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!
Topic: 10 top reasons why organised crime would be better than the State - page 3. (Read 3593 times)
June 29, 2012, 03:53:54 AM
June 29, 2012, 03:42:06 AM
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Maybe you've already seen this video but if not, check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IErlI34-0so
Jump to: