/liberty/ - Liberty

>>62955

>so how are you libertines planning to deal with mafia?

Good question, ask them. :^)

Fun aside: If they didn't have the illegal drug trade to keep them afloat, they'd lose a sizable part of their income. What makes the mafia big are the huge profit margins because the government kills their less ruthless competition. They also profit handsomely from subventions and government corruption.

Let's say we don't destroy the mafia, as we indeed probably wouldn't (at once, that is). How would the Cosa Nostra "fuck us up"? That's a vague statement. Sure, they are thugs, they will probably help one or the other company set fire to a competitor for a price, but they already do that anyway. They'd do this less if the market was free to react to an increased demand for protection against the mafia. People would buy better guns, shop owners would install security systems and fire protection, and the private police would become more tacticool. Most likely, the mafia would either vanish, or it would become a legitimate enterprise.

Honestly, I thought the Italian mob was weakened already in America. I thought the dominant criminals were now the Russians and the Mexican drug cartels.

The world is ruled by the 13 families of Rome.

They control the diabolical Jesuits, which control the Freemasons and other occult Luciferian/Satanic societies.

City of London is their financial center.

District of Columbia is their military center.

The Vatican is their religious center.

Rothschilds are the Vatican's bankers. Jews are used as a scapegoat to hide the true elite that operate behind the scenes to a socialist New World Order.

Please don't talk about the real world here, it scares the "anarcho"-capitalists. Stick to abstract scenarios with two are three actors maximum.

>>62969

all of these have old and over explained argumants against them that should be common knowledge if you think about mafias like you think about a state, since they are really the same thing

>>62969

>sure, but there's still good ol' money extortion schemes left, protection money etc

Which I openly conceded.

>no dude

>mafia kills their less ruthless competition

So you deny that the war on drugs creates pressure to be ruthless in the drug business?

>u wot?

I said: They profit handsomely from subventions. The mafia has many semi-legitimate enterprises like building companies, and bribes officials to give subventions and public projects to them. Never wondered why some bridges take ten years to get built? Often, it's because these projects are just a front to be paid out of the public purse.

>legitimate businesses profit from government corruption too

How is that relevant, exactly?

>torch your warehouse?

>scare your customers?

>etc.

I addressed that further below. This is why line-by-line critiques are dangerous: They make you argue about stuff that has been conceded, or about arguments that were justified in later segments of the post. Tey also invite debate about completely irrelevant, peripheral issues.

>they're not just "thugs"

>niggers down the street are thugs

>Cosa Nostra is an organized crime syndicate

Classy thugs are still thugs. The mafia is not fundamentally different from MS13 or other gangs in how it handles its problems, it's just more sophisticated.

Skipping a few of your arguments because they're uninteresting and don't reach the core issue.

>armed organized groups wouldn't compete in a market you dip

>they would just start a war with each other where winner would win a monopoly on violence

Can you demonstrate a priori why that would be the case?

>you think pussy shop owners could take on mafia? you're fucking delusional

It's happening in Mexico, where the mafia is even more brutal than the Cosa Nostra. The government is trying to disarm these vigilante groups. Make of that what you want.

>yea, it would become a state, the most legitimate of enterprises

Peripheral issue, but I nevertheless feel like addressing it. The state is the most legitimate enterprise? How come? And does that count for all states, monarchies, democracies, communist dictatorships run by a homosexual death cult…?

>>62955

Most organized crime gets strength from dealing in prohibited areas such as drugs, prostitution, and alcohol. Take the prohibition away and you have less organized crime. Also organized crime was heavily involved in organized labor and corruption of government officials. Two areas that would be almost completely nonexsistent within a government absent free market. The unions could still be around as a free association, but not near as powerful when no longer able to lobby the state.

>>62992

Forgot to add gambling in there as well.

>>62955

>>62982

>So you deny that the war on drugs creates pressure to be ruthless in the drug business?

I deny that state creates pressure to be ruthless in the mob business

>Often, it's because these projects are just a front to be paid out of the public purse.

have anything to back that up?

money laundering usually done through cash-intensive businesses, real estate etc.

>The mafia is not fundamentally different from MS13 or other gangs in how it handles its problems, it's just more sophisticated

next you'll tell me that state is not fundamentally different from MS13 and how it uses violence

>Can you demonstrate a priori why that would be the case?

they're competitors in the same "protection" business

assuming that they'll use all means necessary to get a bigger market share, war would be inevitable

or they would collaborate, form a syndicate and divide territory between themselves

>It's happening in Mexico

those vigilantle groups look more like rival gangs

how many shop owners are among them?

>The state is the most legitimate enterprise? How come?

might is right

any right that you can consistently enforce is legitimate

if you can't enforce your right - you have no right

state can enforce its own right more consistently than anyone else

ergo it is legitimate

>>62955

>This shitposter is back

>Can't even change his image

I'd rather live under the mafia than live under the state.

>>63045

Also mobs only exist because of government. Where are the prohibition-created mafias after prohibition was ended, hmm?

>>63045

You are living under both

>>63046

They moved into other sectors, like drugs, prostitution, "promotion" and politics.

>>63042

>I deny that state creates pressure to be ruthless in the mob business

What effect, then, does the war on drugs have? Could it be that it hurts dealers that operate in the open more than the ones that remain hidden, or do you doubt that, too? And could it be that because of the war on drugs, only people that are violent to begin with enter the drug business while the honest ones stay out?

>have anything to back that up?

Take this, as just one example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11400808/Scandal-of-Sicilian-villages-2m-EU-funded-lift-to-nowhere.html

>money laundering usually done through cash-intensive businesses, real estate etc.

It's not about money laundering, it's about being paid for services that are useless. The mafia gives an official a thousand dollars, he gives their local front a building contract and they get paid a hundred thousand to build a bridge that goes nowhere.

>next you'll tell me that state is not fundamentally different from MS13 and how it uses violence

Actually, I won't. Did that inane comment of yours serve a legitimate purpose, or are you just trying to get your kicks meeting the ayncraps RationalWiki warned you about?

>they're competitors in the same "protection" business

>assuming that they'll use all means necessary to get a bigger market share, war would be inevitable

>or they would collaborate, form a syndicate and divide territory between themselves

Companies don't care about market shares, they care about total profits. A large slice from a small cake is not always as good as a small slice from a large cake. You're misinformed on how the market actually works.

>those vigilantle groups look more like rival gangs

>how many shop owners are among them?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/mexican-militias-vigilantes-drug-cartels

I haven't heard of any of these groups burning their opponents alive or setting they

>how many shop owners are among them?

Read it up. Do your own research. Don't be a lazy faggot. The article mentions that these are Average Joes who took up guns. I'm sure that every other source you could find will confirm that.

>might is right

Then everything you've written in this entire thread is irrelevant. Why complain about the power of the mafia if there was no state to stop them if everything they did in that scenario would by definition be good?

>>63051

So they are mostly active in branches that are controlled by the state.

>>62956

You mention the war on drugs, but not the much more relevant war on crime. Crime rates have been falling ever since we had states

>>62992

So they will go into the extortion business more heavily, if it's profitable.

>>63068

We live in a period of strong, successful governments. You wish to end that period. So don't reference the 'world we're living in' as an argument

>>63096

Did you just decide not to read the rest of my argument? I mean there was more than one sentence in there.

>>63074

If you have to fight for your life against criminal gangs all the time your system already sucks. I am content with paying taxes.

Relying on private police would make more sense, but the mafia could make 'examples' of people who rely on such security.

>>63098

They are able to pass laws, they are broadly supported, and they have existed for a long time.

>>63100

>And they have existed for a long time

300 years is generally the minimum timespan for a government to be considered successful. In modern ages you might be able to claim 100. No current "successful" government in your eyes would meet this historical criterion given rapid changes and such. The current rendition of the US government isn't even a century old yet.

>>63099

>If you have to fight for your life against criminal gangs all the time your system already sucks.

Sounds like democracy sucks pretty hardcore then.

>>63101

>it has to be 300 to count as a long time because I said so haha

>>63102

Is that so?

>>63104

Obviously.

>>63095

>if extortion is profitable

Only if extortion is more profitable than other avenues of business. Remember violence is expensive. Without black market trade to bring in revenue, it would be very costly to go around threatening everyone physically.

>>63096

>We live in a period of strong, successful governments

That thought surely explains why you think the "300 years" thing was arbitrary: You legitimately think those short governments we had are "good".

>>63109

>we had

Have*, rather

>>63107

Then let me redirect you to >>62078

>>63108

It's in the Old Testament that Jews used to pay money to Persians and Babylonians.

It's always been a potentially very lucrative deal

Even with a government, they've been able to get away with it at different times.

>>63113

I am not concerned about the Old Testament. I am talking out the cost of violence. Violence is expensive, there is a reason why people try to avoid it. How many times have you been extorted recently?

>>63115

Stop being annoying. The returns can clearly justify the cost, as they did in Biblical times. If your theory doesn't fit the evidence, it's wrong.

>>63120

More like you are trying to make your theory fit the evidence by appealing to the bible. There is a religion board around here somewhere. So you are setting up shop in the extortion racket, and you have no income aside from what you are going to make from extortion. In a scenario where there is no government to interfer, walk me through this. Are you going to be the initial thug before you make enough to hire more? What are the odds that the first shopkeeper you visit is armed? What are the odds he may hire someone else to protect or get his money back? Will you defend youself, or have to hire someone just to protect to you?

>how do you deal with mafia

You laugh at them for thinking they've got any sort of power, especially in the absence of morality laws. For the same reason, drug cartels are a serious issue now, but even then violence against an armed population typically results in the organizations shit being pushed in, as has already been pointed out.

Mafias, cartels and other kind of organized crime organizations are ALWAYS a consequence of regulations and goverment, not the other way around.

When you force the groups to compete in a enviorement where everyone is at the same level crime is reduced due to deterrence among the different forces (fact: peace is only created through deterrence of groups that has more to lose than to win due to a war).

>The mafia wouldn't win anything by "giving protection" because there would be legal organized and recognized groups by the society that would be able to compete thanks to no state fucking up through taxes and regulations. People would prefer these non-violent groups for obvious reasons which means they make more money and they can take the mafia head on.

>The mafia wouldn't make any money out of drugs, weapons or any other business since every business would be legal and people would trust more the non-violent entrerprises.

>The mafia wouldn't make any money out of prostituion, illegal immigration, fraud, or any other thing you can think of due to the very same reasons. For business is better to have a good image to get more clients. If mafia exists is because due to regulations there are profits to be made by avoiding taxes and using violence.

>Without money mafias wouldn't stand, so they would need to become legitimate business and work in their PR and image. Violence is not good for business.

Sure there could be groups here and there using violence for their own purposes, but other business and people associations will be probably be interested on protecting those potential clients from those groups, and without an stable income of funding these violent groups wouldn't be bigger than thugs and niggers. Something that already exits. The only difference is that you would be able to protect yourself without the state fucking you up because YOU RACIS.

>>63136

You are just making this up, you have no empirical data to back it up.

>>63140

In this entire tread, you haven't posted a single source for any of your claims, of which there were many. Until you've done that, you can kindly fuck off back to wherever you came from.

>>63130

>Your business model doesn't work, because…

That's not what he said.

There are a lot of very triggered people on this board.

>>63143

I'm not OP though

>>63151

>>63152

That you're not OP just makes this more pathetic.

Wouldn't you have to kill them if they were adamant about you paying protection money?

Unless of course you use them as a private police force to protect your communities from homeless/socialists/blacks? Though that could cause issues in itself.

>>63166

>Wouldn't you have to kill them if they were adamant about you paying protection money?

there is a possibility but no must

>>63166

i already responded to this post

why did it disappear?

>>62982

The Italian, Russian, and Irish Mafia, as well as the Japanese, Korean, and Chinese equivalents, all had a policy against getting involved with drugs, they see drug dealing as something top be looked down on, and resigned to criminal organizations they loom down on, ones too small to be a threat, and who could easily be put down if they started to grow, namely, niggers, spics, and small-timer's, they would harshly punish any member of their organization who broke this one rule, repeated violations would even be punished by death.

Most of the money made by the mafia and yakuza came from other crimes.

Little did they know that they'd be replaced by those same niggers, spics, and small-timers, who had no qualms with drug-dealing, and who were able to operate as they pleased so long as they didn't do something to attract the attention of the big guys, then they came out of the woodwork as soon as the big guy's empires were dying, and dealt the death blow.

We don't have any major organized crime syndicates any more.