Welcome to the Daily Debate

The place to meander down well-trodden paths, air previously bottled up thoughts or just moan that you’re seeing the same re-hashed discussions about the same tired subjects.

Disclaimer – the daily aspect is to provide an alliterative title and not a guarantee of frequency, could just as easily be called the monthly musings – no refunds will be available to disappointed patrons.

Death and Destruction: How Much Is Too Much?

Ever since my father took up his life of crime to support the blossoming restaurant he had built he was able to take advantage of a prolonged era of peace.  The “one family” approach at the time was not to everyone’s taste but did allow those around at the time to develop their skills, build a reputation or make names for themselves in whatever manner they felt fit.

Without the daily fear of waking up dead…well not waking up at all obviously…or being gunned down as you innocently ate a pasty from the many bakeries and shops that would spring up in every city, it seemed to be a halcyon age for everyone.  Yet people came into this world expecting one thing and ended up retiring in disillusionment or boredom.

Now, we find ourselves living through a similar period of calm, a slightly different dynamic perhaps but calm nonetheless.  Yet despite the scope to build and prosper, retirals are on the increase.

So…when wars come and go…people retire because there’s too much killing.
When peace rules all…people retire because there not enough killing (perhaps).

The debate isn’t about war and peace as concepts because that’s been done…. ahem…to death…but what is the right amount of killing if too much or too little is bad?  

Are the options like mowing a lawn…small amounts frequently, leaving it all summer and going at it biblical style with a scythe or in an unconventional manner with a goat?

The floor is yours.

Next time – City Hopping: Jumping From A Frying Pan Into A Fire?

This is an interesting question Louis, thank you for pondering it. 

Like any debate the answer to the question is subjective. It's dependent on an individuals personality traits and I would also argue it is dependent on that persons status within our society. We all know the overwhelming majority of people retiring are people who are not in power or have become Made Men in general. So what about those who are retiring as button men? I cannot speak for them so I do not know.

Me personally? I think any amount of killing without just cause is too much killing, but my definition of just cause could be different from others. In that regard it is difficult to generalize this stance as every conflict is fluid in it's own right. I tend to have respect for killing people who are threats to our society, my crew, district, allies etc a hell of a lot more than "we felt like it." 

Essentially if it can be handled diplomatically, I think that should be the first course of action before getting ready to end lives. I enjoy the peace time and the longer the better I say. 

On the other hand, too much killing is something these shores have been witness to. When powerful people start annihilating cities for no reason other than paranoia or for the fuck of it.... Of course people will retire.. If you're not expected to live to actually do anything I wouldn't want this job either. Also I wouldn't feel OK supporting a leader that does that to people. 

The "this is the mafia" argument is a very lazy argument for mass murder. In this thing of ours we are primarily suppose to be making money, right? Making a name for ourselves, obtaining power, rank etc.. Well, killing large amounts of people in a war is pretty expensive and a risky business that could end your own life also. 

From a leadership perspective... I really am not comfortable with the idea of sending those that have entrusted me with making decisions and ensuring their safety to war for the fun of it. If I am going to be sending my family to fight and possibly die.. You bet your ass I will have a good reason for it. 

So to simplify what I have said here today: 

What is the right amount of killing? There really is none, it all depends on the stability of our society. We are in a period of peace right now so the right amount of killing is next to none. In times of turmoil or conflict you will see the amount of killing required to return to peace increase. 

Godfather Mezzo,

I don't believe these souls retire or 'off themselves' due to the lack of killing in this world. Even a young pope like me has to get his hands and robe dirty defending the church against Tyler's gang of heathens. There's been many of days like today where only gun shots and explosions can be heard as the Delaware criminals are disposed of and their headquarters destroyed and pillaged. Murder is a constant in our line of work so that can't be it. I think we see people retire more as with peace comes a long life and stagnancy. Some can live with things staying the exact same for the most part as they create their own entertainment be it in the streets or in the business district, while others crave excitement and constant change. Seattle seems to be the only place where people can try to make a name for themselves but due to many restrictions and again such long life spans most the community isn't eligible unless they send their kin into the fray.

I'll stop rambling and answer your question; there really is no 'right amount' of killing. There's only too much, which typically happens when a leader or group make their move for domination. They usually will remove one area after another and repopulate it with their own henchmen. That can be seen as too much killing as it really is an abundance and happens in short periods of time. Sometimes though we are led by a mad wo/man that feels the need to keep the masses restricted at a distance by killing off people whom have established themselves as effective killers, or that have lived long enough that there's an even slight risk they have trained up. 

The only time you will hear of complaining surrounding too little killing is from someone that lacks empathy, typically a sadistic and cruel monster.

Thank you for your time.

So, as a slightly related follow-up:

What is the best dynamic to keep the peace yet still create just the right amount of tension that keeps people from going to the old country, setting up an olive oil grove and falling asleep on a deckchair safe in the knowledge that killing is going on elsewhere?

Is it one city keeping control?

Is it two strong cities potentially butting heads in an apocalyptic fashion where the streets are stained with blood of a hundred men and women?

Is it three unrelated groups in a Mexican standoff? Watching the other two knowing if someone makes a move the one left standing can pick over the carcasses and attract all the unhappy next of kin?

Six independent cities each of them a febrile pot of ambition where there is no point looking outwards because you need to be wary of threats from within?

Without wanting to incite a South Philly internal rebellion, is the key to limited death and destruction of other cities having more independence within the districts much like competition cities where no one person rules until they hit GF?  That is something to touch on in an upcoming Daily Debacle Debate

Disclaimer - I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Wally had sat there listening to the initial statements and some of the follow up ones. The ideas and opinions were swimming around in his brain as if there was a whirlpool and they were all fighting to get to the top. The topic was definitely one that inspired him to truly think about it. Killing was an essential part of the criminal underworld as it was the way to rise to the top, expand operations, and in some cases preemptively protect what is yours. 

He scratched his chin before deciding to share his two cents, "So I'll probably focus on your initial statements and questions at first before moving on to your follow up. I think you bring up plenty of good points and questions."

"So, I believe that peace is great and obviously has some drawbacks. You cannot expect to see good growth across the mafia underworld if people are consistently being wacked across the country. It would be a hard sell to any young aspiring criminals to get into organized crime if they thought that they'd be dead within a couple weeks. If instead you could sell them the idea or hope that they would see an exponentially longer life of crime then I think they'd be more interested in staying around." He paused to catch his breath.

"To be clear though, I'm more referring to killing on a massive scale on a consistent basis. If it seems to be a cycle of 'wipe out Los Angeles, wipe out Chicago, wipe out....' you get the point. That sort of thing will create the negative sales pitch I stated before. I also believe that in some instances you need to see some conflict though." He could hear some mumbles from the crowd nearby.

"I don't want to be seen as 'pro-war'. I don't want to kill anyone if I don't have to. Sometimes it is just a necessary evil that must come to pass. Perhaps another city poses a threat to you and you cannot trust them or one of theirs shot one of yours and now it is time to take action. There are a multitude of reasons to take out another city or district. Yes, sometimes those reasons seem to be or are found to be utter bullshit. That's not the topic at hand though. There are times where a city gets too large and it is time for some people to run their own operations so there has to be an empty city. If there is not currently one then one has to be opened up." Wally stretched and cracked his back.

"Now the reasoning I stated about why wars should or can happen are things that need to be handled in a way that avoids causing conflict too often. Truly try every option you can to fix relations with another city or district if that is an option rather than just going to war. Also, you need to truly push the limits of your housing in the city before looking elsewhere for expansion. If you can find a nice balance between having to go to war and 'wanting' to go to war then I think that is ideal. If you can go months without conflict then more power to ya. It's a hard thing to do, but beneficial to most everyone when it happens." He paused for a moment, "So basically after all this rambling. I think that minimal killing is what is best for everyone, but you can't always avoid bloodshed."

"Moving on to your follow up questions, I'll try to answer most of them throughout my ramblings." He smirked.

"The best dynamic would ideally be multiple cities, possibly all of them, independent of one another. That is because it creates a situation where it is not necessary to drop hundreds of bodies in a war or takedown. Instead you'd have to hopefully only wipe out one city by itself. The problem is that most people who join this life find themselves being extremely loyal to those who gave them a chance at a crew or their own city. Which is something I cannot blame them for since anyone who doesn't follow the concept of loyalty tends to have a negative image painted of them. Therefore the more realistic situation would probably be the 'Mexican Standoff' as you put it. Three powerhouses with perhaps a few cities as 'supporting cast' or independent actors would truly keep things in check. It would also give people the feeling of not being loomed over by one single powerhouse which can sometimes drive people to the old country as you said." 

"The big issue is that it becomes hard for us to get to that sort of situation as well due to the loyalty aspect I pointed out and one other thing. That thing being how we have seen within the last couple years that many of these large powerhouses end in major bloodshed where one city comes out on top. They then expand into most of if not all the other cities while still retaining many of the larger guns and powerful mobsters. Therefore driving many angry kin or old mobsters into retirement as they don't feel welcome with those who are left in power." He smiled as he thought of how nice it would be to see the ideal power dynamics arise again in the years to come. 

"Like I've said before, most of what I believe to be ideal situations or ideal balances are hard to ever achieve. They come and go every so often just as the not-so-ideal situations do. If you want to see a decline in retirements then it's probably best to not see one city standing as the powerhouse. If you want to see pure peace standing for some time, but probably filled with retirements then have one powerhouse that stands tall above the rest and keeps people in line."

"That last thing I'd like to say though is that at the end of the day, those who can rise to the top do and should want to keep that spot. There is no reason to aspire to rise that high just to let somebody shoot you in the back of the head as you eat a nice plate of pasta. Don't go overboard with that power, but who in the mafia would ever want to just let somebody take that power from them?" He turned away from the group and looked down the street, "Well, that's my rambling on this topic. I'm sure I may have talked in circles at points or strayed slightly off topic so feel free to disagree with me or point out how I missed part of the point. Sometimes it's hard to truly consider every aspect of such a deep topic without straying a bit here or there."