Now some of that tainted money are being handled over to our best for a quick wash...
Now some of that tainted money are being handled over to our best for a quick wash...
Like, in post-war Japan and Korea they decided how many big corporations they are going to grow, allocated resources and appointed people in control. Those became for-life managers to multi-billion corporations because they were in the right time in the right place. Was that fair?
The "wealth" had to go somewhere and some people got it with some effort. What should have they done?
How would you differentiate between someone who got a piece of USSR industry and pillaged it, and someone who ran his piece wisely?
There, mafia doesn't have any business commonly associated with them. Mafia does loans, racketeering and vice. Large industry isn't about any of those things. Maybe I'm wrong but I think you should not overextend the meaning of term "mafia".
Anyway, this does not answers the "fair" question. Oneself fairness is not direcly affected by people the person in question has to deal with. You still have to prove unfairness, "he was seen near where the mafia usually manifests" doesn't cut it.
I'm not arguing just for a purpose of arguing. I'm trying to challenge your idea of "fair rules". If we would not find even one person in this subset who plays by "fair rules", (and you seem to imply there are indeed none), how do we know that "fair rules" exist? Who sets those?