Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I agree but it is not a economic laws and not pertain to free market or laissez faire.Simple concept: When you don't regulate the market, especially with concern for accumulating wealth through loopholes, or abusing the system to create instability, people can accumulate wealth in obscene ways. What happens when people have wealth? They buy political favours. They undermine democracy.No business becomes a monopoly without the help of government.A common scenario is that an established company buys out its competition or charges less for the same product than its newly created competitors, bankrupting them. Then that company holds the entire market, without any intervention from the state.-Monopolize by creating uncompetitive labor markets by restricting the available jobs and entry, so they can weed out unwanted entrants. AFL-CIO, NFL and MLB Unions perfect examples. They protect union workers from competition.-Majority rules unions to where all decisions are made by one person.-Lazy workers create no incentives so hard workers are discouraged, and makes others causes violence because they look bad.-Contract-go on strike if even the smallest details are not met.-Dues-must pay yearly fee just to be part of the unionBlah blah blah. You're wrong. Try researching the early industrial revolution across Europe and America. Pay special attention to how exploitative companies were towards workers, and how violent companies were towards organised labour.Minimum wage actually creates more poverty because these laws enforce employers not hire those with low skills and talents. If the minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and so a person's skills are suppose $7.00/hr, they will not be hired because the extra 25 cents per hour is charity work. Thus, minimum wage laws protect unions from competition and restricts open opportunity for all members of society who want to gain entry into that occupation.Again, pure bullshit.In countries with no minimum wage, or very low minimum wage, the workers receive a pittance. Industry doesn't pay based off of what a skill is worth, it pays the very least it can get away with. This is why in the United States you can spend four years earning an exceptional education and credentials but make only a few dollars above minimum wage in certain cities and towns, while others will pay you twice the hourly wage. Certain areas have jobs where the employers all pay low wages and can get away with it because they are the only places in the area for that kind of work.This is exacerbated in developing countries where "well-paid" people are actually making wages just comparable to what American minimum wage is, because everyone else receives mere dollars an hour despite that the employers can afford to pay more (the employers are actually often America-based, who create sweatshops in countries that don't regulate the minimum working conditions like in the states. You're only advocating a return to sweatshops in our modern, industrial nation).Furthermore, the problem is not necessarily minimum wage but unions. The unions are the biggest problem because when unions lobby for minimum wages in Congress and State legislatures, they are no advocating for the poor, they are doing the exact opposite; they are protecting the unions from any competition and create less free labor market. Minimum Wage hurts the poor because it is protecting those who already have jobs in the union and limits the number of available jobs.Heaven forbid someone earn just enough to live thanks to organised labour, rather than ten people earning a tenth the pay, for the same work conditions, to spread poverty.Unemployment comes from a lack of jobs. Asking that people be paid less than the cost of living is ludicrous, and would only create a further divide between the wealthy and lower middle classes, because companies will only pay the least that they can get away with. Unions protect workers from arbitrary termination, force companies to provide a retirement or benefits like medical, and keep the hours fair.You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, and are operating purely from what you've read, rather than any actual personal experience.Without minimum wages, the market forces would not cause lower paying rates in America like that of China, Africa, or any other developing nation simply because of the supply and demand of labor in the market. For example, if there are 10 million willing Chinese manufacturing workers in which they get paid 1.00/hr, while in the U.S. if it was the same manufacturer in which they are only 2 million willing America manufacturing workers, they get paid $8.00/hr just based on the short supply of labor; this doesn't include the increase in demand. Or, why does Alex Rodriquez get paid so much? Because union protection and supply and demand. The union protects him by guaranteeing him and all players a minimum wage. on the supply and demand, how many people are going to hit 30 HRS, 100 RBI's 20 SB, .300 AVG and team leadership every season? Well the supply is likely 1 and demand is very high, like 32 teams. When companies are freely allowed to compete for the most skilled in their profession, wages will increase.Since the inception of minimum wage, it has incrementally risen to its current state of $7.25 and limit job creation.One need only look at South America, Central America, and South Asia to see how wrong you are. If having no minimum wage created jobs, and did not cause extremely low salaries, then all these regions' nations wouldn't have such desperately poor working conditions. However, like I said for the third time: companies will pay as little as they can get away with. They have no morality, no sense of fairness. The point of minimum wage is to prevent us from having an excruciatingly poor lower class, that has to sustain itself in paper and aluminum house "cities" like the favelas in Brasil.At least in the states if you're unemployed you can count on your family in the meantime, while you find work, and they're being paid a wage that is enough that they can afford to carry you. You're just arguing for a return to dollar an hour wages, or even less, while the rich create a deeper divide.This is really unnecessary because skills and talents are really set the working conditions. Think About It. Chinese unskilled workers have the worst working conditions because it is unskilled work whereas being a executive in a major company has very nice work conditions because of his skill set. However, this doesn't mean that there should be no safety laws.You're funny. There's no reason a company should respect skill sets unless it has another company setting a precedent it has to compete with, and even in that case the limiting factor is jobs available.Remember, in socialism or communism, all power is vested in government bureaucrats where if people disagree, you are killed. e.g. USSR and ChinaWhen was the last mass genocide of a free capitalism and democratic society? NeverYou changed the subject, however if you want an answer look at Nazi Germany. If you want a less ambiguous answer, look at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. If you're still having trouble agreeing, look at the government-funded or politically backed wars across south America and Africa in which capitalist democracies shook hands with and supported dictators and death squads.The bottom line is that you are wrong.