>>No system of regulations you build won't eventually be corrupted because (exactly as he says) there exists no neutral desireless arbiters in our world to enforce them.

I don't believe that. Al Capone was notorious for bribing the police and the judges, or intimidating them and their families if bribery failed, to the point where many people thought he was invincible. That turned out to be incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchables_(law_enforcement)

There exist people in the world with strong moral standards and fearless attitudes. We just need to identify them and put them in the right positions.

> We just need to identify them and put them in the right positions.

Such an approach hinges on the presumption that the people doing the identifying and appointing are also virtuous and non-corruptible. Any attempt at a guarantee of the neutrality of the arbiters and enforcers will quickly descend into a Seussian "who's watching the watch watchers?" scenario.

I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm just saying Eliot Ness's example proved that it's possible, even in an environment rife with corruption (Prohibition-era Chicago).

Frankly, I don't see Ness & Friends as paragons of virtue. Sure, they were effective at upholding the law, but I don't see the law as at all just. I just can't look at people who relentlessly upheld prohibition and say "I want more of those in my government". Sure, Capone was a crooked crook, but the government was not any better in that case.

The same applies to markets too. In general, no static human-made system won't eventually be corrupted if some humans stand to gain from that corruption. Corruption needs to be fought actively and continuously.

--

On a tangent, I don't believe regulation-free markets are even possible; power and money are inherently connected (money itself being a form of power), so you'll always have "money in politics", and if governments were to suddenly disappear, then private actors with money would start performing their functions.

This isn't true, if you make regulation a democratic process then the only way to influence the arbiter (assuming laws against propaganda) is via the public good, which was the whole point all along.