Mafia As Government Essays - American Mafia, Mafia,

Mafia As Government History and Introduction The history of the Mafia began in the ninth century, when a secret society was formed to protect the people of Sicily. Sicily was occupied by Arab forces. A group of Sicilians fled into the countryside to escape, and later to fight, the encroaching forces. This group became the Mafia. The groups original intentions were to create a sense of loyalty and respect for tradition, culture and family. The Mafia protected its' members interests and promoted protected individuals and businesses in exchange for loyalty and monetary tribute. As time passed, and the Mafia expanded to the Americas, the Mafia became more criminal, engaging in provision of illegal services and collection of taxes in defiance of the legitimate government. It is the purpose of this work to argue that the Mafia, a criminal organization, meets the criteria to be considered a government. The terms Mafia or mob used in this work should be considered to be synonymous and to refer to the American Mafia. The Mafias structure is similar in nature to a feudal government system, with agents reporting to regional governors, who in turn report to the organizations leader. While the mob may or may not possess an overall head, individual regions of the mob may be thought of as a form of local government. The Mafia, as it is currently being discussed, exists within the confines of the United States, and thus may be in competition with, or at least overlapping the geographic areas of other government systems. Definitions of Government Ayn Rand has much to say on the proper function of government, but it is unclear as to what she considers a formal definitionon of what exactly categorizes an organization as a government. Her most specific response to the question appears in the opening sentence of The Nature of Government. The opinion is that the use of force and the enforcement of rules should be limited to government. (Rand) Randall Holcombe references Robert Dahl and Max Weber, summarizing their points of view that a monopoly on the use of force in a given area is the defining characteristic of government, thus adding a spatial characteristic to the definition. Holcombe further points out that obviously a monopoly on the use of coercive force is not required as can be seen from examples of overlapping area and jurisdictional authority within the federal, state, and local governments in the United States. Finally Holcombe puts forth the idea that, for a positive economic view, the hallmark of government is the ability to tax all parties within a given geographical region, for the purpose of financing its operations. (Holcombe) Mafia as Government Would the Mafia meet the criteria of Rand, Dahl, or Weber? Except in certain isolated instances, probably not. The United States federal government exerts coercive influence over practically all individuals or firms living or operating within its boundaries, not to mention state and local agencies. Of course, by any definition requiring a monopoly of use of force, whether spatially limited or not, the real governments dont qualify as governments either. Following Holcombes definition, which does define the aforementioned federal, state, and local agencies as governments, where does the Mafia fall in respect to being considered as a government? In other words, can it be argued that the Mafia has the power to tax all businesses or individuals within a geographic area? Armed with only information from hearsay and popular culture, the answer would have to be yes. Systemized extortion or protection fees could very well be collected for all within a given area. It may be that the popular image is inaccurate, which may affect the classification, but for the sake of argument it is considered an accurate assessment here. The issue may be raised as to the legality of the mob. It may be argued that they cannot be considered a government as they are criminal. What is it that distinguishes the mob as criminal? Is it the services provided by the mob, which the real government has deemed illegal? Obviously the argument over legalization of certain enterprises is too great to be discussed fully here, but consider that underprovision of a good by traditional, and of course legal, markets is often one of the

Grammar Myths Ending a Sentence with a Preposition

Grammar Myths Ending a Sentence with a Preposition Grammar Myths: Ending a Sentence with a Preposition Why do people always misquote me? Winston Churchill Ending a sentence with a preposition has long been forbidden by grammar pedants. And when accused of doing this, Winston Churchill is supposed to have responded: This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put! Do you see what he did there? And even if he probably never said it, it provides a great jumping off point for discussing a famous grammatical â€Å"rule.† So is ending a sentence with a preposition really so bad? And if not, where did the rule come from? Let us explain. The Origins of the Myth Some people insist that it’s wrong to end a sentence with a preposition. This is otherwise known as using a â€Å"terminal preposition.† The rule about this comes from the notion that English should follow the same rules as Latin, in which it is impossible to end a sentence with a preposition. For someone who holds this view, sentence A below would be wrong: A) You are reading the book which my article was published in. B) You are reading the book in which my article was published. The problem is that sentence A ends with the preposition â€Å"in,† while sentence B places the preposition in the middle of the sentence. Arguably, this makes B sound more formal than A. But, at the same time, it is easy to understand what sentence A means. And English is not Latin, so there is no reason to follow Latin-specific rules. Modern English is much more flexible about preposition placement. And there’s no reason not to end a sentence with a preposition. Is Ending a Sentence with a Preposition Wrong? In English, we regularly use prepositions at the end of sentences. As long as the sentence in question reads clearly, this is fine. In fact, as shown by the quote attributed to Churchill above, avoiding terminal prepositions can sometimes make a sentence more confusing! For instance, rather than â€Å"up with which I will not put,† we would usually say: This is the sort of nonsense which I will not put up with! And while this sentence ends with the preposition â€Å"with,† it is easier to understand than the original version, which was designed to show what happens when we follow grammar â€Å"rules† blindly. The â€Å"rule† forbidding terminal prepositions is thus a myth. But, more importantly, it’s also bad advice! Most of the time, it’s fine to end a sentence with a preposition, especially if it’s part of a verb phrase such as â€Å"put up with.† The key is ensuring your work is clear and easy to read. And if you’re ever unsure whether you’re using prepositions correctly, we’re here to help!

Effectiveness of Three Classical Leadership Styles Essay - 10

Effectiveness of Three Classical Leadership Styles - Essay Example Differences between leadership and management entail the scope, nature, and objectives. While management may merely pertain to the administrative work and organization, leadership entails the guidance, the direction setting, leading from the front and setting examples. The domain of work of a leader is far broader than the management handling individual. Leader’s span of command and control may also be an expanded one as compared to management. A leader can be a manager, but a manager may not be necessarily a leader. Open systems and closed systems based organizations are the two broad line categories of organizational structure. The former pertains to the kind of organization where the interactive environment is observed and the stakeholders are invited from outside. The closed system, in contrast, comprises a substantially conservative and closed-ended system with little interactive environment and activities towards the outer world and other enterprises. The chances of progress and development are relatively higher in the case of open system based organizations. Closed organizations are often effective in case of small to medium scale projects and businesses (Tokoro, 2010 ¸p. 6). Theory X and Theory Y are two different terminologies and concepts used in the field of sociology as well as administrative management. It pertains to the leadership style, the individuals’ mindsets, their aptitude, and tendency towards the kind of environment they work in and they find themselves comfortable in. Theory X, in particular, is related to the kind of individuals who take risks, take initiatives and want to lead from the front. They do not have the fear element.