Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
wonderpup

Could The Mafia Run The World?

Recommended Posts

Given that Organised Crime is-by definition- capable of organisation, in what way does this activity differ from other forms of organisation?

Or maybe there is no difference?

My own view is that Organised Crime is an inherently parasitic thing- it can only exist in the context of a wider social order that adheres to a set of values that transcend those offered by criminal organisations.

The real problem I could see arising from a society based on the Organised Crime model would be that trust becomes impossible- in such a society every transaction would be fraught with difficulty since it would be irrational to trust any counterparty in any deal- all could be expected to lie cheat and steal should the opportunity arise.

The result would be a paralysis of trade and commerce and/or massive overheads in protective measures in an attempt to avoid being ripped off. So it seems likely that any society that tried to base itself on an organised crime model would likely fall apart as lack of mutual trust made it impossible to do business.

This interests me because- when I think about it- there are now almost no institutions or organisations that I actually trust anymore. For example I assume as a matter of course that this post will be recorded by the authorities and analysed by some clever software for indications of malfeasance of one sort or another- and I suspect most of you make similar assumptions about your own posts.

Banks? Do I trust Banks? :lol: 'nuff said.

The Government? No- not really- I have no faith in either their intentions or motives.

The Health service? My local GP's have stopped answering the phone and are increasingly reluctant to see patients or make appointments for those patients to see anyone else. Only a personal appearance at the surgery now suffices to even attract the attention of this financial entity with it's medical subsidiary. So no- I no longer believe that my doctor has any interest in my health- to him I am a potential cost center to be either dissuaded from seeking treatment in the first place or if treatment cannot be avoided to be given treatment so grudgingly and gracelessly that being ill begins to feel like a criminal act.

The Police? Again I do not trust this target driven culture in which preventing and solving crimes has become a backwater activity- something for the boys to do when they are not busy meeting 'targets' by focusing on the easy convictions that make up the bulk of their statistics. I have no doubt that should I be in the wrong place at the wrong time I would become fodder for that statistical meat grinder irrespective of the rights and wrongs of my case.

What about the Welfare system? Should I fall on hard times will it be there to help me out? :lol: Of course not.l should I be unfortunate enough to need their help that person behind the counter is not there to help me claim the benefits to which I am entitled- they are there to trap me and to trick me into making the tiny error they need to justify not giving me those benefits- so to trust them would indeed be foolish.

The Media? Do I trust the clothes horses reading the news- or those reporting it? Not so much- I used to have some hope for the BBC but they are now the cringing dogs of media-so terrified of the accusation of bias that they are incapable of more than the most superficial analysis. I would make an exception for Channel 4 News who do at least push back against the tide of propaganda from time to time.

The press are on the run, their finance's ruined by the web they are increasingly dependent on the vanity publishing proclivities of the small number of 1%'ers whose ego requires that they own a newspaper- some small embers of free thought can be discerned among the dross, but even here the quality of the insight is often merely skin deep.

I could go on but I think you get the point- it seems to me that every facet of our society, from the trivial like sports to the vital like healthcare is now riddled with cheating or dissembling or so corrupted by self serving managements whose concerns reach no further than their next bonus that there is no longer any organisation in which one could reasonably place one's trust.

So how sustainable is a society in which trust has become less and less possible? At what point do people-for example- start to pull their money en masse from the cesspool masquerading as the financial services sector? Or at what point do people exit en masse from a political system that seems to consist of a dwindling band of self serving opinion poll whores whose sole ambition seems to be to retain their seats at almost any cost?

Without trust society cannot function- so the question is- which organisation in our society do you personally trust? Can you think of any?

And before you reply do bear in mind that your response will almost certainly be recorded and analysed by someone or something out there- not because you are doing anything wrong but because the powers that be do not trust you any more than you trust them. The circle of mistrust is now complete.

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post, I think. I agree with a lot of what you write.

I also distrust the gov't, politicians, bankers, and the police. I believe there are some good police but not enough for me to trust them any more than I have to.

However, if there was no trust at all then money would cease to have value because to spend it, the person who sells something needs to believe that she or he will be able to buy with the money and that it won't just get stolen or defrauded immediately.

So it's a matter of degree, I think. Living and working in the mafia means that you are in a jungle and I think it is just a matter of time before you will get robbed or hit by the others in the 'organization'. There is no trust at all there, I think.

So some trust is better than none at all, and we still have some trust in normal society. Otherwise it would cease to function.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reminds me of the Snow Crash book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atlFy2kM7ms

The story begins and ends in Los Angeles in the unspecified future, no longer part of the United States. The federal government of the United States has ceded most of its power to private organizations and entrepreneurs.

[3] Franchising, individual sovereignty, and private vehicles reign (along with drug trafficking, violent crime, and traffic congestion). Mercenary armies compete for national defense contracts while private security guards preserve the peace in sovereign, gated housing developments. Highway companies compete to attract drivers to their roads and all mail delivery is by hired courier.

The remnants of government maintain authority only in isolated compounds where they transact tedious make-work that is, by and large, irrelevant to the dynamic society around them.

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i too agree with much of the OP. The banking system has become truly parasitic, even malignant. Government appears to serve corporate lobbyists.. etc. One thing struck me, and i know it's a bit lame: organisations which have the 'partnership' model are, to me, more trustworthy. Something a la John Lewis...

I'm also coming around to the idea that parliamentary democracy and corruption of the judiciary are centrally to blame, and that we need a 'direct democracy'. If you can bank online, surely you can vote online?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also coming around to the idea that parliamentary democracy and corruption of the judiciary are centrally to blame, and that we need a 'direct democracy'. If you can bank online, surely you can vote online?

So, what are you going to do when your neighbours vote to steal all your stuff? Probably at 5am, when you're asleep and can't even vote against it?

Or when the house-owning 51% of the population vote that no more houses should be built?

Mass direct democracy would be one of the few forms of government worse than mass representative democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what are you going to do when your neighbours vote to steal all your stuff? Probably at 5am, when you're asleep and can't even vote against it?

Or when the house-owning 51% of the population vote that no more houses should be built?

Mass direct democracy would be one of the few forms of government worse than mass representative democracy.

no i disagree completely. if there is enough participation, the people will make the right decision.

perhaps the 51% are right -- maybe no more houses is a good thing? I read a while ago that there were >1m empty homes in the uk.

As to people voting en-masse for direct theft, i hardly think it likely, really.

Edited by weaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what are you going to do when your neighbours vote to steal all your stuff? Probably at 5am, when you're asleep and can't even vote against it?

Or when the house-owning 51% of the population vote that no more houses should be built?

Mass direct democracy would be one of the few forms of government worse than mass representative democracy.

The voting mechanism does not cover all aspects of democracy - it's a small part. What's stopping the MPs to vote to kill all non-MPs now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Organised Crime is-by definition- capable of organisation, in what way does this activity differ from other forms of organisation?

Or maybe there is no difference?

My own view is that Organised Crime is an inherently parasitic thing- it can only exist in the context of a wider social order that adheres to a set of values that transcend those offered by criminal organisations.

The real problem I could see arising from a society based on the Organised Crime model would be that trust becomes impossible- in such a society every transaction would be fraught with difficulty since it would be irrational to trust any counterparty in any deal- all could be expected to lie cheat and steal should the opportunity arise.

The result would be a paralysis of trade and commerce and/or massive overheads in protective measures in an attempt to avoid being ripped off. So it seems likely that any society that tried to base itself on an organised crime model would likely fall apart as lack of mutual trust made it impossible to do business.

This perfectly describes why ex-USSR countries remain so economically under developed, the lack of any trust in commerce at all levels means they havn't developed the collaboration based business models which enable them to leverage their low high skilled & cost worker base and compete with western companies and economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i disagree completely. if there is enough participation, the people will make the right decision.

perhaps the 51% are right -- maybe no more houses is a good thing? I read a while ago that there were >1m empty homes in the uk.

As to people voting en-masse for direct theft, i hardly think it likely, really.

didnt voters in California vote for tax cuts and more spending? I don't think that ended well for the finances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didnt voters in California vote for tax cuts and more spending? I don't think that ended well for the finances.

not sure exactly of that... since they maybe voted in a candidate who ran on a manifesto? did the candidate do more or less what they said they would??

Still, if the people made the choice they gotta live by it. That is the point, i think -- because consequences are a b*tch!

I think people are adult enough to understand that.

How it becomes difficult, I suppose, is that the parasites and looters can vote for such measures, and then run off to Chile or the UK for a safe haven.

But I think if you have high enough participation looters and parasites are a small minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good book.

Although the Mafia have nothing on the bankers. I would be the Mafia would perfer to get into banking than continue risky organised crime.

Tory Soprano

One of the most harrowing episodes in The Sopranos is The Happy Wanderer where a sports store owner borrows gambling money from Tony Soprano & Richie.

They eventually force him into bankruptcy, but not before they have used his stores credit to perform a long firm fraud. He has to give the mafia all the stock bought on credit before he defaults.

That's what you get for banking with the mafia

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think the global economy has been copied from a James Bond Novel.

SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) appear to be running things now.

Their master plan.

Convince all the Western Governments to following the mantra of infinite free money (no more boom and bust)

Later tell them it was a lie (the credit crunch)

Extort more money (bailouts)

Governments hate to show how weak they are, so would rather screw their taxpayers.

We may not know the name of our new master, but we know his profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's stopping the MPs to vote to kill all non-MPs now?

Not easy to collect taxes from dead people. Besides, they're no fun to boss around.

Mass democracy can only work if government power is limited so the voters can't cause much harm. But, if government power is that limited, democracy is irrelevant because it can't do much to hurt you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By a weird synchronicity I just came across this blog post that mirrors exactly the point I was making.

It's not money that makes the world go around- it's trust- and it's a resource we seem to be running out of.

When, after twenty years hard graft, I finally in 1988 received a large cheque at 3am one morning for my shares in an ad agency I’d helped found, seven hours later I dashed down to the local Building Society and whacked the cheque in. When it cleared three days later – and only then – did I phone my first wife to say “The money’s safely banked”.

Safely. What a rare word that is these days in financial services.

Exactly who do these language-manipulating sociopaths think they are? They are bankers who took money in at minimal sight rates, making eternal profits from their customer base – and then had the gall to introduce service charges. They are blank-faced, goggle-eyed bureaucrats in Whitehall, Brussels and Washington who approved this weasel terminology as if they might be rubber-stamping the train times to Auschwitz. And they are the multi-faced politicians who perpetually apologise for the indefensible behaviour of those whose money they so desperately need…having failed, year in year out, to keep within budgets.

Feeling safe is about having trust. The EC finally lost the trust of the lenders after the 37th dithering lie about the problem being solved. The ECB lost the trust of the bond markets when it illegally subordinated holders of Greek debt, and then went on to rape Cypriot investors for no good reason at all. Bernanke lost the trust of the American people when he carried on chucking their dollars at an intractable problem intrinsic to neoliberal economics. Parliament lost the last vestige of my trust when it said nothing against the theft of money from Cooperative Bank depositors to save its own neck. David Cameron lost the trust of millions of Britons when he continued to insist there had been nothing improper in his personal relationships with senior Newscorp officials. Congress lost the trust of the entire world when it bickered about the biggest deficit in US history. And last but not least, the Church of England lost any last vestige of trust when it began trying to profit from fracking.

Everything from love to money is based on trust and mutual respect. I no longer love my country, because it is a whore. There isn’t a single institution there I would trust. I can’t even feel that banked money is safe.

But still the apologists for this insane f**ked up fiat currency version of globalist ‘free market’ capitalism witter on, failing as ever to acknowledge that not a single investment market anywhere on the planet is free from artificial (and usually illegal) interference.

Please Britain, don’t put off your protest or jump off the cliff because they tell you to. Switch off the telly, get off the sofa, and tell the bastards where to get off.

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, whadya gonna do?

We live comfortable lives in this part of the world, of course there is corruption and power play and all of that, its the nature of the mankind beast. But this 'system', whatever the motivations are behind the running of it, have seen us all benefit from advances in technology, in medicine, blah blah. You can feel like a slave to 'the system' if you want and envy those skimming the wealth you produce to live better lives than you but have some perspective and look to your own life. How tough is it really. You got a better system? You want to waste your limited time alive fretting over things you have no power to change or do you want to thank your lucky stars you get to live to a ripe old age in relative comfort and enjoy yourself as best you can? Invent, create, do what moves you, get a grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think the global economy has been copied from a James Bond Novel.

SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) appear to be running things now.

Their master plan.

Convince all the Western Governments to following the mantra of infinite free money (no more boom and bust)

Later tell them it was a lie (the credit crunch)

Extort more money (bailouts)

Governments hate to show how weak they are, so would rather screw their taxpayers.

We may not know the name of our new master, but we know his profession.

Don't write off their opponents, GUACAMOLE

(Global Union of Activists and Campaigners Against More Or Less Everything)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i disagree completely. if there is enough participation, the people will make the right decision.

perhaps the 51% are right -- maybe no more houses is a good thing? I read a while ago that there were >1m empty homes in the uk.

As to people voting en-masse for direct theft, i hardly think it likely, really.

People vote for taxes theft every election.

Additionally, they vote to steal not only from one another, but also from their children and grand children - even those who are not yet born.

A thought experiment for you - at what point does it go from 'bad' to 'good':

- 3 people in a room and 2 vote to take half of everything the other 1 has.

- 10 people in a building and 6 vote to take half of everything the other 4 have.

- 50 people on a street and 26 vote to take half of everything the other 24 have.

- 1,000 in a village and 501 vote to take half of everything the other 499 have.

- 100,000 in a city and 500,001 vote to take half of everything the other 499,999 have.

- 10,000,000 in a country and 5,000,001 vote to take half of everything the other 4,999,999 have.

I consider them all theft. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By a weird synchronicity I just came across this blog post that mirrors exactly the point I was making.

It's not money that makes the world go around- it's trust- and it's a resource we seem to be running out of.

Trust doesn't come down the barrel of a gun. Trust comes from people forming bonds/relationships/networks based on experience. This is the core problem with statism - it is a system which relies on violence/threats instead of trust/free association.

Moreover, we have a monetary system based on credit, also enforced via violence/threats, instead of trust/free association. This compounds the problem.

I agree that there is a lack of trust and also agree that it is the heart of the problem. However, when taken to conclusion, this provokes questions to be asked, which many find very uncomfortable to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i disagree completely. if there is enough participation, the people will make the right decision.

perhaps the 51% are right -- maybe no more houses is a good thing? I read a while ago that there were >1m empty homes in the uk.

As to people voting en-masse for direct theft, i hardly think it likely, really.

If enough people vote for a course of action, then that same course of action is no longer classified as such!?

With that sort of thinking anything is justifiable i.e. genocide becomes re-distribution because 51% of people voted for it.

Edited by GradualCringe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.