Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

Gangs have an absolute code of rules they abide by. Well, they have very strict guidelines and the punishment is usually severe, anyways. Idk if you would call that honor. They have life-long commitments. You cannot just leave a gang and join another at your whimsy, unlike with a corporation.

Why is that? Is it because corporations are inherently superior, or because they abide by rules of law that would prevent that type of behavior?

Their argument, of course, is that a mafia type gang is the ideal government-less entity. Now I wouldn't call them totally representative of corporations in a randian paradise, as their dodging law and regulation is a significant part of why they're violent and such, but how gangs deal with each other in a cutthroat manner is less far fetched a comparison.

Well, gangs make their living through criminal and immoral acts, which require strict secrecy in their membership. Their organization is diffuse to make it hard for a single snitch to bring everybody down. Corporations might have secrets, or be corrupt, but their trade is legitimate. Some might sell missiles and missile accessories. They hire and fire people, but they make them all sign NDAs and threaten them with jail time if they break their promises.

They don't exploit people, or brand them, or force them to murder people to be introduced into the organization. Lots of differences.

Yeah, but we really should be talking about progressivnessism or whatever. I'm not trying to provoke anybody, I'm just challenging people to think a little, on a silly internet forum in a box full of text. Thought is good for you.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Guys we're offtopic, we have a whole subforum dedicated this kind of chat too.

Not really. Name aside, this has functioned as our general political/social discussion thread for a while now.

[kaijyuu]

Leaf was making a joke on us talking about "mafia."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh. Right. That thing. I completely forgot that existed.

How's that been going with Vector gone, anyway? My understanding was that she was mostly responsible for administrating it.

[Leafsnail]

Vector was an avid player but Mephansteras is probably closer to an "administrator".  Not that he has mod powers or anything, if he left we could probably just make another thread.

[darkrider2]

Gangs have an absolute code of rules they abide by. Well, they have very strict guidelines and the punishment is usually severe, anyways. Idk if you would call that honor. They have life-long commitments. You cannot just leave a gang and join another at your whimsy, unlike with a corporation.

Idk about that one. I mean if you're boss doesn't like you enough you can end up with some nasty stuff written on their report of you, basically making a job anywhere else hard or impossible to get. So basically the mafia's "I like you kid, you're going places, so just stick around, capiche?".

...

Maybe I've been watching too much TV.

[Montague]

Yeah, nah so honestly, not really.

[lemon10]

Well, gangs make their living through criminal and immoral acts, which require strict secrecy in their membership. Their organization is diffuse to make it hard for a single snitch to bring everybody down. Corporations might have secrets, or be corrupt, but their trade is legitimate. Some might sell missiles and missile accessories. They hire and fire people, but they make them all sign NDAs and threaten them with jail time if they break their promises.

They don't exploit people, or brand them, or force them to murder people to be introduced into the organization. Lots of differences.

Corporations do exploit people.
There are some that have people killed, or get their local goverments to do it, there are corporations that cause goverments to be overthrown, and corporations that basically own goverments.

The reason that these actions aren't very common is because its bad for business, if the government with power over them finds out about their illegal actions (and the government has the will to enforce the law), then they get shut down.

Eg. United fruit company and Guatemala (oppressing the people, organizing a coop against the goverment when kicked out),
Debeers and Botswanan natives

In Botswana, a long dispute has existed between the interests of the mining company, De Beers, and the relocation of the Bushman tribe from the land, in order to exploit diamond resources. The Bushmen have been facing threats from government policies since at least 1980, when the diamond resources were discovered.[55] A campaign is being fought in an attempt to bring an end to what the indigenous rights organisation, Survival International considers it to be a genocide of a tribe that has been living in those lands for tens of thousands of years.[56][57][58] On the grounds that their hunting and gathering has become obsolete and their presence is no longer compatible with preserving wildlife resources, they were persecuted by the government in order to make them leave the reserve. To get rid of them, they have had their water supplies cut off, they have been taxed, fined, beaten, and tortured as per land clearing requests by De Beers.

In both of those cases the companies do anything they can get away with to further their own interests (I could doubtlessly find many more cases if you really need them).


In the absolute absense of the rule of law, there isn't really that big of a difference between a gang and a cutthroat corporation.
EDIT: There are a few differences though, corporations just want money, so they don't really ever aspire to ruling a country outright, and as such if they get powerful enough that they do functionally control a country, they can just use their puppet government to kill/threaten/extort for them. Which takes all the responsibility off them. Gangs want power, which comes from both money and more direct means (eg threats, people with guns), and as such don't ever even pretend to be subservient to the government.
I do think that the gang=goverment is a far more apt comparison though.

[Montague]

Edit, posted the wrong thing in the wrong place.

[Gantolandon]

It most certainly is forcefully taken on an individual basis. What happens if you don't pay your taxes, or declare yourself to be "independent" from your country? The tax man comes over and demands you pay up. If that fails, armed goons in uniform with guns come and drag you to a cage, whereupon a person with a gavel decrees that a certain amount of your possessions can be stolen and that you can be kidnapped and held for a set period of time. If you attempt to resist these armed goons, they will quite willingly shoot you and THEN seize your possessions.

This makes no sense, because all rights (including right to protection of property) are implicitly granted to you by the society you live in. You would like to be able to declare yourself no longer a member and have no obligations, but still retain your rights. It's like you came to your boss and said "I won't be doing any work from now on, but still expect to be paid."

[Reelya]

@GreatJustice: Hell, if you have possessions you're not able to personally secure, then your ownership was being indirectly subsidized by enforcement of laws that say "don't steal". Basically saying you have possessions that others would desire to steal in the absence of the military, police and court system, but why should you have pay for it?

How about we exclude you from tax paying but stick a sign around your neck "this guy isn't protected by laws?"

[GreatJustice]

For taxes: same thing as what happens if you break any other law deemed to be necessary by the democratically elected government.  For declaring yourself independent: nothing at all, just like declaring yourself to be an 8th grade pianist or a wizard.

So yes, being dragged off by men in uniform and possibly shot. Thanks for the confirmation.

Democratic elections among the people being governed.  This isn't synonymous with morality though - for the conditions of it being a legitimate and moral government see below (generally the government should reflect the moral standards of the people electing it).

That doesn't address the secession question. The CSA seceded (something the people being governed supported) and the USA attempted to prevent them from doing so (something that the remaining people supported).

Assuming you mean morally justified then in this question the answer is probably no.  However if a service is required to keep your entire street operational (let's say road repairs, firefighting) and some members of your street are gaining more money as a resident of this street (and thus as a result of this service) you are justified in taking a larger amount from them in order to continue providing this service.  This doesn't stop applying if some of the services are only needed by some of the people, as long as everyone is relying on that same service to keep the whole street operational.  If they do not feel they need these services they can move to another street.  This is a more valid analogy to a government, and I can understand your confusion if you previously believed all the government did was randomly take 25% of the populations things.

Think of it as a form of welfare for the remaining 2/3rds of us. They are supporting their fellow citizens in the democratically elected street government, so they have no reason to complain since they were allowed to vote.

In practice it's a lot easier to administrate over a much larger area than a street (otherwise each street would need its own accountancy and enforcement and fire brigade and so on - clearly wasteful when one fire engine can cover multiple streets, and one accountant can oversee the services for many streets) which is countries are generally larger than one street.

Don't dodge the question. Would the existing country allow the street to leave the country and become its own? At was size is it legitimate for the majority of a given area (a minority in the whole "country") to secede?

See above - a group of people could decide to form a societal unit of that size, but it would be wasteful.  Generally you have some devolution to each of those levels to handle local issues, but having the whole thing overseen by a more centralized government is more efficient.

But would the government allow competition?

What about if I formed a company that provides the same services as the government, and doesn't arrest or attack competition? Would the government let me create a system of subscribers without a given geographic range or borders?

"Criminal" is a slippery term, tied directly to law.  Assuming there was no state above you then you aren't actually a criminal at any of those levels since you had no laws to break.  However I'll assume by "criminal" you mean "immoral/amoral".

So morality and law stems only from government?

- Organized criminals are generally not democratically elected by the people in their areas

Many governments in the world are not democratically elected, and yet they are still "recognized".

Besides that, they certainly could be. Would they become a government?

- Organized criminals do not care about the wellbeing of and generally do not even claim to represent the people living in their areas

So if they care about the well being of the people living in the area, they become the government?

- Organized criminals are unlikely to have mechanisms by which their constituents can petition them to change how they operate in an area

If they're responsive to requests by people in the area, they become a government?

- Organized criminals do not provide services essential to a modern society

They generally provide protection of a sort. If they monopolized various services and offered them to others, would they be the government?

- Organized criminals do not operate according to a consistent set of laws set down by members of their society, and even if they did they probably would not have an accountable and democratic mechanism for changing those laws

Nonsense. Organized criminals (especially the Mafia) have fairly strict codes that they have to follow. If these codes were modifiable by vote, would the mafia be the government?

- Organized criminals often do not let their victims stop paying if they leave their area (or they may prevent them from leaving)

Governments tax people who have already left the country, or tax them for the privilege of leaving the country.

No - that is only one of the major differences between the government and your average group of organized criminals.  If your question was amended to the following:
"Is the mafia legitimate if it provides essential services to those it extorts, has democratic elections to decide its members, care about the wellbeing of and represent the interests of those it extorts, have mechanisms whereby those it exorts can petition them to change their practices, operate according to a set of rules determined by their society with clear and democratic means of changing those rules and allows those it extorts to leave their area at any time?"
It might be answerable with "yes", although it may be something of a contradictory question as you've pretty much left the definition of "mafia" by that point.

Again: would the existing government allow this well-intentioned mafia to compete with it? Does ANY existent government allow competition to it within its own borders?

This isn't a question but it is a hilariously unjustified assertion.  I can now eat food and sleep under a roof but apparently the government is only tricking me, I was better off when I was sleeping rough and eating from garbage cans.

No. In the short term, anyone being provided welfare is better off, naturally. In the long term, however, the system is utterly unfeasible, and isn't likely to last.

@GreatJustice: Hell, if you have possessions you're not able to personally secure, then your ownership was being indirectly subsidized by enforcement of laws that say "don't steal". Basically saying you have possessions that others would desire to steal in the absence of the military, police and court system, but why should you have pay for it?

How about we exclude you from tax paying but stick a sign around your neck "this guy isn't protected by laws?"

So assume I create my own court system, military, and police, and a certain number of people join it. Is the government going to sit idly by, or perhaps improve its conditions to increase competitiveness?

No. They'll throw me, and anyone else involved, in jail. The government doesn't do competition, just like the mafia doesn't do competition.

[Leafsnail]

- You'd only be shot if you threatened them with lethal force, generally (which is fair because you were threatening to do the same to them).  Otherwise yes, if you claim the rights that society gives you and don't bother to help pay for those rights they will punish you.

- I don't think I expressed any opinion on the legality or morality of the American Civil War, so that's irrelevant.

- If the welfare is needed to allow your street to survive and that quarter are the quarter who are most able to pay for it then sure.

- Generally there has to be a genuine cultural difference and historical reasons to break off from an already established country.  You can wax lyrical about the morality of this but the fact of the matter is that otherwise murderers could just declare themselves "independent" and thus immune to prosecution.  You can't claim all the benefits of living in a modern society and then duck out of the responsibilities when you feel like it (especially since in this "independent street" you'd still be enjoying the benefits such as trade with areas covered by their police forces and the security that the country around you provides).  As such to form your own independent place you'd either a) need a relevant cultural claim on it and widespread agreement on that claim in the area or b) your own place to live.

- Yes, you are allowed to provide whatever services you like (you can run your own private healthcare or detective services, for instance).  No, this doesn't mean you are allowed to dodge taxes because the society as a whole still depends on the essential government services.

- That is literally the exact opposite of what I said.

- Undemocratically elected governments have to be recognised for practical political reasons.  There is simply no way for us to overthrow them as it stands.  This is irrelevant because we are talking about democratically elected governments.

- Blah blah blah defending your stupid analogy.  Yes the government would allow this "mafia" (which is now absolutely nothing like any mafia in reality) to do what it wants if it's prepared to follow the laws (it could provide its own healthcare and police services if it wanted to, for instance).  So yes, they allow that competition.  No, that doesn't mean you're allowed to avoid paying for the underlying rights and stability granted to you by your society.

- You've replaced a hilariously unjustified assertion with an equally unjustified one.  Sure there are welfare states that have lasted over 100 years but THEY WILL COLLAPSE SOMEHOW

[Reelya]

Not sure how you can justify that laws have nothing to do with government, greatjustice. That's pretty much in the definition of what a law is. Crime is also defined as the breaking of laws.

Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures.

Crime is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.

Morals and "feeling wronged" may overlap with laws and crimes, but they are not synonymous.

What about if I formed a company that provides the same services as the government, and doesn't arrest or attack competition? Would the government let me create a system of subscribers without a given geographic range or borders?

I never heard of delivery services being shut down because they compete with the post office, and I never heard of private security being shut down because of competition with the police. Government gets stuck with the stuff that needs to be done but is not directly profitable. Not because of some conspiracy, but because the private sector couldn't come up with a model to directly make a profit off those things. The government would and has been happy to hand off any service to someone else to run, that's less they're responsible for and have to pay for.

People don't want to pay for stuff like "feed and educate these orphans and 20 years from now, they'll be better customers and employees, and less likely to be criminals costing money for the police and jacking up insurance premiums". Paying for stuff like that now might be a good investment, but it's too indirect to say EXACTLY which company will benefit exactly from which orphan, so it's a "hard sell" to get individuals to shell out now, for these things that are a group benefit in the future.

Each individual's rational logic is that "i pay $1 and i only benefit $0.01 for that dollar, down the track. I'm sharing my reward with other people, which is unfair". This is logical from an individuals standpoint, but that individual is also benefiting $0.01 from each and everyone else's social investment.

[GreatJustice]

I never heard of delivery services being shut down because they compete with the post office

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

and I never heard of private security being shut down because of competition with the police.

Is the private security competing directly against the government, though? No.

Government gets stuck with the stuff that needs to be done but is not directly profitable. Not because of some conspiracy, but because the private sector couldn't come up with a model to directly make a profit off those things. The government would and has been happy to hand off any service to someone else to run, that's less they're responsible for and have to pay for.

Haven't heard of the government letting people stop paying their taxes if they are capable of providing the services themselves. If I don't have kids, or else I do have kids but I homeschool them/private school them, I still pay for public education, etc

People don't want to pay for stuff like "feed and educate these orphans and 20 years from now, they'll be better customers and employees, and less likely to be criminals costing money for the police and jacking up insurance premiums". Paying for stuff like that now might be a good investment, but it's too indirect to say EXACTLY which company will benefit exactly from which orphan, so it's a "hard sell" to get individuals to shell out now, for these things that are a group benefit in the future.

The government is not necessary for the existence of basic charity and human kindness.

Each individual's rational logic is that "i pay $1 and i only benefit $0.01 for that dollar, down the track. I'm sharing my reward with other people, which is unfair". This is logical from an individuals standpoint, but that individual is also benefiting $0.01 from each and everyone else's social investment.

Then why can't the individual be allowed to make that decision for themselves? Logically speaking, the people under the completely voluntary government would thrive versus those who weren't, so it would become evident which worked better in the long run.

-----------

- You'd only be shot if you threatened them with lethal force, generally (which is fair because you were threatening to do the same to them).  Otherwise yes, if you claim the rights that society gives you and don't bother to help pay for those rights they will punish you.

Society can't "give" me rights. Rights stem from basic principles (eg. self-ownership), not government decrees. If I reject the (unasked for) rights and benefits from being a part of the country, I STILL have to pay for everyone else's with the exact same penalty as if I didn't.

- I don't think I expressed any opinion on the legality or morality of the American Civil War, so that's irrelevant.

I'm asking you as to who is in the right, from the "democratic" viewpoint. It rather obviously stems into the discussion: the majority of a small group secedes from the majority of a larger group, and the larger group fights to prevent this. Both sides are in the "majority" in a manner of speaking, and both are largely represented by their respective governments.

- If the welfare is needed to allow your street to survive and that quarter are the quarter who are most able to pay for it then sure.

We don't need it to survive, we just decide we'd like the stuff of the quarter (henceforth known as "Group B", since "the quarter" is a bit of a weird turn of phrase). Even if we did, though, then any sufficiently large gang can justify itself when it robs others, so long as the gang is sufficiently poor compared to the victim.

- Generally there has to be a genuine cultural difference and historical reasons to break off from an already established country.  You can wax lyrical about the morality of this but the fact of the matter is that otherwise murderers could just declare themselves "independent" and thus immune to prosecution.  You can't claim all the benefits of living in a modern society and then duck out of the responsibilities when you feel like it (especially since in this "independent street" you'd still be enjoying the benefits such as trade with areas covered by their police forces and the security that the country around you provides).  As such to form your own independent place you'd either a) need a relevant cultural claim on it and widespread agreement on that claim in the area or b) your own place to live.

You could argue that places like San Marino and Luxembourg have no right to exist, either; after all, they benefit from the police and military forces of their far larger neighbours.

All of these problems would be rather easily solved through the use of service fees. You pay your taxes, you get a "I paid my taxes!" card of some kind that you use to "pay" for government services. You don't, you either pay cash straight up or find an alternative source of such services.

Cultural differences aren't always massive when secession occurs. The USA and CSA weren't significantly different in religion, traditions, etc. The primary reasons involved were political (relating to free trade and slavery), not cultural.

- Yes, you are allowed to provide whatever services you like (you can run your own private healthcare or detective services, for instance).  No, this doesn't mean you are allowed to dodge taxes because the society as a whole still depends on the essential government services.

Who is "society"? Why do I have to pay for "society" when I already provide or else am provided to be the same services as I would be with the government? Also, why can't the government have people pay via service fees?

- Blah blah blah defending your stupid analogy.  Yes the government would allow this "mafia" (which is now absolutely nothing like any mafia in reality) to do what it wants if it's prepared to follow the laws (it could provide its own healthcare and police services if it wanted to, for instance).  So yes, they allow that competition.  No, that doesn't mean you're allowed to avoid paying for the underlying rights and stability granted to you by your society.

But the mafia is now the government, according to you. It can make its own laws, create its own "rights", and provide its own stability!

- You've replaced a hilariously unjustified assertion with an equally unjustified one.  Sure there are welfare states that have lasted over 100 years but THEY WILL COLLAPSE SOMEHOW

Such as? The only one I can think of offhand is Germany, and their government was completely replaced four times in the course of about four decades, with their welfare systems being similarly changed as well.

They certainly aren't in very good shape these days.