Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by xandrius | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

xandrius

Are you actually trying to argue in support of the mafia?

View on HN

> Are you actually trying to argue in support of the mafia?

No, I'm saying that it's not exactly the same as fuedal overloads are.

Organised crime are a business, first and foremost, and like all businesses (whether legal or not) focuses on profit.

Feudal overlords operated under similar constraints as the mafia today. They couldn't be too bothersome, or the peasantry could support a rival.

In a Hollywood movie, sure, with obligatory leading warrior woman role. In real history, not so much. With very rare exceptions (like England [1], and some Eastern European lands were at least some of peasants were militarized) peasantry had little military value [2], and therefore little factor in any rivalry. Also feudalism had more strict rules in regard to competition for resources compared to modern criminals. A rival had to appear first, and in most cases needed to have rights at least somehow proven by genealogical tree, and old agreements. While it did happen, it couldn't just because of peasants.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181

[2] https://academic.oup.com/book/39423/chapter-abstract/3391457...

There was no need for a rival. Peasant revolts were actually quite common and in some cases they succeed in forcing their feudal lords' hands, to some degree [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Remences

They did happen, of course, but they wasn't common at all if you mark all occurrences on the timeline. And almost all cases were due to catastrophic events such as plaques, and famines exactly as the one you linked, not peasants joining politics. And that's the point as my comment replies to a specific claim, I didn't say peasant rebellions never happened.

There are so many small ways the common people can express support or disapproval. It's not as simple as "are they currently revolting with pitchforks".

Sure. It still doesn't make the claim to which I replied more correct.

This is the libertarian argument that since businesses try to maximize profits, they would not do things like discriminate, pollute or defraud because in the long-term it would hurt profits.

The reality is businesses (including organized crime) are made up of individuals, who do illogical and short-sighted things all the time.

Who takes more of your money to provide protection from not paying your tax? Mafia or government?

Is that the vital distinction between mafia and government for you?

For me, if taxes are used for the society as a whole and not pocketed by a small elite, I'm totally ok to pay them.

But the higher the taxes, the better the quality of the services/infrastructures I expect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com