Governments and extortion.

[Ezekel]

It was an error, probably not there fault at all. Where the specific people you were talking to being jerks about it, yes. Is it the governments fault, no. Did they do it purposefully to make you pay 75$, no. So they did not use illegally use their position of power to get money, errors are not illegal. Did you deserve the money back, yes, and you got it by legal means.

I was gonna reply with a serious post then thought fuck it, what's the point? And OF COURSE the government was at fault. When you do something wrong, it's your fault. I have no idea what their motivation was, it might be because the town's had a deficit budget for years and years. Did they purposely do it to make me pay $75? Not from the start. However, once the utilities was shut off, yes it was all about the $75. Every post till now was basically telling the OP that he's wrong for having such thoughts. So believe what you want.

The government is not at fault, the one person in charge of utilities and such who made the error is. The charge is standard, you pay it then get it back if you prove that they made an error. The people at the town hall you talked to are probably required to take the money to turn them back on, they had no way of knowing that you were telling the truth. They also are not the Government.

Extortion implies that they were using their power to gain money from you purposefully. What happened was an error. Errors happen, and while yes it is somebodies "fault" when it happens you can hardly call it extortion. The government had nothing to do with it, short of maybe hiring the guy who made the mistake.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

So let me get this straight: You have a problem with your local authority. They cut off your electricity and water for three days, and then demanded a fee to fix this. But then you got the fee back.



WHERE IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!?

 

[Malkavian]

I said read through more carefully because this is an exercise in reading comprehension. The OP's post was about government using legal means to extort money. My example was the government using illegal means to extort money. Both of your comments were basically to simply vote for someone else. Which one of these three have nothing to do with the OP? The comparison he made to the crime syndicate was in the way they enforced their laws.

So the OP asks us if the legal means utilised by the government reminds us of Crime Syndicates. He asks us. we reply: "no, since we elect our own officials. You do not elec your local crime syndicate".
We answer. We give reason for our answer.
You reply with a story of your own, in which you have been slighted by government officials in a way that is closer to illegal.
You don't answer. You change the subject.
And while you do it so slightly that it is even releant, you are the one off topic, not us. Find some other grounds to attack us, if you must. Accusing us of not reading the OP's thread properly, is giving me the lulz.

 

[DoW Lowen]

Please don't compare crime syndicates to the government.

The government makes some douche bag decisions, but unless you're living in some corrupt South American town run by former SS nazi's, you should generally be content with the way your life is. And they normally won't drag you away kicking and screaming unless you're doing something quite illegal or dangerous.

Also the methods use by a crime syndicate and the government are completely different. Don't pay your bills, you get your water cut off. Don't pay your protection money, you lose your fingers instead. Different league there buddy.

 

[sequio]

The government is not at fault, the one person in charge of utilities and such who made the error is. The charge is standard, you pay it then get it back if you prove that they made an error. The people at the town hall you talked to are probably required to take the money to turn them back on, they had no way of knowing that you were telling the truth. They also are not the Government.

Extortion implies that they were using their power to gain money from you purposefully. What happened was an error. Errors happen, and while yes it is somebodies "fault" when it happens you can hardly call it extortion. The government had nothing to do with it, short of maybe hiring the guy who made the mistake.

lol wow I can't believe the excuses you guys make for people you don't know with only tidbits of knowledge from what i tell you. The utilities was an error, the $75-or-no-service was not. They did know i was telling the truth. You would know that if you ever went to a town hall to discuss your utilities; they look up their records on the spot. And yes, i waited for them to check and come back. As for them not being the "Government" they are the local government. While you're at it, i suppose Kenneth Lay was just a person and not Enron; Enron just made the mistake of hiring a guy who made the mistake. Are you serious? Also, I never said it was 1 person, i said THEM you know multiple people like everyone that was present at the town hall that day.

 

[ellimist337]

Sorry for the trouble you utility scuffle caused, sequio, but I have to generally agree with Kwil, Ezekel, and Longshot in that it's not really a case of extortion. It's the same principle as your bank making a mistake against you, and debiting your account an amount of money. Perhaps this unplanned and unauthorized debit overdraws your account, or leaves you with so little money that you overdraw it paying bills or buying groceries and you didn't know the money wasn't there.

Would it be the banks fault? Would it be embarrassing if your debit card was declined somewhere? Is it a massive inconvenience if there are overdraft fees that take you even more negative and the whole thing takes days and multiple visits to the bank to sort out? Yes, on all counts. But in the end, you will get all the money back, and you haven't been extorted. The bank, in charging you fees or delaying when the money is put back in your account is part of a process, and part of their policies. They have to do it, even though it wasn't your fault.

Is it wrong? Sure. But just because they followed their procedures, and you had to follow another legal procedure to rectify the first, both of which majorly inconvenienced you, does not mean it was extortion. I'm not defending anybody; what they did was unfair and might not be the best way to do it, but it's how it's done.

EDIT: Also, the democratic process does not end when you leave the voting booth on election day. Have you ever written to your representative or a senator from your state? (And I mean outside of any school assignments where everybody had to write one you didn't really care about.) I can assure you that I have, and that they do work. An official might not know whether you voted them in last time, but if you write telling them what you want done and they don't do it, they know it's likely a vote they definitely won't have next time.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Basic sociology... the government is essentially the same as crime groups, but it's a lot bigger. It's power is acquired the same way but it is viewed as legitimate.

 

[sequio]

So the OP asks us if the legal means utilised by the government reminds us of Crime Syndicates. He asks us. we reply: "no, since we elect our own officials. You do not elec your local crime syndicate".
We answer. We give reason for our answer.
You reply with a story of your own, in which you have been slighted by government officials in a way that is closer to illegal.
You don't answer. You change the subject.
And while you do it so slightly that it is even releant, you are the one off topic, not us. Find some other grounds to attack us, if you must. Accusing us of not reading the OP's thread properly, is giving me the lulz.

Wait...so the question was whether or not the method of legally enforcing a law is reminiscent of criminals illegally enforcing their own rules and you answer with no because you can't elect criminals? The topic: does government enforcement of laws resemble how criminals operate i.e. protection money. You're response: no because you can't elect criminals. Do you not see it?

 

[RebelRising]

For the most part, you elect your leaders to represent you, and they approve the laws passed.

So, what exactly was your point?

That governments can only use extortion to enforce their laws.

As they rightfully should, if we get too comfortable or unruly. If extortion and/or threats to personal well-being keep the mob in line and have things running smoothly, so be it.

Call me an enabler, but whether they're elected or otherwise, leaders' main commission is to maintain stability and limit mob rule as best as they can. Governments never achieve anything by being nice and pandering. They make the laws, and if enough people don't like them, they can start a revolution for all I care. Either they'll all be dealt with swiftly, or they'll succeed and the country will descend into disorganized, bloody chaos until the next strong ruler comes along to tidy things up. And he'd best use intimidation or whatever else if he needs to.

 

[ellimist337]

So the OP asks us if the legal means utilised by the government reminds us of Crime Syndicates. He asks us. we reply: "no, since we elect our own officials. You do not elec your local crime syndicate".
We answer. We give reason for our answer.
You reply with a story of your own, in which you have been slighted by government officials in a way that is closer to illegal.
You don't answer. You change the subject.
And while you do it so slightly that it is even releant, you are the one off topic, not us. Find some other grounds to attack us, if you must. Accusing us of not reading the OP's thread properly, is giving me the lulz.

Wait...so the question was whether or not the method of legally enforcing a law is reminiscent of criminals illegally enforcing their own rules and you answer with no because you can't elect criminals? The topic: does government enforcement of laws resemble how criminals operate i.e. protection money. You're response: no because you can't elect criminals. Do you not see it?

The argument against this is that when the "mob" or whoever extorts "protection money" it's most often to protect you from that same entity. When your taxes fund police, the police don't protect you from themselves, they protect you from others. Therein lies the difference.

 

[black lincon]

Something that crossed my mind a few days ago:
When a government passes a law, whether it be a tax hike, a criminalization of a substance, banning of a certain media source (games, films) etc, people are given a choice. The choice being to either adhere to the standards undemocratically set by the government and relinquish a certain amount of money or a certain product, or be dragged to a prison cell and have some of your money removed. And if you refuse to be taken to prison or have your money removed, you will be incapacitated forcefully. If you resist the incapacitation, you will be physically harmed to coerce you into submission (usually achieved through electrocution or applying harmful gases to the eyes). If you defend yourself with the same zeal that you are attacked with, you will probably be shot.

Does this remind anyone else of the tactics used by organized crime syndicates?
Just a thought.

That would be a more interesting idea if you didn't over simplify the justice system. Now for starters saying law is undemocratic is stupid, I'm sorry for being blunt but every government has laws, if we didn't the country would become a real life version of /b/. the point of law is to explain to idiots what they can and can't do.

If you don't have someone telling people crack is bad, more people will do crack. to fund this entity that tells us that we can't do crack because it will kill us they need money(taxes) and we as the people benefiting from the actions it takes to keep us safe are and aught to be required to pay it.

You also seem to lack a certain amount of knowledge about the mafia. Protection money, which is what I assume your comparing taxes to, wasn't money given so the mafia would protect you, you gave it to them so they wouldn't kill you. taxes go to the government so they can protect us, if you don't pay taxes you go to jail where the government gets other people to pay for your living.

On top of all this you lack a knowledge of police techniques. When the police arrest you they don't attack you unless you attack them at which point they have every right to knock you out.

"Painful gasses to the eyes" as you put it, are only used in crowd control and would never find their way into your home unless your keeping a mob in there. Resisting through the same methods, i.e. tear gas or tazer, would be futile in the case of the later and impossible in the case of the former. Tear gas is usually fired through a grenade launcher, those are illegal to own, and if you got an actual grenade filled with tear gas you would find it hard to use because the gas is easily avoidable unless your target is a crowd of policemen. The tazer on the other hand wouldn't work well because if they were going to arrest you they would send two+ policemen so after you fire the tazer the other policemen are already subduing you. In both cases they have no need to shoot at you, and if you say that if you have a gun and are shooting at the police they shouldn't be able to shoot back, you are a buffoon.

 

[sequio]

The argument against this is that when the "mob" or whoever extorts "protection money" it's most often to protect you from that same entity. When your taxes fund police, the police don't protect you from themselves, they protect you from others. Therein lies the difference.

Oh, I'm not saying that the government/crime syndicates are the same. The protection money was a bad example. I was thinking along the lines of taxes i.e. pay it or we take your home. I'm just saying that their approach sometimes seem to be similar. I don't know how elections came into this.

 

[sequio]

Okay my last post because gonna head to bed: please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

I know Wiki isn't the best but it would be difficult to read the book.

 

[ellimist337]

Oh, I'm not saying that the government/crime syndicates are the same. The protection money was a bad example. I was thinking along the lines of taxes i.e. pay it or we take your home. I'm just saying that their approach sometimes seem to be similar. I don't know how elections came into this.

OK, sorry; I guess I was just a little confused as to what you were going for. I guess I just figure that they're different because tax money goes to help you for totally separate issues, and I can understand something like the repossession of a house to the government, through a bank, if taxes are owes and unpayable in any other way. You are getting a lot in return (though not so much in the military spending; that's for sure). I definitely see your argument, though.

 

[guardian001]

1)It's not undemocratic if it is the will of the majority. There is a difference between democracy and you getting what you want.
2)The job of the police is to enforce the laws voted upon by the majority (note that this again is the democratic majority, not you personally). If you respond to their efforts with force, they are not going to sit back and take a beating. If you are stupid enough to use force, they are going to use force back.
3)

For the most part, you elect your leaders to represent you, and they approve the laws passed.

So, what exactly was your point?

That governments can only use extortion to enforce their laws.

"Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs, when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion"

It's not extortion. If you broke the law, it is fully legal for them to stop you/prevent you from doing so in the future. What you're thinking of seems to be just plain old enforcement. If they don't enforce the laws, the laws cease to have meaning, and suddenly I am in possession of your computer/tv/stereo, and there is nothing you can do about it because you complained about people enforcing laws.
Enforcing laws is a necessity. Learn to live with it.

 

[Malkavian]

The argument against this is that when the "mob" or whoever extorts "protection money" it's most often to protect you from that same entity. When your taxes fund police, the police don't protect you from themselves, they protect you from others. Therein lies the difference.

Oh, I'm not saying that the government/crime syndicates are the same. The protection money was a bad example. I was thinking along the lines of taxes i.e. pay it or we take your home. I'm just saying that their approach sometimes seem to be similar. I don't know how elections came into this.

It came into this becuase we have chosen our own officials. Meaning: We elected people who we knew would operate this way. Of we truly felt slighted by this, the solution is to vote for someone else; or at least present the threat of voting for someone else. i really don't see why you keep on flogging this dead horse. It was a relevant answer to what the OP actually asked.
If you are opposed to how the government works, fine. But the comparison between them and crime syndicates

Oh, I'm not saying that the government/crime syndicates are the same. The protection money was a bad example. I was thinking along the lines of taxes i.e. pay it or we take your home. I'm just saying that their approach sometimes seem to be similar. I don't know how elections came into this.

that is, "pay taxes or we take your home" compared to "give us money, or we will slice you up" is weak. Oh, it is pretty similar put that way, but when you present it this way, it is comparable to everything. "Do as your sergeant tells you, or give me 50 pushups" "Make sure I have the report on friday, or you're fired" "Agree on settlement, or I will sue you for a larger sum of money"... I could go on, find additional examples, but I think I have made my point.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Basic sociology... the government is essentially the same as crime groups, but it's a lot bigger. It's power is acquired the same way but it is viewed as legitimate.

Basic sociology? The continuous government of, say, India, was acquired by Britain saying: "well, we don't want to tell you what to do anymore, make up your own minds". With America it was "Well, we dislike the King so we're forming our own government."

Your argument, sir, is only valid in the case of governments descended from monarchic/feudal systems, such as England, whereby power was acquired by means of force and terror. However, the governments of most countries were actually achieved by means of popular uprising, or election. In short, your argument is possibly the weakest one outside the field of Randist economics, and will be disregarded henceforth.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Basic sociology... the government is essentially the same as crime groups, but it's a lot bigger. It's power is acquired the same way but it is viewed as legitimate.

Basic sociology? The continuous government of, say, India, was acquired by Britain saying: "well, we don't want to tell you what to do anymore, make up your own minds". With America it was "Well, we dislike the King so we're forming our own government."

Your argument, sir, is only valid in the case of governments descended from monarchic/feudal systems, such as England, whereby power was acquired by means of force and terror. However, the governments of most countries were actually achieved by means of popular uprising, or election. In short, your argument is possibly the weakest one outside the field of Randist economics, and will be disregarded henceforth.

I was merely pointing out to you that power is an illusion. There is no true power. If today everyone decided to not listen to the government then the government would have no power. Power is only maintained so long as people obey because they believe that there is power. The government is simply the authority in the nation that has the best open illusion of power. Addition unofficial sources always have as much if not more power.

Additionally the government can maintain this power through the ever present threat of force. If you don't follow orders then we have law enforcement. If you try to revolt, then we have a military. It doesn't matter how a government came to power, if it does not have the threat of violence to protect itself, then it has no power. It will be ignored or simply destroyed in a quick coup. Force is needed to maintain government, so violence must be used in an organized manner to maintain government.

Also, most government do come to power by way of some violence. I have heard of very few peaceful uprising and spontaneous forming of peaceful governments. Even if I'm off on this, most historical governments throughout history have come to be through way of invasion or uprising.

Perhaps I was unclear before, but I was lazy and didn't want to have to write out a lot.

 

[_Serendipity_]

The original argument is flawed. Of course a government, at least a legitimate democratic government, is nothing like a gang (or whatever), the reason being we elect them.

You forget the fact that when a government does things that most of the people object to, and then puts down the dissent with force they aren't a democratic government anymore.

Essentially, what you are saying is that governments act like criminals when they they are being criminals.