Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Rent-a-Cop Message-ID: <28200538@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Jan-86 02:34:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.28200538 Posted: Wed Jan 8 02:34:00 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jan-86 21:27:55 EST References: <883@mmintl.UUCP> Lines: 105 Nf-ID: #R:mmintl:-88300:inmet:28200538:000:5077 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jan 8 02:34:00 1986 >/* Written 10:11 pm Dec 18, 1985 by franka@mmintl in inmet:net.politics.t */ >> >>Were your argument correct, the logical move for the mob to take NOW >>would be the domination of politics -- and they would have succeeded: >>not just in a relatively few places like the regulation of gambling, but >>more on the order of limiting the current round of mob-leader roundups. >> >>Nobody argues that they haven't partially succeeded: there are certainly >>mob-connected politicians. They haven't entirely succeeded in politics >>for the same reason they wouldn't entirely succeed in the rent-a-cop >>business: people don't regard the Mob as dependable and honest: given >>a choice, people choose to deal with others. > >No. Today, there is an opposing organization which wishes to prevent the >mob from taking over because it wishes to exercize control itself -- the >government. But "tomorrow" (in Libertaria) there are dozens or hundreds of police organizations, some easily permeable (and thus unpopular) some cooperative (and thus very hard to corrupt) some very paranoid and on-the-ball. Each one wants to direct its own destiny, just as much (perhaps) as our government wants to exercise control In short, instead of having to deal with 3 or 4 layers of government the Mob must now deal with contending dozens of agencies, with new ones all the time, and no way of knowing just which ones will be important in advance. Hardly a gain for the corrupt Mob. >>The Mob has two choices then, if it wants to succeed in the rent-a-cop >>business: it can become honest and dependable enough that people are >>willing to deal with it (that's sort of the scenario in The Syndic) >>or it can become vicious and tough enough that it kills all the competitors, >>which would be very difficult indeed, and wouldn't prevent the >>formation of private police organizations later. > >They only have to deter all the competitors, which is much easier. It also >deals with the formation of other organizations later. And how, do you think, would they deter formation of volunteer and co-op agencies in ghettos, the hiring of agencies by the wealthy and middle class, and the supply of charitable agencies by religious groups and civic do-gooders? Deter away! It would be like shoveling water with a pitchfork! Worse! The more the mob tried to dominate, the more apparent the need for such agencies would be! >>The Mob would certainly have other troubles in a Libertarian society though: >>it would be in danger of starving to death. >> >>Consider what I understand to be the three main money sources of the >>Mob: >> o Drugs >> o Prostitution >> o Gambling >> >>My understanding is that the rest (leg-breaking, protection, fraud) >>are really minor adjuncts to these. > >This is true in our society. I am claiming that in an anarchy, extortion >would move to the top of the list, and more than make up for the loss of >the other revenues. But on what basis do you make this claim? Leg-breaking only makes sense if you aren't going to get caught. It's one thing if you can watch the police with one eye, it's another if you can't be sure the person you're about to extort from hasn't hired the "Secret Ninja Justice Squad" to protect him, or that the do-gooding equivalent of the ACLU isn't waiting with videotapes to see you lay just one finger on a person they've planted in front of you as a prospect. >.... > >And once a large, well-trusted organization (it had better be bigger than >Pinkerton's) wipes out the mob, people will want it to stay around and >make sure it doesn't happen again. Those in the organization will think >this is a good idea, too. Quite so. No society is safe from the imposition of tyranny, though -- no doubt there are those who wish Reagan to remain around to run things for the rest of his life. Is that evidence that Republicanism is evil? Of course, people are notoriously ungrateful. They might or might not want to re-impose government (assuming here we've got Anarcholibertaria, and the government doesn't just wake up, threaten to nuke anyone who tries to take power in an unsanctioned way, and go to sleep again) By the way, a clear 2/3rds majority in our society would be sufficient to impose a tyranny (of course, they'd work through representatives, but my (hazy) understanding is that this would be enough to cause a Constitutional Convention and command a majority there. >Either way, you wind up with a new government, and one which is less >responsible to the populace than what we have now. As in the Evil Constitutional Convention case in OUR society. So? >>In the end, of course, this is simply counter-speculation to your >>speculation. Neither of us can show it to be correct, but I hope I've >>pointed out some of the forces that would counter your scenario. > >Yes, but I hope I have at least given you some idea of what I meant a >while back when I said that social experimentation is dangerous. You have indeed. Perhaps not quite so dangerous as being one of the Social Experimental Animals, though.