Hacker News Reader

Comment by wireprotocol | Hacker News Reader

"hampered economic development in Italy for more than a century"

Hamper compared to what? A magical utopia without crime, or a realistic counterfactual with another set of criminals?

Speaking of which: is organized crime worse or better than disorganized crime?

I've basically lived in Sicily my entire life and I can't think of a single business (company or family-owned) earning more than 250.000€ per year that didn't have to face some members of the organized crime in some way, from having some supplier forced to them to paying "protection money" or having to hire someone as "internal observer". It's not even considered something unusual, it's basically part of doing business here.

I would use northern Italy as a conterfactual. True, it was more industrialised at the moment of unification, and political power was much closer to Turin than to Palermo, but billions of economic aid were sent to the South over the past 70 years to try to reverse that imbalance with little effect.

While it's true that Mafia is somewhat present in the north too, it is much less pervasive in penetration.

There are some history studies that claim south was richer than north just before unity.

Honestly curious, do you have links?

Objectively worse, as organized crime tends to eventually infiltrate all legitimate economic activity on its turf, radically undermining long term productivity. Unorganized crime may take some of the fruits of the economy, but organized crime can infect the roots.

"Self-employed" thiefs (to pick the most straight-forward form of crime for as an example) will likely change their ways after somehow landing a regular job, people who stole for an organization might continue to report to their old bosses, willing or not.

That's one way of looking at it -- another way is to look at something like the Mafia as being analogous to an early form of law and order (albeit arguably a tiny bit more openly violent, ruthless than your average developing world police force). Something still lacking today in most countries.

In the town where I live here near Catania, in order to open and run a shop in the main street, you have yet to pay money to ugly people in 2018... Just as a data point.

Another funny anecdote on the relationship between organized crime and "ground control" near this very same town: Two days ago they burned to the ground a freaking kids library, Italy's president was supposed to speak near there tomorrow.

The most probable explanation for this right now being that the event would've adversely impacted the local drug smuggling business.

OMG I missed this (http://www.cataniatoday.it/cronaca/incendio-sede-briganti-li...), that's terrible. Thanks for sharing.

Why are the best discussion points these days always downvoted? One doesn't have to agree with someone, but one should appreciate reading something one hasn't thought to be correct oneself.

Also some people really, and reasonably, argue that government is nothing else but a kind of Mafia that simply one the competition for being called "government". You also know the discussions of "freedom fighter" versus "terrorist" declaration, right?

Since we are venturing into anecdotal territory anyway, let me report that I have yet to meet anyone who can reasonably show that government is nothing else but another form of mafia. "Freedom fighter" vs "terrorist" is however another discussion.

There are people on HN who earnestly believe that "taxation is theft" - note that I am not one of them.

I'd actually be interested to hear how the "taxation is theft" people consider protection money. The mafia is a voluntary association, one can choose to pay protection money or not. From the anarcho-libertarian standpoint there should not be objections.

Well, I guess that if you don't pay up to the mafia then Bad Things(TM) happen and if you don't pay your taxes then Bad Things(TM) happen - except that by definition the latter are "legal".

Note that I don't believe this myself - I'm on the "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" side of the argument but I can see that those on the other side have a stateable case. My main objection is that I've never seen any plausible description of an advanced civil society that doesn't rely on compulsion to pay for things.

An anarcho-capitalist would probably say that one could pay a competing crew or start one oneself, as the landowners in this article did. At any rate, access to power is limited and requires deep pockets or reckless disregard for life. Not a society I'd like to live in.

Eric Hobsbawm wrote Bandits, a nice little volume on organized crime. It's written from a different political angle.

"Herschel I. Grossman (1995) and Stergios Skaperdas (2001) both consider mafia as an alternative enforcer of property rights. Using a model with two actors (a self-governing community and mafia) and potential robbers, Skaperdas (2001) shows that in the absence of an enforcer of property rights, mafia can represent a sort of second best solution"

I do agree, that mafia act as a government. But there is still quite a difference to a democratic government. It is more a olygarchy/despotism.

But I believe our roots of government back in the middle ages, when feudals conquered new peasants to profit from them, were very alike. And there might be still characteristics in our institutions from that legacy. People definitely view it that way, when they pay taxes ...

Absolutely agree. Mafia is not a democratic type of government. And even most despotic governments are probably better than the average mafia, for the people they rule. Reason being that you can't rule a big, stable country if you are too tyrannic. Other government-types will compete with you, and even foreign governments will try to take your land and people.

Democratic != good.

Also agreed. However: democratic >= mafia

Reply on news.ycombinator.com