I have a soft spot for mafiosi who have rules that include killing only those who betray them. I think of them as stationary bandits - providing government services that "real" government is too weak to supply. (They often keep the peace, and if you pay protection money they really do protect you from other crime.) I don't see a big gap in "legitimacy" between them and "official" government. Each can be judged by their policies and effectiveness.
I agree with the last two sentences. However, I consider it to mean we should be more skeptical toward governments rather than meaning we should be less skeptical toward the mafia.
“It is unclear exactly how many murders can be attributed to him because he employed numerous sicarios (assassins) to carry out his orders for him and was always careful to avoid anything that would directly link him to the crime. However, he and his associates were probably responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths, including police officers, journalists, and high-ranking officials and politicians. He also funded social programs and housing projects to benefit the poor, such as Barrio Pablo Escobar as it is called today, a neighborhood he had constructed in Medellín to house the poor living in the city’s dump that still has nearly 13,000 residents.”
Sounds no worse than our government and all the other welfare states.
I have a soft spot for mafiosi who have rules that include killing only those who betray them. I think of them as stationary bandits - providing government services that "real" government is too weak to supply. (They often keep the peace, and if you pay protection money they really do protect you from other crime.) I don't see a big gap in "legitimacy" between them and "official" government. Each can be judged by their policies and effectiveness.
I agree with the last two sentences. However, I consider it to mean we should be more skeptical toward governments rather than meaning we should be less skeptical toward the mafia.
"The money he handed out was never his in the first place."
If he was receiving money via willing buyers of drugs, I'd say that the money was his.
“It is unclear exactly how many murders can be attributed to him because he employed numerous sicarios (assassins) to carry out his orders for him and was always careful to avoid anything that would directly link him to the crime. However, he and his associates were probably responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths, including police officers, journalists, and high-ranking officials and politicians. He also funded social programs and housing projects to benefit the poor, such as Barrio Pablo Escobar as it is called today, a neighborhood he had constructed in Medellín to house the poor living in the city’s dump that still has nearly 13,000 residents.”
Sounds no worse than our government and all the other welfare states.
"neighborhood he had constructed in Medellín to house the poor living in the city’s dump that still has nearly 13,000 residents"
The dump, or the neighborhood?