10 top reasons why organised crime would be better than the State

[grondilu]

Maybe you've already seen this video but if not, check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IErlI34-0so

[myrkul]

Maybe you've already seen this video but if not, check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IErlI34-0so

Excellent video. I don't know if "better sense of style" is really worthy of number one, though.

[Hawker]

Not wasting time on the video but its a well known legal theory that the state is what evolves when organised crime syndicates compete.  First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.

[myrkul]

Not wasting time on the video but its a well known legal theory that the state is what evolves when organised crime syndicates compete.  First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.

Watch the video. Guarantee it will not be a waste of time. And if this is really your argument, why do you support the states that exist?

[Hawker]

Not wasting time on the video but its a well known legal theory that the state is what evolves when organised crime syndicates compete.  First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.

Watch the video. Guarantee it will not be a waste of time. And if this is really your argument, why do you support the states that exist?

I don't.  I acknowledge that people always end up with some kind of state and I aim to make sure its as decent as possible.  

EDIT: watched it.  This poor woman has never dealt with organised crime.  2 weeks chained to a radiator while her home is being sold to pay a ransom and she would have a very different view of their honour, simple rules, desire for you to succeed and all that other crap.

[myrkul]

I don't.  I acknowledge that people always end up with some kind of state and I aim to make sure its as decent as possible.  

EDIT: watched it.  This poor woman has never dealt with organised crime.  2 weeks chained to a radiator while her home is being sold to pay a ransom and she would have a very different view of their honour, simple rules, desire for you to succeed and all that other crap.

I think you are confusing organized crime with terrorist organizations.

[Hawker]

I don't.  I acknowledge that people always end up with some kind of state and I aim to make sure its as decent as possible.  

EDIT: watched it.  This poor woman has never dealt with organised crime.  2 weeks chained to a radiator while her home is being sold to pay a ransom and she would have a very different view of their honour, simple rules, desire for you to succeed and all that other crap.

I think you are confusing organized crime with terrorist organizations.

Kidnapping is usually done for profit; not for political ends.  To describe the sadists who do that as "honourable" and preferable to an elected government is fatuous.

As I said, their is a theory of law called "command theory" that essentially sees the state as the logical end of gang warfare if there is no pre-existing state.  I don't buy it myself as Hart seems to have a fuller description of how states and laws really work.

http://www.lawiki.org/lawwiki/Hart%27s_theory_of_law

[finkleshnorts]

Not wasting time on the video but its a well known legal theory that the state is what evolves when organised crime syndicates compete.  First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.

Exactly.

[myrkul]

Kidnapping is usually done for profit; not for political ends.  To describe the sadists who do that as "honourable" and preferable to an elected government is fatuous.

I agree completely, but again, I think you have mistaken terrorist organizations for organized crime. She was referring to this organization, and ones like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia

[Hawker]

Kidnapping is usually done for profit; not for political ends.  To describe the sadists who do that as "honourable" and preferable to an elected government is fatuous.

I agree completely, but again, I think you have mistaken terrorist organizations for organized crime. She was referring to this organization, and ones like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia

Yes.  When I lived in Boston, all the coin machines in bars came from one mafia family, the Bulgers.  I'm told another Italian family owned the right to dispose of trash.  If you wanted to compete, you would have to kill them. If they disapproved of you, they would kidnap and kill you.  Whitey Bulger is on trial for the death of a girl who was raped and strangled.  Before that, for years, one of his enforcers "owned" the girl and her mother and had been having his way with her since her puberty. 

That's honourable?  That's how you would like the country to be run? Really?

[cbeast]

I find this repulsive. Having a family member murdered by a rogue cartel member because he refused to do their bidding makes me realize more and more that most libertarians are sociopaths.

[edit] Present company excepted, of course!

[bb113]

I don't.  I acknowledge that people always end up with some kind of state and I aim to make sure its as decent as possible.  

EDIT: watched it.  This poor woman has never dealt with organised crime.  2 weeks chained to a radiator while her home is being sold to pay a ransom and she would have a very different view of their honour, simple rules, desire for you to succeed and all that other crap.

I think you are confusing organized crime with terrorist organizations.

I know a guy from pakistan who's grandma was kidnapped by some al queda group. They put her in a house and kept her comfortable (she even had a maid) but basically wouldn't let the family see her again until they paid up however many rupees equal around 10k USD. Eventually they just paid rather than have the military go in (it was the cheapest and least dangerous way to resolve the situation).

[myrkul]

That's honourable?  That's how you would like the country to be run? Really?

Didn't say it was the preferred way of doing things, just that it is better than the system we have now. I also didn't say they were nice people, but at least they're honest about it. I believe I've thoroughly discussed the method I would prefer.

I find this repulsive. Having a family member murdered by a rogue cartel member because he refused to do their bidding makes me realize more and more that most libertarians are sociopaths.

[edit] Present company excepted, of course!

I'm sorry to hear that. What happened to the rogue cartel member? Was he brought to justice?

[cbeast]

I'm sorry to hear that. What happened to the rogue cartel member? Was he brought to justice?

No. The crime was cleaned up by the police. The evidence was destroyed. The cartel takes care of its own, even the rogue ones.

[grondilu]

First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.

I think you missed the point of the old lady.

In a nuttshell: it's not a matter of scale, it's a matter of style.


Even when a mafia war ends up with a unique winner, it doesn't have to necessarly end up with a bureaucratic, private life intrusive government.  The lady speaker was not bashing the uniqueness of the government, but what it does and how it does it.

[Hawker]

First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.

I think you missed the point of the old lady.

In a nuttshell: it's not a matter of scale, it's a matter of style.


Even when a mafia war ends up with a unique winner, it doesn't have to necessarly end up with a bureaucratic, private life intrusive government.  The lady speaker was not bashing the uniqueness of the government, but what it does and how it does it.

If you think kidnap, rape and murder are less intrusive than traffic rules, you have a funny sense of "style"

[Hawker]

That's honourable?  That's how you would like the country to be run? Really?

Didn't say it was the preferred way of doing things, just that it is better than the system we have now. I also didn't say they were nice people, but at least they're honest about it. I believe I've thoroughly discussed the method I would prefer.

I find this repulsive. Having a family member murdered by a rogue cartel member because he refused to do their bidding makes me realize more and more that most libertarians are sociopaths.

[edit] Present company excepted, of course!

I'm sorry to hear that. What happened to the rogue cartel member? Was he brought to justice?

So you feel that being controlled by people who kidnap, rape and murder of a girl is better than a system where you elect a government.  How does that fit your posts about the NAP?

[grondilu]

If you think kidnap, rape and murder are less intrusive than traffic rules, you have a funny sense of "style"

I may have a romantic idea of organised crime, but to me it is much more about racket, drug traffic and proxenetism.

By comparaison, state is about racket (taxes), sequestration (jail) and endoctrination (schools and publicly financed medias).

[myrkul]

So you feel that being controlled by people who kidnap, rape and murder of a girl is better than a system where you elect a government.  How does that fit your posts about the NAP?

But I did not elect the government we have now, the vast majority of government employees are not elected, anyway, and if you think government does not kidnap, and murder, and if not actively participate, then at least turn a blind eye to rape, to say nothing of torture, then you are more naive than you think I am.

[Transisto]

I was expecting more compelling reasons, funny nonetheless

If you haven't yet, you must watch :
The Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman (Illustrated summary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#

Relevant part, Right enforcement agencies : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o&feature=player_detailpage#t=183s