NationStates Jolt Archive

In the Dresden Files novel series, there is a mob boss in Chicago named Johnny Marcone. He is the only mob boss (yes this is unlikely, just roll with it) and as a result has a great deal of control over the crimes in Chicago. He keeps a tight control over the crimes in Chicago, and anyone who steps out of line is usually met with swift and often brutal action. As a result, while there is still crime, there are less...innocents involved in stuff like drive by shootings, etc. However, even though Johnny Marcone is a mob boss and thus a criminal, the alternative would probably be worse. Rival gangs would have shoot outs, drive by shootings, more death of innocents, more of a chaotic crime than the tightly controlled crime that exist under Marcone.

While one person, or one family could never have such control in the real world, it did start to make me wonder, if there was a person like Marcone in power of a city's criminal world, would you really want him taken out of power and have crime go out of control, or would you let him stay in power, and thus keep crime under his tight control? Which one is the lesser of the two evils?

Poll coming

I would put my trust in batman to fix it.

I would put my trust in batman to fix it.

Too bad he's in Gotham and not Chicago. ;)

Daredevil, no wait that was kingpin also a favorite of Punisher. One of his own henchmen will likely do him in anyway.

Daredevil, no wait that was kingpin also a favorite of Punisher. One of his own henchmen will likely do him in anyway.

umm...what?

there can only be one - rand corporation

(although the heritage foundation thought it could take over its turf)

Was Yugoslavia better under Tito?

Was Iraq better under Hussein?

Spain under Franco?

All these and more..

I got to "roll with it" -- 28 words into the OP -- and I'm done. "Rolling with" a Wilgrove hypothetical is like "rolling with" a syphilitic lemming.

I bump your thread and solemnly promise not to read it or post to it again.

my totally ignorant impressions from (trying to read between the lyings of) media i do not trust:

Was Yugoslavia better under Tito? almost certainly yes (1; there WAS a jugoslavia, and 2; serbia was not bombing sariavjo)

Was Iraq better under Hussein? probably though not by much (america loved him until he misread raygun's signals and thought he was being given kewaite, and even then he was tolerated, albeit embargoed, until he decided to sell his oil for euros instead of dollars)

Spain under Franco? pretty much most extremely NOT (guernica!)

iran i don't know when or if it was ever better, even as persia. but thats no excuse for plans of brutality against it, that are almost certain to make its situation worse, as did the invasion of iraq.

but again, never having been on the ground in any of these places at those times (or any times), these are only my guesses

i'm not TOO sure how any of them directly relate to the theme of the thread though.

I got to "roll with it" -- 28 words into the OP -- and I'm done. "Rolling with" a Wilgrove hypothetical is like "rolling with" a syphilitic lemming.

I bump your thread and solemnly promise not to read it or post to it again.

I get that you, and a lot of other posters here don't like the thread, and/or don't like Wilgrove. What I don't get is why you came in here and started this. If I dislike your living room decor it is not acceptable for me come over and take a steaming shit on your rug. Why do you feel the need to come take a steaming crap in someones thread?

I think you need to read about Ankh Morpork and the Thieve's Guild.

At that point they start calling themselves politicians.

At that point they start calling themselves politicians.

Zing.

-snip-


I have a better solution: make the concept of mafias and gangs illegal, and allow the police to arrest anyone known to be affiliated with a gang or a mafia organization on sight.

Given these two options, I pick the multiple bosses. Why? because they'll likely be squabbling with each other while the cops bust down the doors.

While one person, or one family could never have such control in the real world, it did start to make me wonder, if there was a person like Marcone in power of a city's criminal world, would you really want him taken out of power and have crime go out of control, or would you let him stay in power, and thus keep crime under his tight control? Which one is the lesser of the two evils?

I fear that your premise is wrong. Take two current-day examples: Palermo and Neaples.

In Palermo, the crime is under the tight control of the mafia's Cupola (or whatever is their chosen name now), which is a sort of federation/UN of different mafia families. Result: criminality is choking the city. Shopkeepers are forced to pay regular fees ("pizzo") to the mafia family that is in control of that area. Shops who don't pay the pizzo get burned, and eventually their owners killed. People are afraid of the mafia's revenge were they to call the police. The political power is always infiltrated by mafiosi. The city is slowly dying - very few honest people want to start a business there, and as soon as honest Palermitans can emigrate to other italian regions, or to other countries, they tend to do so.

In Napoli, the camorra (neapolitan mafia) has no organised Cupola-like structure. Result: criminality is choking the city. Shopkeepers are forced to pay "pizzo" to the local camorra clans, there are killings in the streets in broad daylight. People in the poorest slums revolt against the police when agents show up to arrest someone, be they petty criminals or full-fledged camorristi. The political power is always infiltrated by camorristi. The city is slowly dying - very few honest people want to start a business there, and as soon as honest Neapolitans can emigrate to other italian regions, or to other countries, they tend to do so.

There is actually no big substantial difference. Law should be enforced, ever. There can be no compromise with criminality. The State must prove itself stronger than criminal organisations.

While one person, or one family could never have such control in the real world,
Hello, there's a person in power of doing that over the whole country.

In the Dresden Files novel series, there is a mob boss in Chicago named Johnny Marcone. He is the only mob boss (yes this is unlikely, just roll with it) and as a result has a great deal of control over the crimes in Chicago. He keeps a tight control over the crimes in Chicago, and anyone who steps out of line is usually met with swift and often brutal action. As a result, while there is still crime, there are less...innocents involved in stuff like drive by shootings, etc. However, even though Johnny Marcone is a mob boss and thus a criminal, the alternative would probably be worse. Rival gangs would have shoot outs, drive by shootings, more death of innocents, more of a chaotic crime than the tightly controlled crime that exist under Marcone.

While one person, or one family could never have such control in the real world, it did start to make me wonder, if there was a person like Marcone in power of a city's criminal world, would you really want him taken out of power and have crime go out of control, or would you let him stay in power, and thus keep crime under his tight control? Which one is the lesser of the two evils?

Poll coming
i would not want all crime in the hands of one gang. there are no benevolent gangsters.

While one person, or one family could never have such control in the real world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_capone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toto_Riina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardo_Provenzano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luciano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Gambino

Eh.