5 ms·

This is one of the greatest hypocrisies the European Union is committing. The EU (Germany and France) are putting the Italian government under a lot of pressure

by koevet 15y ago

This is one of the greatest hypocrisies the European Union is committing. The EU (Germany and France) are putting the Italian government under a lot of pressure to stabilize the economy but no one ever (including the new Italian PM) mentions the plague of criminal organizations running the show in Italy. Even if Italy manages to get out of the current economical turmoil, there will always be half of the country (some say the whole country) literally in the hands of criminal organizations with huge power and virtually unlimited funds. How can the new PM (Monti) dare to talk about "development" where the moment you open a shop or a business you will be forced to pay a "premium" to some thug. Banks in Italy have been historically very cautious about lending money to businesses and the result is that business-owners have to use the "other bank" to survive a bit longer. And again, nothing has been done to facilitate access to line of credits for businesses. The only thing that has increased is taxation (a business in Italy now pays over 50% in taxes). If the cancer of Mafia is not eradicated once for all, Italy will never become a modern country.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- davidw 15y ago
  If you really can't figure out the difference between the two, I suggest you go have a long think about it. Modern, western governments, for instance, generally do not do things like dissolve children in acid. We get that you don't think there should be any government or whatever libertopian ideas you have, but let's try a bit harder.
  - grandalf 15y ago
    One should not need to be "libertopian" to find many of the actions of governments abhorrent. I imagine you are OK with "sanctions" that cause children to starve and to watch their psychologically destroyed parents crumble under the (very much intended) pressure of the sanctions to overturn a dictatorship. Over the past few decades, the US government has committed horrible atrocities against civilian populations of a variety of nations. Much of this was "indirect", its indirectness a virtue in terms of "economy of force". There is absolutely no moral high ground enjoyed by governments compared to mafia or other criminal organizations, it's just a matter of how elaborate the propaganda effort has been to create the perception that the acts are just... and in many cases there is lots of doublespeak employed to prevent the brains of observers from drawing the obvious connection. Torture is called "enhanced interrogation" Disrupting a society with bombs is called "preserving the stability of a region". Running secret assassination programs is called "covert operations"
    - davidw 15y ago
      > There is absolutely no moral high ground enjoyed by governments compared to mafia You're conflating an occupying army with a democratically elected government staying within its borders. That seems like a huge leap to make, and is spoken like someone with no exposure to the realities of organized crime and its deleterious effects on society. If you look at this chart: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regioni_d%27Italia#Dati_economici http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regioni_d%27Italia#Dati_economi... and rank it by 'PIL Pro Capite' (Per capita GDP), the correlation with organized crime is fairly strong, whereas the country and government are the same. Migration from South to North continues to far exceed North to South: apparently people prefer better government and less crime to the opposite. This sort of sophomoric intellectual exercise doesn't do justice to what you believe in.
      - grandalf 15y ago
        There are many examples of people being loyal to local gangsters and paying fees each month in exchange for "protection" from a rival group. Governments run the same scheme at a larger scale. Sure they "provide" things, but it's simply by taking money from people and paying other people to do work, meanwhile enriching the officers of government and creating entrenched wealth and power. Sure, there are occasionally coordination problems that are solved by governments, but far more coordination problems are solved by private organizations and firms. Any institution that has the ability to project force wherever it wants (via an armed hitman or a smart bomb) is going to tend toward corrupt behavior. Your comment mentions governments acting within their borders which is an arbitrary distinction. Most of the atrocities committed by the US government happen overseas and the American public is misled about the level of brutality being inflicted. There will always be some gangsters who are preferred to others, and perhaps some "politicians" are preferred to gangsters. But this is a distinction of degree not of kind.
        jbooth 15y ago
        If there's no difference, perhaps you'd like to elucidate on the difference between, say, Sweden and the average 3rd/4th world nation? I mean, with the reach of Sweden's government, it's gotta be a hellhole, right? This line of argument is generally referred to as "jumping the shark". Obviously there's a difference.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- koevet 15y ago
  "Please explain the difference between this and any other government in the world." You are joking, right?
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  Taxes are public and known up front. If you don't pay them you don't risk physical harm. Also you generally pay taxes on income and salaries, you don't have to pay just to be there.
  - beagle3 15y ago
    > Taxes are public and known up front. Mostly, but unless you're a salaried worker, there are often multiple interpretations with differing tax consequences. You pick the least taxes, the authorities pick the most taxed, and you battle it out in a playground in which the authorities have the upper hand. > If you don't pay them you don't risk physical harm. Tax collection is underwritten by the police, jail system, and eventually the US army if it would come to that. I would disagree with the "don't risk physical harm" aspect. Theoretically, you shouldn't. Practically, if you go to jail (and you WOULD if you don't pay your taxes), you risk very significant physical harm. The process is longer, and the agents are varied, but the risk is there. > Also you generally pay taxes on income and salaries, you don't have to pay just to be there. Don't buy the propaganda. Even if we disregard property taxes, which most countries and states have one way or another, the way they tax you just to "be there" is by debasing the currency. Two years ago, $700 would have bought you an ounce of gold. Today, they buy less than half. And that's not some uncontrolled natural phenomenon - that has been orchestrated by the Fed. You've been taxed just for being there, somewhere between 50% and 20% in the last two years, in addition to all other taxes you pay. Assume you want to opt out of the game, by buying gold? Well, when you try to convert it back to dollars (to buy food or whatever), you'll being paying capital gains tax. Between 15% and 48%, depending on the state in the US you are, and how well you can do your taxes. You are paying just to be there. If you believe otherwise, you might want to learn more about it.
    - swombat 15y ago
      Even if we disregard property taxes, which most countries and states have one way or another, the way they tax you just to "be there" is by debasing the currency. Two years ago, $700 would have bought you an ounce of gold. Today, they buy less than half. That has absolutely nothing to do with inflation, so I'm not sure why you're conflating the two points, it really weakens your position. As for the government not being allowed to "tax you just to be there", what on earth makes you think that your money is yours? Money and wealth are social constructs. If you want them, you have to accept the social obligations that come with them. Get rid of government, and your money (gold or otherwise) is entirely worthless. The only thing of value without some form of government is either a sack of potatoes, or a sword to steal your neighbours' potatoes.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
antidaily 15y ago
Literally? They must have impossibly large hands.

by koevet 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

davidw 15y ago
If you really can't figure out the difference between the two, I suggest you go have a long think about it. Modern, western governments, for instance, generally do not do things like dissolve children in acid. We get that you don't think there should be any government or whatever libertopian ideas you have, but let's try a bit harder.
- grandalf 15y ago
  One should not need to be "libertopian" to find many of the actions of governments abhorrent. I imagine you are OK with "sanctions" that cause children to starve and to watch their psychologically destroyed parents crumble under the (very much intended) pressure of the sanctions to overturn a dictatorship. Over the past few decades, the US government has committed horrible atrocities against civilian populations of a variety of nations. Much of this was "indirect", its indirectness a virtue in terms of "economy of force". There is absolutely no moral high ground enjoyed by governments compared to mafia or other criminal organizations, it's just a matter of how elaborate the propaganda effort has been to create the perception that the acts are just... and in many cases there is lots of doublespeak employed to prevent the brains of observers from drawing the obvious connection. Torture is called "enhanced interrogation" Disrupting a society with bombs is called "preserving the stability of a region". Running secret assassination programs is called "covert operations"
  - davidw 15y ago
    > There is absolutely no moral high ground enjoyed by governments compared to mafia You're conflating an occupying army with a democratically elected government staying within its borders. That seems like a huge leap to make, and is spoken like someone with no exposure to the realities of organized crime and its deleterious effects on society. If you look at this chart: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regioni_d%27Italia#Dati_economici http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regioni_d%27Italia#Dati_economi... and rank it by 'PIL Pro Capite' (Per capita GDP), the correlation with organized crime is fairly strong, whereas the country and government are the same. Migration from South to North continues to far exceed North to South: apparently people prefer better government and less crime to the opposite. This sort of sophomoric intellectual exercise doesn't do justice to what you believe in.
    - grandalf 15y ago
      There are many examples of people being loyal to local gangsters and paying fees each month in exchange for "protection" from a rival group. Governments run the same scheme at a larger scale. Sure they "provide" things, but it's simply by taking money from people and paying other people to do work, meanwhile enriching the officers of government and creating entrenched wealth and power. Sure, there are occasionally coordination problems that are solved by governments, but far more coordination problems are solved by private organizations and firms. Any institution that has the ability to project force wherever it wants (via an armed hitman or a smart bomb) is going to tend toward corrupt behavior. Your comment mentions governments acting within their borders which is an arbitrary distinction. Most of the atrocities committed by the US government happen overseas and the American public is misled about the level of brutality being inflicted. There will always be some gangsters who are preferred to others, and perhaps some "politicians" are preferred to gangsters. But this is a distinction of degree not of kind.
      - jbooth 15y ago
        If there's no difference, perhaps you'd like to elucidate on the difference between, say, Sweden and the average 3rd/4th world nation? I mean, with the reach of Sweden's government, it's gotta be a hellhole, right? This line of argument is generally referred to as "jumping the shark". Obviously there's a difference.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
koevet 15y ago
"Please explain the difference between this and any other government in the world." You are joking, right?
Dylan16807 15y ago
Taxes are public and known up front. If you don't pay them you don't risk physical harm. Also you generally pay taxes on income and salaries, you don't have to pay just to be there.
- beagle3 15y ago
  > Taxes are public and known up front. Mostly, but unless you're a salaried worker, there are often multiple interpretations with differing tax consequences. You pick the least taxes, the authorities pick the most taxed, and you battle it out in a playground in which the authorities have the upper hand. > If you don't pay them you don't risk physical harm. Tax collection is underwritten by the police, jail system, and eventually the US army if it would come to that. I would disagree with the "don't risk physical harm" aspect. Theoretically, you shouldn't. Practically, if you go to jail (and you WOULD if you don't pay your taxes), you risk very significant physical harm. The process is longer, and the agents are varied, but the risk is there. > Also you generally pay taxes on income and salaries, you don't have to pay just to be there. Don't buy the propaganda. Even if we disregard property taxes, which most countries and states have one way or another, the way they tax you just to "be there" is by debasing the currency. Two years ago, $700 would have bought you an ounce of gold. Today, they buy less than half. And that's not some uncontrolled natural phenomenon - that has been orchestrated by the Fed. You've been taxed just for being there, somewhere between 50% and 20% in the last two years, in addition to all other taxes you pay. Assume you want to opt out of the game, by buying gold? Well, when you try to convert it back to dollars (to buy food or whatever), you'll being paying capital gains tax. Between 15% and 48%, depending on the state in the US you are, and how well you can do your taxes. You are paying just to be there. If you believe otherwise, you might want to learn more about it.
  - swombat 15y ago
    Even if we disregard property taxes, which most countries and states have one way or another, the way they tax you just to "be there" is by debasing the currency. Two years ago, $700 would have bought you an ounce of gold. Today, they buy less than half. That has absolutely nothing to do with inflation, so I'm not sure why you're conflating the two points, it really weakens your position. As for the government not being allowed to "tax you just to be there", what on earth makes you think that your money is yours? Money and wealth are social constructs. If you want them, you have to accept the social obligations that come with them. Get rid of government, and your money (gold or otherwise) is entirely worthless. The only thing of value without some form of government is either a sack of potatoes, or a sword to steal your neighbours' potatoes.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

antidaily 15y ago

Literally? They must have impossibly large hands.