Question about legit vs illegitimate businesses

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. THe mafia only comes into being when governments impose prohibition.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true of black markets but not the Mafia. The Mafia is a group of people that are powerful enough to extort another group of people. Black markets created by government prohibitions fuel Mafias no doubt, but a Mafia is just a group of guys with guns and subsequently power.

Cody

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the position of ACists that in the long run, illegitimate businesses cannot compete with legit businesses. An illegitimate business being one that relies on violence, theft, or defrauding customers in order to make money (other things too, but those would be the main three, I'd think). Makes sense.

But then logically, it should follow that all illegitimate governments will ultimately fail, as they rely on taxing the citizenry (theft), among other things. And history will show that all illegitimae governments DO ultimately fail.

To me, the problem arises with the word "ultimately." Governments can take the better part of a millenium before they finally go under. If an illegitimate government can last that long, why can't an illegitimate private company last that long?

Seems to me that if the mafia has me by the balls, and it won't let go until my great great great grandchildren finally come around, then this really isn't much different from a place where I have to pay 35% of my income for the government to leave me alone.

[/ QUOTE ]


It seems like you view the state as a criminal organization. That's good. I do too.

But, many people are not at that point yet. If we keep chugging away at people's belief in the legitimacy of the state, then it will suffer and die?

How do we know this?

First, economically speaking, an organization that depends on violence must fall back on ideological support. Violence is an incredibly expensive strategy, and the more resilient people are, the more expensive it is. Iraq is a good example. The Americans are viewed as criminals and that's why the violence will never end.

Second, the state spends an incredible amount of energy into ideological support. It is literally everywhere. State education is really the crux for ideological support. Then there is the controlled media, and then there are things like movies/art which oftentimes are heavily embedded in the subsidies/welfare environment. So the reason we know they are so heavily dependent on ideological support is because of the amount of energy spent on it. Take it away (or see through it, or: thank god for the internets), and the state is quickly understood as a criminal organization, and the above-mentioned resilience comes in.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true of black markets but not the Mafia. The Mafia is a group of people that are powerful enough to extort another group of people. Black markets created by government prohibitions fuel Mafias no doubt, but a Mafia is just a group of guys with guns and subsequently power.

[/ QUOTE ]

But violence itself doesn't scale. There are no nationwide networks of, for example, purse snatchers, or kidnappers, or bank robbers. It is only when prohibition creates black markets that large-scale organized "crime" can emerge.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is true of black markets but not the Mafia. The Mafia is a group of people that are powerful enough to extort another group of people. Black markets created by government prohibitions fuel Mafias no doubt, but a Mafia is just a group of guys with guns and subsequently power.

[/ QUOTE ]

But violence itself doesn't scale. There are no nationwide networks of, for example, purse snatchers, or kidnappers, or bank robbers. It is only when prohibition creates black markets that large-scale organized "crime" can emerge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the government just a "large-scale organized "crime"" network. I mean it's taken 200+ years but saying "violence doesn't scale" seems awfully shortsighted.

I doubt seriously that it would take a government machine to create it, just time and money.

Cody

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
But, many people are not at that point yet. If we keep chugging away at people's belief in the legitimacy of the state, then it will suffer and die?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, it wont, it will give birth to a new state. Always has, always will.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is true of black markets but not the Mafia. The Mafia is a group of people that are powerful enough to extort another group of people. Black markets created by government prohibitions fuel Mafias no doubt, but a Mafia is just a group of guys with guns and subsequently power.

[/ QUOTE ]

But violence itself doesn't scale. There are no nationwide networks of, for example, purse snatchers, or kidnappers, or bank robbers. It is only when prohibition creates black markets that large-scale organized "crime" can emerge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the government just a "large-scale organized "crime"" network. I mean it's taken 200+ years but saying "violence doesn't scale" seems awfully shortsighted.

I doubt seriously that it would take a government machine to create it, just time and money.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the indoctrination mechanisms that scale here not the violence. They still have to send a guy in a blue jacket round to your house to take you away if you don't give them your money.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, many people are not at that point yet. If we keep chugging away at people's belief in the legitimacy of the state, then it will suffer and die?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, it wont, it will give birth to a new state. Always has, always will.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you believe a state will come about even when basically everyone believes it's a criminal organization?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is true of black markets but not the Mafia. The Mafia is a group of people that are powerful enough to extort another group of people. Black markets created by government prohibitions fuel Mafias no doubt, but a Mafia is just a group of guys with guns and subsequently power.

[/ QUOTE ]

But violence itself doesn't scale. There are no nationwide networks of, for example, purse snatchers, or kidnappers, or bank robbers. It is only when prohibition creates black markets that large-scale organized "crime" can emerge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the government just a "large-scale organized "crime"" network. I mean it's taken 200+ years but saying "violence doesn't scale" seems awfully shortsighted.

I doubt seriously that it would take a government machine to create it, just time and money.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the indoctrination mechanisms that scale here not the violence. They still have to send a guy in a blue jacket round to your house to take you away if you don't give them your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Potato Potato (that really works better when you speak it). Violence can stay on a small scale. The Don gives orders and the foot soldiers carry those orders out. Violence doesn't need to scale, so long as the Don doesn't want to shake-down everyone himself.

Why is this even up for debate, I don't know too many ACists that think that simply "going AC" stops violence. My only objections was that prohibtion fuels the mob but that the two don't have to be linked. I would think this would be obvious.

Cody

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, many people are not at that point yet. If we keep chugging away at people's belief in the legitimacy of the state, then it will suffer and die?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, it wont, it will give birth to a new state. Always has, always will.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you believe a state will come about even when basically everyone believes it's a criminal organization?

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized crime gangs like the Mafia and MS-13 continue to gain members, even though everybody, including the gang members themselves, know that these are criminal organizations. New gangs amongst immigrants of different ethicities continue to sprout up as well. Everyone knows that these new gangs are criminal organizations.

So, why again wouldn't a state come into existence? Many people want power, and don't care too much whether that power is derived from entirely moral means, somewhat immoral means, or even entirely immoral means. The argument that the state may be criminal, has little or nothing to do with whether states will come into existence. Most people want what they perceive to be good for themselves personally, and if that means gaining power at the expense of others, they are for that (to varying degrees).

edit: this is the Achilles' Heel of Anarchism. Banding together with others to wield power over "non-members" is a strong part of human history and probably human nature. An anarchistic world will give rise to states which attempt to gain power at the expense of outsiders, and which also band together for their common defense.

Following this path of reasoning, it can also be seen that this is the fatal flaw of Libertarian open-borders and unrestricted immigration policy. You can't maintain a Libertarian state unlesss most people within it share the Libertarian ideology. If you allow anyone and everyone to move to the Libertarian State (say if the USA became predominantly Libertarian in government and philosophy), that support would erode as others en masse who do not share those beliefs became citizens and had offspring. Pretty soon the Libertarian majority would be a minority, and poof! there goes your Libertarian State! The same thing would happen with Anarchism.

This is why borders are important, because borders are a mechanism for like-minded people to live together and be ruled by their own consent (the consent of the governed). If the USA is to remain a Constitutional Republic, people who live here had better mostly believe in the Constitution.

You can't have an Anarchy if most people moving into your neighborhood or country, or evev just next to you, believe in a State. You can't have a free Republic if most people moving in near you and into the country believe in State Communism or in Islamic Shari'a Law. Borders are essential to maintaining a government or a working political philosophy based upon anything.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is true of black markets but not the Mafia. The Mafia is a group of people that are powerful enough to extort another group of people. Black markets created by government prohibitions fuel Mafias no doubt, but a Mafia is just a group of guys with guns and subsequently power.

[/ QUOTE ]

But violence itself doesn't scale. There are no nationwide networks of, for example, purse snatchers, or kidnappers, or bank robbers. It is only when prohibition creates black markets that large-scale organized "crime" can emerge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the government just a "large-scale organized "crime"" network. I mean it's taken 200+ years but saying "violence doesn't scale" seems awfully shortsighted.

I doubt seriously that it would take a government machine to create it, just time and money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back to exhibit A. Most people don't object to government, not enough to do something about it, at least, and prefer to have such activities conducted. There isn't widescale desire for purse-snatchings, bank-robberies, etc.

There IS widespread demand for drugs, booze, gambling, prostitution etc. That's why, when governments try to suppress these things, black markets spring up. That's also why, as Copernicus loves to point out, when governments collapse, new ones spring up.

It is not the illegal nature of the activities the Mafia engages in that motivates the activity, it is the *consumer demand* for them. If buggy whips were outlawed tomorrow, it is unlikely that the bloods, crips, gambinos, whoever would get into the buggy whip black market.

When the demand disappears, the "product" will, too.