As long as there are thieves and robbers, people will always need protection. And protection, unless you do it yourself, usually has to be paid for. Thus your s

As long as there are thieves and robbers, people will always need protection. And protection, unless you do it yourself, usually has to be paid for. Thus your statement, "you have to pay the guy with the gun" is true without the qualification of "without any government." In most ordered societies today, the man with the gun is government and if you don't pay him, he will take away your property and liberty, though usually not your life. Corruption arises when government, i.e. the man-with-the-gun-who-must-be-paid, goes beyond protecting property and, abusing its power, begins infringing on liberty. As long as the police stick to preventing robbery, forcible rape, and other assaults on liberty and property, corruption is not a problem. It is only when they begin interfering with the free market, for example, trying to prevent the exchange of pot between willing sellers and willing buyers, that corruption arises. If the government would stick to protecting liberty and property, there would be (practically) no corruption because the overwhelming majority of people support laws protecting liberty and property. The bottom line of my argument is: no abuse of government power, no corruption. This is helpful because it clarifies the legitimate role of government in practice. Corruption and widespread law breaking become symptoms of an abuse of government power. The cure is to rein in the abuse of government. Without this understanding, the natural tendency of politicians is to fight corruption by making it worse: by increasing government abuse of power, e.g., the war on drugs.