Mafias are not all bad.

1) My opponent agrees to extend the term, "safe streets" to include homes, but not businesses. I disagree with this distinction. If the streets were free of muggers and homes were safe, would we declare the street safe if the businesses were being robbed and vandalized? The home above the business has no distinction from the business below in this respect. "Safe streets" must include the streets, homes, and businesses. I can find no logical argument to remove businesses from the definition. 2) As to the anecdotal evidence offered by Mr. Sowell's writings, I agree with my opponent when he rhetorically asks, "How would Mr. Sowell know such things?" How indeed, which was the very point I made in my 2R argument when I stated, "[T]he statement is not necessarily true for the reasons Mr. Sowell gives." Mr. Sowell and his wife were not privy to the dealing of the boss, and the underpinnings of the organization, neither am I as I don‘t know the boss he is referencing. Nor was he aware of protection money that may or may not have been paid by the businesses in the area. My point was to show that Mr. Sowell was attributing a positive to the presence of a mafia boss to safer streets which allowed for a business to operate. I contend he did not have all the information and if he did, he did not tell us in his economics text. 3) My opponent did not understand the reference I made to the union and the mafia, I will clarify. The Union and the Mafia have a history together and it is not a good one for businesses. Here is an excerpt from a book review dealing with the subject: "there is simply no doubt that some unions and their officials cooperated with organized crime, that criminals gained control of many union locals and few international unions, and that criminals and corrupt union officials enriched themselves at the expense of rank-and-file unionists, exploited businesspeople (Jacobs, however, fails to point out that the corrupt union and the affected business were often part of the same criminal operation), and mulcted the public." http://eh.net... Here is a decent article on the subject. The source is not primary, as I don't have access to the police files, but it is good. http://www.ipsn.org... 4) My opponent asks why the newsstand owner would need an assistant. Why not? Maybe he wants a vacation. The why aspect is not important. 5) My opponent is basing the safer street argument on a testimonial by Mr. Sowell. With no offense meant, Mr. Sowell is not a primary source as my opponent claims. He was not privy to all the information or did not share it, as I have shown. Because Mr. Sowell said so, is not good enough. I showed in R2 how the streets are not safer with a Mafia boss living nearby. My opponent is basing too much on an analogy in an economics book. 6) My opponent claims the mafia prevents random thugs from committing crimes. If this is true, I ask how is a street safer if muggings are the actions of a crew member, as opposed to a criminal not affiliated with the mafia? At least a mugging by a random thug, not a mafia thug, may result in a conviction as most random muggers do not have criminal organizations, known for jury tampering and witness intimidation, backing them. 7) My opponent asks for a showing that innocent civilians were killed by the mafia in the streets. No problem. http://www.florencenewspaper.it... http://www.nydailynews.com... (Cops and Mafia, the dimwits killed the wrong person "in the streets") http://ghostomjoad.wordpress.com... A list dedicated to the innocent victims of Mafia crime. And who can forget the accidental death of Gotti's son? http://en.wikipedia.org... Decent people do not handle problems in this manner. Nice neighbors right? The Gotti's killed this man because they were not responsible enough to watch their own child. This was an accident, the guy was just on his way home from work when this happened. The Gotti's may have kept the muggers away, but no one kept them away from this guy. These examples fulfill my opponent's request. 8) My opponent, sticking with Mr. Sowell's analogy, accurately states that Mr. Sowell would have told readers if he was forced to pay extortion fees, I completely agree, but so what? Mr. Sowell was not privy to the workings of the mob boss as I have shown. Because the mob boss did not bother with Sowell does not mean he left others out of his dealings. 9) My opponent ask whether black hand extortion occurs with random or certain people. I ask why this distinction is relevant? If the extortion occurs in garment businesses, meat packing industries, unions, etc. who cares? The act is the important aspect. The mafia may not randomly choose its victims in this crime but they choose them nonetheless. 10) My opponent seems sure Mr. Sowell would have mentioned extortion happening in the businesses on his street, while I am not sure he would have known. 11) Still on the example provided, my opponent thinks the muggers were informed or appeared informed on Sowell's street. As I have stated, Mr. Sowell was not privy to this information and he made a reasonable assumption to show an analogous example to an economic principle, nothing more. My opponent has extrapolated too much from this example. 12) My opponent asks why a mugger would risk his life for one mugging. I don't know why people do some of the stupid things they do, like mugging, as it is a high risk business with low profit returns. 13) My opponent still contends the mafia controlled street is safer as thugs rob random people and the mafia commits illegal, but not always unsafe, activities. I agree thugs rob random people and I agree that mafia thugs attack people on the streets. The only difference is the mafia is harder to prosecute due to their continuous practice of jury tampering and witness intimidation. I ask my opponent to list any illegal and safe activities practiced by the mafia. I will refute them. 14) My opponent abandoned the proposition concerning the very powerful street gangs I listed; I will address them no further. 15) I have no confusion concerning the resolution and by mafia, I am using the definition my opponent provided in R1 and further defined in R2, for my arguments. My opponent is attempting to show positive effects from these criminal organizations, so far the only one presented, safer streets, has been shown to be incorrect. I still maintain the mafia, as defined by the debate, is all bad and I need not use a net balance formula as I have not been shown one positive benefit. 16) I stated my con position at the end of R2, it still stands.