Don't these people know that they will never kill this. Just like Napster's death, and oink, and what, and so on. Every time they shut one of these down the next one will be harder to shut down.
>> The function is system sustaining, it is to contain that overall system, and you don't look at the particular cost. I could demonstrate to you that every single bank robbery, that in every single case, practically. The cost of the police was more than the actually money that robbers took from the bank. Does that mean OH you see theres no really no economic interest involved then. They're not protecting the banks, the police are just doing this because they're on a power trip, or they're macho, or ah they're control freaks, that's why they do it. NO of course it's an economic, of course they're defending the banks, of course, because if they didn't stop that bank robbery, regardless of the cost, this could jeopardize the entire banking system. You see there are people who believe the function of the police is to fight crime, and that's not true, the function of the police is social control and protection of property.
It's not about an end all be all it's about keeping it in check.
Hell, in Napster's case, I'd bet half the folks involved went "woohoo!" then went home to listen to some pirated music.
Edit: I mean, yeah, $10/mo for unlimited streaming was a factor. There are comparisons to the drug trade there, with regards to the number of legal sources increasing over time. My point stands.
If you want to stop people from doing something, you can't just take away their source, they will find another.. you have to give them a BETTER source.
With media, streaming services have done more to cut down in piracy than anything else.. it's convenient, so people will do it. If you're only paying a few dollars a month to save the frustration of finding movies/music, waiting to download, vs just clicking and having it right there. This is why things like Kodi were so popular, it's all about convenience.
Now drugs are not movies, but similar rules apply. Say one is addicted to heroin, and suddenly their source is taken away.. do you think they will just decide "Oh well, I am done with heroin now!", no, they will find another source. If you want to REALLY make a difference, give them a better/safer source, and help them. No one says "I want to be addicted to heroin", they have issues that cause them to be dependent on the drug (often pain). We DESPERATELY need to follow the lead of other countries and start providing drug havens for addicts. So many people die in this country ever year of opiate overdoses, with the solution right in front of our eyes (look at EU countries with drug clinics), but we refuse to do anything about it because our antiquated dinosaur politicians are afraid they will look like they support drug use; how they appear to the 1% is more important to them than saving tens of thousands of lives every year.
If they want to stop people doing illegal drugs the answer is quite simple, make them legal. Then we can't do illegal drugs, since they are legal.
From what I understand you can just buy flutoprazepam and some other fairly hardcore sedatives, so people abuse those.
Then people can get the help they need and be treated as a disease if they are addicted. Stealing etc and all the other crime that comes from addicts are still crimes.
You're kidding yourself if you think Japan doesn't have drugs and crime related to it. I've met many a Japanese who loves a good smoke. It's really hard for them to get good smoke in Japan with all that anti drug control. Does it mean it's stops them wanting it? No?
To me, it looks like any society with some form of inequality will inevitably need a way for the lower classes to escape their daily struggles. In some countries it's hardcore religion; in some it's drugs; in some it's alcohol; in some it's mindless gambling... Affinity for one or the other depends on a number of factors, but eventually we have to accept at least one of them if we want to keep society stable in the long run.
But let's be honest, the yakuza want to keep foreign criminal syndicates out of Japan because they want a monopoly on organized crime in Japan, not because they want to keep the Japanese people safe from foreign criminals. The yakuza deal in extortion, blackmail, drugs, guns, prostitution, human trafficking, all of the same criminal activity any other syndicate does. They may not be as openly violent as other mafias, but they're not nice people.
Claiming they have a "common cause" with the police is to assume that the police have no issue with crime in Japan so long as it's Japanese committing those crimes, which I think cannot be true, and would be a sign of dereliction of duty if it were. From what I understand the yakuza are losing power in Japan because the police have been effectively cracking down on them... they're not comrades in arms.
They very clearly play a role in keeping petty criminals from China, Korea, and South Asia off the streets of Japan, and it's no secret that the keisatsukan will turn a blind eye when the public interest is served. It's hard to overstate the tranquility of Japan in terms of crime. Yes, there is a rather open underworld of prostitution and that presumably includes human trafficking. But I've met gaijin girls in my language classes here who work as hostesses, and they clearly felt like they escaped from places like Indonesia and Philippines, and even in the seedy underworld here they had more opportunities than where they came from. (Anecdotal to be sure, but also first-hand.)
Also, I know restauranteurs who happily pay protection money and feel like it's a valuable service for them. Go figure.
The truly dirty business of Yakuza is moving heroin abroad--especially into the US--and that just isn't tolerated on the home front.
>Also, I know restauranteurs who happily pay protection money and feel like it's a valuable service for them. Go figure.
Although, one wouldn't expect them to publicly admit otherwise.