The reason you can be charged with theft or murder is that your mafia hates the competition.
It is not safe to be right when the mafia is wrong.
It is just that you are entitled and obligated to serve the mafia, vote harder for one of the ‘lesser’ mafia gang and stand up for their anthem.
You cannot violate the ‘social contract’, no?
Whatever they do is always legal and constitutional. If you imitate their actions then you will be jailed.
Before we understand their conceptual profile, it’s in the great interest to decode some of their functional activities:
> If you happen to extort my money, it’s illegal. If they extort, it’s taxation.
> If you murder me, it’s illegal. If they murder us, it’s war. P.S.: War (mass murder) is always legal (except when it’s a “War Crime” and the murdering was done in a non state-approved manner).
> If you snoop me, it’s illegal. If they snoop us, it’s security.
> If you discriminate against me, it’s racism. If they do, it’s affirmative action.
It does not matter who you are or what I am. What matters is that we gotta be euphemistic in declaring ourselves to be the government (legal mafia) because it is easy to fool the foolish society without using the word ‘mafia’ in our political discussions.
There is no difference between government and mafia because mafia is the government and vice-versa. If you happen to distinguish between them, there are more similarities than differences. For example: Both collect protection money, though a ‘government’ prefers to call such collections ‘taxes’. Both are ready with threats of dire consequences if you don’t pay up.
Here you go…
The collections by a government have the ‘imprimatur’ of a legal system, of a codified law, or a statute. The mafia has its own laws. And there is honor among thieves as well. But such laws are usually ‘diktats’ handed down by the mafia boss. There is no need to explain why these diktats have been issued, though some may try to justify them.
The dividing line between a government and a mafia begin to get blurred when a government, which collects protection money, fails to protect. It is at such a time that the mafia begins to look more lawful than the government. That explains to a great extent why a slum-dweller, who is usually not a very powerful, rich or privileged person, often runs not to the police, but to the local slumlord for protection. If his daughter is in danger of molestation, he runs, once again, to the slumlord for redressal and safety. The slumlord does protect him and his family. He is a representative of what governments often call ‘organised crime’.
Strangely, ‘organised crime’ the world over often makes its money from real estate, gambling, prostitution, and protection. But it does not ever molest, extort, or trouble the common folk who are under its protection. It is this approach that makes common folk repose so much of faith and trust in the representatives of organized crime. So dependent are they on this slumlord for dispute redressal, that, were he to stand for election, his community will vote for him, never mind the number of cases the government may have slapped against him. He represents safety, not the police. Obviously, he will get elected, if his community is large enough to form the majority in the constituency where the voting is to take place.
Inevitably, the slumlord’s rise to power is never easy. He knows that when he protects a commoner’s daughter, he may be rubbing some other powerful person the wrong way. He also knows that the powerful person may be protected by the police and the establishment, and therefore uses the only method he can summon — the threat of retaliation. Expectedly, the powerful man hits back by complaining to the police. That is how cases get piled up against the slumlord. He knows that the greater the number of common people he protects, the larger will be the number of cases he will be slapped with.
Finally, he knows that the only way he can change the equation is by increasing the size of his community and becoming an elected representative. That leads to the patronage of more slums, more violence, and dadagiri (bullying). It is in this manner that the criminal arrives on the political scene and becomes a representative of the people. But why couldn’t the slumlord approach the courts? Because he knows that the courts will not hear the matter for years, and the girl who fears molestation will be dishonored several times over during the intervening period. When courts fail to move quickly, the police too support only the powerful.
To counter this, one has to muster people against the system, even the police. The leader of such a group again becomes a slumlord. And he eventually becomes the ‘elected’ representative. The more the delay in cases, the more such slumlords will arise, and the more will be the clash between government and mafia. Who is legitimate depends on which side you are on? If you are the father of the girl who was threatened with molestation and had sought protection from the slumlord, the latter is legitimate and relevant.
The government then becomes the usurper, which means ‘the mafia’.
Suggested readings:
Support our site by clicking through our Amazon link to make your purchases.
For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:
