3 ms·

> It's like saying "oh, the local feudal Lord helps us fight bandits!" It's not exactly the same, because > - yeah, but he can also cut you down in the stree

> It's like saying "oh, the local feudal Lord helps us fight bandits!" It's not exactly the same, because > - yeah, but he can also cut you down in the street without due process, doesn't care about your opinion, and might enforce ius primae noctis, without any recourse. If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals. I mean, sure, the population has no recourse when some henchman rapes some bride, but the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too. In the case of losing what little support they have with no profit involved, it's not hard to see why these organisations don't actually allow Droit De Signeur. They're a business, first and foremost. Allow, even encourage, violence to increase profits? Sure! Use violence just for kicks? Probably not.

xandrius 3y ago
Are you actually trying to argue in support of the mafia?
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > Are you actually trying to argue in support of the mafia? No, I'm saying that it's not exactly the same as fuedal overloads are. Organised crime are a business, first and foremost, and like all businesses (whether legal or not) focuses on profit.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Feudal overlords operated under similar constraints as the mafia today. They couldn't be too bothersome, or the peasantry could support a rival.
    - doggacula 3y ago
      In a Hollywood movie, sure, with obligatory leading warrior woman role. In real history, not so much. With very rare exceptions (like England [1], and some Eastern European lands were at least some of peasants were militarized) peasantry had little military value [2], and therefore little factor in any rivalry. Also feudalism had more strict rules in regard to competition for resources compared to modern criminals. A rival had to appear first, and in most cases needed to have rights at least somehow proven by genealogical tree, and old agreements. While it did happen, it couldn't just because of peasants. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181 [2] https://academic.oup.com/book/39423/chapter-abstract/339145791 https://academic.oup.com/book/39423/chapter-abstract/3391457...
      - Maken 3y ago
        There was no need for a rival. Peasant revolts were actually quite common and in some cases they succeed in forcing their feudal lords' hands, to some degree [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Remences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Remences
        doggacula 3y ago
        They did happen, of course, but they wasn't common at all if you mark all occurrences on the timeline. And almost all cases were due to catastrophic events such as plaques, and famines exactly as the one you linked, not peasants joining politics. And that's the point as my comment replies to a specific claim, I didn't say peasant rebellions never happened.
      - HPsquared 3y ago
        There are so many small ways the common people can express support or disapproval. It's not as simple as "are they currently revolting with pitchforks".
        doggacula 3y ago
        Sure. It still doesn't make the claim to which I replied more correct.
  - imperfect_light 3y ago
    This is the libertarian argument that since businesses try to maximize profits, they would not do things like discriminate, pollute or defraud because in the long-term it would hurt profits. The reality is businesses (including organized crime) are made up of individuals, who do illogical and short-sighted things all the time.
- _3u10 3y ago
  Who takes more of your money to provide protection from not paying your tax? Mafia or government?
  - xandrius 3y ago
    Is that the vital distinction between mafia and government for you? For me, if taxes are used for the society as a whole and not pocketed by a small elite, I'm totally ok to pay them. But the higher the taxes, the better the quality of the services/infrastructures I expect.
skrebbel 3y ago
This is the first pro-mafia comment I read on HN, and of course it’s in “Well Actually,” Normal Form, and I love it
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > This is the first pro-mafia comment I read on HN, and of course it’s in “Well Actually,” Normal Form, and I love it Which part of this appeared to be pro-mafia to you? >> It's not exactly the same, because >> If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals. >> I mean, sure, the population has no recourse when some henchman rapes some bride, but the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too. >> In the case of losing what little support they have with no profit involved, it's not hard to see why these organisations don't actually allow Droit De Signeur. >> They're a business, first and foremost. Allow, even encourage, violence to increase profits? Sure! Use violence just for kicks? Probably not. I mean, to me, exactly none of that is pro-mafia.
  - afthonos 3y ago
    Welcome, visitor from the past! In our enlightened times, we understand that one truly opposed to something would not intimate that something is anything less than a baby-eating sect of demons who revel at suffering despite reason and self-interest. Only inveterate supporters, probably in the payroll, would do that. (Reading on GP, of course, but I did greatly enjoy “Well, Actually, Normal Form.)
    - sdwr 3y ago
      We need an "Anatomy of an HN comment section" starter pack I know of 5 kinds of posts: - interesting (uncontroversial) - news (controversial by default) - I made something for fun (yay) - I made something for profit (boo!) - philosophical
  - jajko 3y ago
    > Which part of this appeared to be pro-mafia to you? Well, all of it. You put mafia folks into realm of rationality, when we know from numerous accounts (as in thousands and more) that they are extremely emotional, do stupid things and fuck up almost everything they touch, even their own future. Smart criminals behave very differently, its more about negligence and lack of efficient state counter-measures that allowed them to exist and thrive. Now when we talk about mafia I grant 1 exception - current calabrian mafia (one and only Ndrangheta) is so good at money laundering that other crime syndicates globally pay it a fee to launder their money, this outsourcing is more effective and cheaper than homemade solutions. I think last time I checked it was maybe 100 billion USD business yearly. Ndrangheta is so good they are spread like cancer through most Europe, even ie Switzerland ain't immune to them. In eastern part of EU they corrupt poorer places like Slovakia directly via governments and prime minister and don't even hide it very much, and steal and wash most of money via massive EU development funds. There is absolutely nobody there who doesn't know about this scheme running for at least 15 years and various other schemes ie endless highways building which cost 3x as much as in Germany with terrible resulting quality, and so on... tells you something about society and why capable folks often just leave and never come back, but getting off topic here.
psunavy03 3y ago
> ius primae noctis This wasn't actually a thing.
toyg 3y ago
> If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals That's not really the case. The only way people can express a loss of support is by telling authorities where to find this or that boss in hiding, which happens extremely rarely (because a lot of bosses are not actually in hiding at any given time). In some cases, towns are effectively led from afar - footsoldiers just roll in whenever they need to, like before local elections - so there is very little anyone can do. > the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too. This is a romanticised view. There are no rules, what matters is only who can project the most violence and/or control the most money. I agree that they're a business first and foremost, but a lot of mafiosi do actually enjoy expressing violence. Most of them come from poor backgrounds and lived through traumatizing experiences pretty early in life.

xandrius 3y ago

Are you actually trying to argue in support of the mafia?

lelanthran 3y ago
> Are you actually trying to argue in support of the mafia? No, I'm saying that it's not exactly the same as fuedal overloads are. Organised crime are a business, first and foremost, and like all businesses (whether legal or not) focuses on profit.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Feudal overlords operated under similar constraints as the mafia today. They couldn't be too bothersome, or the peasantry could support a rival.
  - doggacula 3y ago
    In a Hollywood movie, sure, with obligatory leading warrior woman role. In real history, not so much. With very rare exceptions (like England [1], and some Eastern European lands were at least some of peasants were militarized) peasantry had little military value [2], and therefore little factor in any rivalry. Also feudalism had more strict rules in regard to competition for resources compared to modern criminals. A rival had to appear first, and in most cases needed to have rights at least somehow proven by genealogical tree, and old agreements. While it did happen, it couldn't just because of peasants. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181 [2] https://academic.oup.com/book/39423/chapter-abstract/339145791 https://academic.oup.com/book/39423/chapter-abstract/3391457...
    - Maken 3y ago
      There was no need for a rival. Peasant revolts were actually quite common and in some cases they succeed in forcing their feudal lords' hands, to some degree [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Remences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Remences
      - doggacula 3y ago
        They did happen, of course, but they wasn't common at all if you mark all occurrences on the timeline. And almost all cases were due to catastrophic events such as plaques, and famines exactly as the one you linked, not peasants joining politics. And that's the point as my comment replies to a specific claim, I didn't say peasant rebellions never happened.
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      There are so many small ways the common people can express support or disapproval. It's not as simple as "are they currently revolting with pitchforks".
      - doggacula 3y ago
        Sure. It still doesn't make the claim to which I replied more correct.
- imperfect_light 3y ago
  This is the libertarian argument that since businesses try to maximize profits, they would not do things like discriminate, pollute or defraud because in the long-term it would hurt profits. The reality is businesses (including organized crime) are made up of individuals, who do illogical and short-sighted things all the time.
_3u10 3y ago
Who takes more of your money to provide protection from not paying your tax? Mafia or government?
- xandrius 3y ago
  Is that the vital distinction between mafia and government for you? For me, if taxes are used for the society as a whole and not pocketed by a small elite, I'm totally ok to pay them. But the higher the taxes, the better the quality of the services/infrastructures I expect.

skrebbel 3y ago

This is the first pro-mafia comment I read on HN, and of course it’s in “Well Actually,” Normal Form, and I love it

lelanthran 3y ago
> This is the first pro-mafia comment I read on HN, and of course it’s in “Well Actually,” Normal Form, and I love it Which part of this appeared to be pro-mafia to you? >> It's not exactly the same, because >> If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals. >> I mean, sure, the population has no recourse when some henchman rapes some bride, but the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too. >> In the case of losing what little support they have with no profit involved, it's not hard to see why these organisations don't actually allow Droit De Signeur. >> They're a business, first and foremost. Allow, even encourage, violence to increase profits? Sure! Use violence just for kicks? Probably not. I mean, to me, exactly none of that is pro-mafia.
- afthonos 3y ago
  Welcome, visitor from the past! In our enlightened times, we understand that one truly opposed to something would not intimate that something is anything less than a baby-eating sect of demons who revel at suffering despite reason and self-interest. Only inveterate supporters, probably in the payroll, would do that. (Reading on GP, of course, but I did greatly enjoy “Well, Actually, Normal Form.)
  - sdwr 3y ago
    We need an "Anatomy of an HN comment section" starter pack I know of 5 kinds of posts: - interesting (uncontroversial) - news (controversial by default) - I made something for fun (yay) - I made something for profit (boo!) - philosophical
- jajko 3y ago
  > Which part of this appeared to be pro-mafia to you? Well, all of it. You put mafia folks into realm of rationality, when we know from numerous accounts (as in thousands and more) that they are extremely emotional, do stupid things and fuck up almost everything they touch, even their own future. Smart criminals behave very differently, its more about negligence and lack of efficient state counter-measures that allowed them to exist and thrive. Now when we talk about mafia I grant 1 exception - current calabrian mafia (one and only Ndrangheta) is so good at money laundering that other crime syndicates globally pay it a fee to launder their money, this outsourcing is more effective and cheaper than homemade solutions. I think last time I checked it was maybe 100 billion USD business yearly. Ndrangheta is so good they are spread like cancer through most Europe, even ie Switzerland ain't immune to them. In eastern part of EU they corrupt poorer places like Slovakia directly via governments and prime minister and don't even hide it very much, and steal and wash most of money via massive EU development funds. There is absolutely nobody there who doesn't know about this scheme running for at least 15 years and various other schemes ie endless highways building which cost 3x as much as in Germany with terrible resulting quality, and so on... tells you something about society and why capable folks often just leave and never come back, but getting off topic here.

psunavy03 3y ago

> ius primae noctis This wasn't actually a thing.

toyg 3y ago

> If the mafioso goes too far they lose the support of the locals That's not really the case. The only way people can express a loss of support is by telling authorities where to find this or that boss in hiding, which happens extremely rarely (because a lot of bosses are not actually in hiding at any given time). In some cases, towns are effectively led from afar - footsoldiers just roll in whenever they need to, like before local elections - so there is very little anyone can do. > the organisation's management usually enforce their rules on their own members rigourously and violently, too. This is a romanticised view. There are no rules, what matters is only who can project the most violence and/or control the most money. I agree that they're a business first and foremost, but a lot of mafiosi do actually enjoy expressing violence. Most of them come from poor backgrounds and lived through traumatizing experiences pretty early in life.