Wacking is a privilege, not a right.

This concept is so easy to support, yet so hard to imagine. Tradition would argue that wacking is an exclusive privilege granted to mobsters by their boss; a privilege that can be instantly revoked. Social conventions, however, would argue that no crew leader really treats wacking this way; most times they prop up guidelines to keep you out of trouble and hope you follow the rules. You are then left to your own devices to determine how you will utilize this power. So what is it? Is it a privilege granted to us from a crewleader? Or a right that gets suspended in emergencies or when the rules are broken?

I'd say it's a right, because imagine if someone tried to universally suspend the ability to wack. How long do you think that guy would stay in power if he told everyone not to wack anything? Not too long. It's entirely impractical at that level, and I think it's entirely impractical on a crew level as well. If a crewleader told all his members they can no longer train a gun, they'd feel betrayed, if not bewildered. For some, that's the only reason they show up for work!

Guns don't come from crewleaders, either. They can come from crewleaders, but most guns are acquired by earning it with a sufficient number of crimes. And it is quite easy to own and operate a gun without a crew; so it seems like your ability to use your gun is an extension of yourself rather than something granted to you by a crewleader.

However, these approaches are based on convention. With so many things to kill now-a-days, we've developed a cultural habit (if not a cultural requirement) of training guns even though this was originally something reserved for the few select hitmen of a city. So do we revert to tradition and restrict wacking to a privilege, or do we roll with cultural conventions and consider training a gun a basic right to all mobsters? Are there any other "rights" that these cultural and social conventions outline for us?

Ivan takes a break from managing his bar, The Hammer and Sickle, to help answer a friend. 

Denam.

You're right. We've definitely developed a cultural habit in the art of shooting. I mean there hasn't been so many targets or things to shoot at since, ever really. It really is a new habit on the basis that everyone is shooting. You mentioned back in the day there were only a select few who were hitters. And well it is quite the opposite now. And I think I prefer it this way. Reason being is that it now puts people in a place where anyone is killable. More people are training to become a hitter, and more people are now accountable for their actions or words. No one is truly untouchable anymore like it may have been in the past.

One "right" that has always been there but hasn't always been held in high regard until lately, is the "right" to speak your mind in the streets. As much as it is a "right" to speak on our streets, it was feared in the past I think. I believe as of late with the change in powers on top, more and more people are approaching the streets to speak about things they normally wouldn't. And I for one love the fact that they are. 

I may have not given the best answer or one even... but I hope it makes sense.

This is an interesting discussion and I intend to highjack it to promote one of my ideas.

If a Made man from Crew A shoots dead an Earner from Crew B, it should NOT automatically follow that this is a declaration of war or even an act punishable by death.  Of course, the MM from Crew A should be required to attend a sit-down and questioned about his action, and most likely pay for it (and the crew), and very possibly still be killed, but if the Oath and the induction mean anything, they mean the right to do anything.

It would lead to greater selection when it comes to getting guys Made and considerably more Kudos being attached to those who have achieved the rank.  And, of course, it would stop pissant WiseGuys slating Mades on the Streets.

As for the prevelance of guns and shooting - yeah, it's something that could and even should be controlled.  But let's face it, it works in a CL's favour to have an experienced and armed group of shooters about, doesn't it?

But let's face it, it works in a CL's favour to have an experienced and armed group of shooters about, doesn't it?

I think this may be what needs discussed. If we assume that it is in the powers of the CL to limit how many people he has training their guns, should he? It seems impractical to reduce the number of people training their guns, but it may lead to an argument of quality vs. quantity. Are wars decided by a group of small guns, or one large gun? Doesn't an exceptionally-trained gun trump a few mediocre guns when BGs get absurdly high? Plus, isn't it cheaper to BG up one or two strong hitters instead of five decent guns? It seems like the practicality of the scenario is tipping more towards making training a privilege than a right. If there is a limited number of targets available (Durds, IAs), it seems like it would behoove the leader to concentrate those targets in the hands of certain exceptional hitmen rather than have them spread out.

More people are training to become a hitter, and more people are now accountable for their actions or words. No one is truly untouchable anymore like it may have been in the past.

I think one of the biggest things that has worked in favor of this movement is the introduction of MIAs. Before, the only "private" way to train your gun was with training ranges; if you wanted to move past that you had to take kills from other people (by beating them in races). Now, you have a hopper of targets waiting for you as soon as you can afford them (and those targets are effectively offered only to you). So there's a more personalized training regiment now as people now can train a gun without "taking" any targets from anyone else. So more people can train a gun without there being a shortage of bums to race for. So this allows more people to train, but is it good to put everyone in the "hitter" category? Has the introduction of MIAs turned Our Thing into a kill-focused culture?

but if the Oath and the induction mean anything, they mean the right to do anything.

While I understand the roots of your argument Mr. Kuklinski and agree that they do have some merit and warrant discussion, I feel something here should be addressed first.

In no case that I'm aware of has a button man died for killing an associate. In all cases I'm aware of button men have died for breaking their leaders rules. When earning a button it comes with great rewards, you are due increased power and opportunity, but it also carries with it increased responsibilities. When you represent a family as a button man you're expected to uphold the family rules and adhere to them without fault. If you can't do that, you don't deserve the button and as we know in most cases that is only removed in the morgue. 

So this allows more people to train, but is it good to put everyone in the "hitter" category? Has the introduction of MIAs turned Our Thing into a kill-focused culture?

I don't necessarily think its a good idea to place everyone in the hitter category. I know some people over the vast years have been tagged as a hitter because of the key principles it takes to live by. Thats another discussion in all, however, no I do not think it is good to tag everyone as a hitter. Because most people do not know what it means to be a real hitter.

It has turned this "thing of ours" into a culture of killing. The very basis of this thing these days is almost who can train the quickest. Who can I hit successfully and maybe out live for a couple more months. This whole new culture is very driven by the gun. You can see this with the other practice of spawning durdens. Which is now a regular practice given to us by the gods.

I believe shooting dead BG's, Durdens, and your own spawns is your right. Anything on any IA list is a privilege. 

I am going to bypass the moral element of this question; everybody who has met me should know my opinions on the indelible rights of the proletariat. If you don't, I am doing something wrong.

Let's talk about the practical element, though. If a leader decides, completely incorrectly, that wacking is not a right, can he enforce this? No, he cannot. Anyone who tries to suppress the majority will eventually suffer the effects of glorious revolution.

The reason this way of life we have works is because we enter into a tacit social contract. The civilians don't want to die, so they enlist the support of a crew. In response for protection, they give money. Eventually, this transaction becomes more complicated as we look to the true 'honoured society' of those who are made, but that it is not particularly relevant to this conversation.

My central point is the majority have no reason to challenge this social contract, and why would they? They give up a percentage of their income in return for safety, and the relative freedom to train a gun, to speak freely and to make more money, all within reason of course. Their alternative is to stay crewless and become a mutual enemy of every crew; a fate that will almost certainly result in death, because we are talking about an individual against the entire weight of the American arm of this thing of ours.

Now, if the Leaders collectively stripped away these rights tomorrow and decided only a select, trusted few (which by very definition would be an extremely small minority) then we would have revolt. The social contract would be rejected because not only would the majority have more freedoms in being crewless, but the powerful elite is now too small in number to effectively 'police' the majority which buck the trend.

In short, wacking is a right because the majority perceive it to be a right; it is a self perpetuating truth. There is only two ways that the ruling elite can treat it like a privilege. One, they remove the right from people in an incremental basis until they reach a critical point at which the policy no longer works; then they restore the right to the group of people who were the tipping point. In this case, the 'wacking is a right' opinion may be mainstream, but the right is denied to a percentage of people who are just about unable to sway the status quo.

Alternatively, they can seek to sway public opinion over an extremely long term time frame until people are eventually in an agreement that wacking is a privilege rather than a right.

I am, of course, talking entirely hypothetically. Each is as unlikely to happen as the last and I'm sure such draconian measures would incite divine intervention at any case.

Guevara I appreciate your ongoing support for the proletariat and your thoughts here. Out of curiosity, however, I would like to raise a single contention with something you said. You mentioned that if we weren't allowed to train a gun and that the freedom to do so were entrusted to a select few, the social contract would be rejected because the majority would have more freedoms in being without a crew.

That seems contradictory to what you had just described. You listed all the reasons not to go crewless (which all effectively stem from the protection granted to you from your crewleader), but in the absence of just one of those reasons, you believe that the people would revolt? I will have to disagree with you on that. I think that more people would prefer the protection and safety of a crew than their gun training liberties. I truly don't think this is an impossible scenario, either.

It obviously wouldn't happen all at once (that would be far too obvious), but over time crews could slowly dial back who trains and who doesn't until the process is left entirely up to professional hitmen. The contrary position to this would be to use your eroding gun liberties to eliminate your only form of protection, and I think that is a position that very few people would take. This is just a thought experiment (and a fun one, if I say so myself), so I am quite interested to hear any additional thoughts you have on this.

If the majority of a crew does not have the ability to train a gun, how is a crew safe? I mentioned the idea of a tipping point; there is certainly a stage at which the benefits of being crewless outweigh the benefits of being in a crew when enough people do it.

The biggest factor, of course, in gaining a crew is that you don't die! However, let's use an extreme example. 99% of mobster reject the status quo and go crewless, 1% remain in crews. The establishment no longer has the power to police our thing because the majority simply reject its premise.

Being crewless is no more safe than it used to be, but being in a crew no longer provides the unique protection it used to do. Furthermore, the 'crewed' as a collective simply do not have the ability to enforce the status quo because their numbers are simply too small.

Essentially, my argument is that if you push the majority enough, the majority will revolt. Revolutions are usually (or even always!) unsuccessful. It takes the form of BG wacking, anonymous hitlisting and so on - you get the idea. Why? Because only a very small percentage are actually truly bothered about what leaders are doing at any one time. If you create a situation where a sizable enough percentage of people reach breaking point, change occurs. I think unilaterally banning wack, save for a privileged group of elite individuals, we would have the same result.

Chris is walking down the street when he hears a squabble about the right to shoot.

Listen up jabronis, The Rock, the most electrifying man in all of Mafialand is here to lay it on the line for you all. Guevara, you talk about the Peoples mandate, that crews only exist because we allow them to exist, that's not exactly true. Let the People's champ explain why. You see, even if 99% of all mobsters quit their crews and decided to go it alone, the 1% that remained would be strong enough to whoop all their asses. You have everything in favour of the collective unit and nothing in favour of the individual. The Cl gets boosted by his crew, the Right hand gets boosted to. They have levels of protection from their home city, their fortifications, the Roody poo candy ass members, loyalty protection, even jabroni's willing to jump in front of a bullet. Everything is stacked against the individual. One decent godfather crew could take down 1000 individuals of all ranks in pretty short order unless all the individuals worked as a team. And by working as a team they may as well be in a crew.

The Rock's great, great, great, great, great great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great great, great, great, great, great grandpappy stood on the shores of that distant land called dot org and made it all the way to the lofty heights of earner, unsponsored and with out assistance, something that had never been done before. He had all the jabroni CLs out gunning for him, placing bounties on him, whilst he ran hs mouth, dissing them in public, telling the people how it was, revealing to the world just how shit the current regime of his day was. One man against the world. And that is were the story ended. My Grandpappy didn't change the world, he didn't effect change on a global scale, he was a minor irritation in the sides of the leaders for 10 days or so, and that was it. You see there's yet another thing stopping the individuals from rising up against the order of things, and that's the glass ceiling. The ceiling that says whoa, whoa, whoa jabroni, you can't go any further, you need a crew for that promotion.

But back to the original discussion. Simple fact of the matter is this. The only reason you can shoot at all, is because your CL says you can. Your CL doesn't want you to shoot, he revokes your auth, he takes your gun, he fits you for a pine box. Hell the Brahma bull himself could just mug your ass and take away your right to shoot. Your CL can shut down the family armoury, he can send his RHM to lay the smackdown on your candy ass. Suffice it to say, shooting, whacking, killing, wacking whatever you want to call it is not a right, but a privilege. No matter what anyone says about how things are, or how they've been or what has and hasn't been allowed since time immorial, shooting is still a priviledge, and its something your CL can take awy from you as quick as Batiatus puts cock in fucking ass!

If you Smeeeeeeeeeell-ah, what the Rock is Cookin'!