which EGM states is the cause of corruption in the first place.
"there are things that are illegal in a Free Market Economy that are not permitted regardless of either the victim or the perpetrator party's interest in business opportunities."
What you seem to be saying is that things that are illegal are also not permitted. Explain to me the difference? Who's doing the "permitting?"
Can you point to a single way in which, for example, financial institutions are not regulated in a way that is not enforced by government force?
Is there a functional difference in the real world between "illegal" and "regulated" when the regulatory body is the same as the legislative body?
Who's going to stop me from doing business because they don't like the way I'm doing it if I've got sufficient power and resources to command my market in the first place?
I'm conflating their purposes because they are both created and enforced by the existence of a government entity, which EGM states is the cause of corruption in the first place.
"there are things that are illegal in a Free Market Economy that are not permitted regardless of either the victim or the perpetrator party's interest in business opportunities."
What you seem to be saying is that things that are illegal are also not permitted. Explain to me the difference? Who's doing the "permitting?"
Can you point to a single way in which, for example, financial institutions are not regulated in a way that is not enforced by government force?
Is there a functional difference in the real world between "illegal" and "regulated" when the regulatory body is the same as the legislative body?
Who's going to stop me from doing business because they don't like the way I'm doing it if I've got sufficient power and resources to command my market in the first place?