Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Glorious Homeland]

I reckon there would have been alot of corruption involved there. No offense to pakistan, it's not fo the the most renowned places for civil liberties and individual rights...and constistne government for that matter..

I reckon that most of the corruption's due to the poverty present there.

Not necessarily, Russia's elite are corrupt, but they are anything but poor.

[Sibirsky]

Hello? You think drivers are volunteers? How do you think they are paid?

no? look up just a little. See labor costs . . . see how it comes after the words "it covers". . . how did you miss that?

I know how.

me too?

Any product you buy off a store shelf has the cost of shipping the product included in it.

yes?

So now you suggest kids leave their home countries because that way they can avoid taxes? What kind of person are you?

1- the ad-homs just make your argument weaker.
2-The "think of the children!" fallacy is even worse.
3-no, I suggested that if you are opposed, entirely opposed, to being taxed that you should leave before you begin working. That doesn't mean children. That just means leave before working. (alternatively, you can stay and attempt to change the system or stay and pay and not bother to change the system, or attempt to avoid paying taxes and face the consequences)

the cost of shipping doesn't even come close to covering the costs associated with the driver (see my quote) it covers insurance, gasoline, labor, the building from which the object was shipped, associated costs and profit. It does not cover clean water, healthcare, education, power, police, army, navy, airforce, sanitation etc. and yet all those things are involved with the simple act of shipping something down a road.

You sound confused. The cost of shipping covers, any costs associated with shipping. The UPS guy's healthcare, is the cost of shipping. Electrical use is covered in the cost of the product. Water use is partially covered in the cost of the product.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, President Obama, Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Reid, Secretary Hilton, are not involved in shipping.

[Forster Keys]

Socialist - Give me your money, you clothes, your shoes and your motorcycle.

Capitalists - Help yourself!

Socialists - let's work as a community to solve problems that we may encounter

Capitalists - fuck you, I got mine!

Collectivism vs Individualism

You're both right in a way IMO, but money and materials don't just magically disappear into the black hole of government GW (corruption excepted of course), and capitalism requires you to pay a cost, sometimes much above what you can afford.

[Forster Keys]

I reckon that most of the corruption's due to the poverty present there.

Not necessarily, Russia's elite are corrupt, but they are anything but poor.

I suppose, the society has a lot to do with it as well I imagine. But corruption is rather more common in poor nations.

[Sibirsky]

I reckon that most of the corruption's due to the poverty present there.

Not necessarily, Russia's elite are corrupt, but they are anything but poor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2926216120071029

Although Moscow is one of the world's most expensive cities, few of its politicians admit to enjoying the high-rolling boom so common among the business elite, according to official wealth declarations published by the Central Electoral Commission.

Amongst the most modest of all is Putin's declaration, which lists his father's two Russian cars dating from the early 1960s amongst his assets, along with 3.7 million roubles ($149,400), a small apartment, a plot of land and 230 shares in a local bank.

"What is published by the electoral commission is true," said Putin's spokesman on Monday.

Compared with his declaration before the 2004 presidential elections, Putin's wealth had halved, reported Russian business paper Vedomosti, which analyzed a previous declaration.

"He had some royalties revenues from his publications and right now he doesn't have that kind of income," said Putin's spokesman, to explain the apparent dip in presidential fortunes.

Although the U.S. President George W. Bush earns an annual income of $400,000, Putin's salary is just 2,011,000 roubles ($81,190) -- a pittance in a country where top bankers and oil executives can earn more than their counterparts in London.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... t-man.html

The allegations – if true – would suggest that Mr Putin is one of the wealthiest men ever to hold public office.
Mr Belkovsky alleged that Mr Putin had acquired $40 billion during his eight years in power, through a network of front-men.

[EnragedMaldivians]

On what basis do you make this arguement?

One of the basic requirements of any science is that its models are capable of making consistently accurate predictions.

How many standard economic models predicted the financial meltdown?

I think it may be possible to create an economics that is a soft science, but most conventional economics is about as scientific as astrology.

I agree, its not a pure science and its not like you can do controlled experiments with the economies of entire states, but its not like the field of economics has not offered any insight whatsoever. It may have not predicted the financial meltdown, but the tools to mitigate and direct their effects would not be in place if it werent for economics. I agree with you that its predictive value is limited, but that doesnt render it useless.

But yes, you do make a fair point. Even if you are exaggerating.

[DaWoad]

no? look up just a little. See labor costs . . . see how it comes after the words "it covers". . . how did you miss that?

me too?

yes?

1- the ad-homs just make your argument weaker.
2-The "think of the children!" fallacy is even worse.
3-no, I suggested that if you are opposed, entirely opposed, to being taxed that you should leave before you begin working. That doesn't mean children. That just means leave before working. (alternatively, you can stay and attempt to change the system or stay and pay and not bother to change the system, or attempt to avoid paying taxes and face the consequences)

the cost of shipping doesn't even come close to covering the costs associated with the driver (see my quote) it covers insurance, gasoline, labor, the building from which the object was shipped, associated costs and profit. It does not cover clean water, healthcare, education, power, police, army, navy, airforce, sanitation etc. and yet all those things are involved with the simple act of shipping something down a road.

You sound confused. The cost of shipping covers, any costs associated with shipping. The UPS guy's healthcare, is the cost of shipping. Electrical use is covered in the cost of the product. Water use is partially covered in the cost of the product.

and again with the ad homs. Come on sibir you're better at this than this.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, President Obama, Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Reid, Secretary Hilton, are not involved in shipping.

no, it doesn't. It doesn't cover any of the costs that are covered by the government. that means access to clean water (sanitation being run by the gov.) public health policies that prevent plagues so the driver stays healthy enough to . . .you know . .. drive. Depending on where you are it may cover healthcare and education that allowed the driver to get to where he is. It covered the defense costs associated with simply existing in a state. Etc. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum.
the army, navy, airforce and marines certainly are involved in shipping just not directly involved. Ditto government.

[Great Altai]

One of the basic requirements of any science is that its models are capable of making consistently accurate predictions.

How many standard economic models predicted the financial meltdown?

I think it may be possible to create an economics that is a soft science, but most conventional economics is about as scientific as astrology.

I agree, its not a pure science and its not like you can do controlled experiments with the economies of entire states, but its not like the field of economics has not offered any insight whatsoever. It may have not predicted the financial meltdown, but the tools to mitigate and direct their effects would not be in place if it werent for economics. I agree with you that its predictive value is limited, but that doesnt render it useless.

But arguably the meltdown itself was the result of following the advice and models of conventional economics. It not only failed to predict the crisis, but also caused and encouraged it. Mainstream economics creates many of the problems it also fails to predict.

[Great Altai]

You sound confused. The cost of shipping covers, any costs associated with shipping. The UPS guy's healthcare, is the cost of shipping. Electrical use is covered in the cost of the product. Water use is partially covered in the cost of the product.

and again with the ad homs. Come on sibir you're better at this than this.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, President Obama, Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Reid, Secretary Hilton, are not involved in shipping.

no, it doesn't. It doesn't cover any of the costs that are covered by the government. that means access to clean water (sanitation being run by the gov.) public health policies that prevent plagues so the driver stays healthy enough to . . .you know . .. drive. Depending on where you are it may cover healthcare and education that allowed the driver to get to where he is. It covered the defense costs associated with simply existing in a state. Etc. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum.
the army, navy, airforce and marines certainly are involved in shipping just not directly involved. Ditto government.

Again, it comes back to a narrow vs broad understanding of individual identity and thus individual welfare...

[EnragedMaldivians]

I agree, its not a pure science and its not like you can do controlled experiments with the economies of entire states, but its not like the field of economics has not offered any insight whatsoever. It may have not predicted the financial meltdown, but the tools to mitigate and direct their effects would not be in place if it werent for economics. I agree with you that its predictive value is limited, but that doesnt render it useless.

But arguably the meltdown itself was the result of following the advice and models of conventional economics. It not only failed to predict the crisis, but also caused and encouraged it. Mainstream economics creates many of the problems it also fails to predict.

I think you are conflating political economics with conventional economics. Mainstream economics wouldnt have allowed Bush to lower taxes during a time of expansion contrary to counter cyclical policy. As I recall, a recession was predicted but no one was prepared for the scale.

Anyway, read Paul Krugman on the New York times. His predictrions in general are quite accurate, if not always. Economics is not physics, I admit.

[DaWoad]

*shrugs*
1-services are often as expensive or more so than certain goods. A teacher, for example, is a rather expensive "commodity" all things considered given that they have to be recompensed for their time studying (think:paying off student loans) along with their basic needs on top of which you get supply demand considerations.

Yep, but this cost is mitigated because many of the costs associated with running a school are one-time fees. The building being almost the whole cost. There are few successive costs the school would have to pay other than employees and there are other ways for schools to make profits such as hosting community events or renting out their facilities when they aren't in use.

*shrugs* maybe maybe not we can debate the economics of it (that you could recoup costs such as repair/cleaning/ the cost of the land on which the school resides, upkeep of the grounds and school etc.) but, at a guess, the school probably couldn't recoup much more than upkeep and maybe noteven that. That's pretty much a WAG but if you take a look at universities (who do everything in their power to recoup losses by renting out facilities and fall pretty short) and take into account that university facilities are generally more suited to public use than primary schools are,I'm not sure how effective that would be.

2- scholarships are wonderful things and I fully support merit based scholarships. unfortunately we're not talking about university level education here. We're talking about every [level] of education and without any way to determine a students ability how does one award scholarships?

A lot of scholarships aren't merit-based at all, for instance many you can only get if you or your family is in a certain income bracket, and for things such as lineage. A friend of mine got a $500 scholarship because his grandfather immigrated to America from Poland. You'd be surprised at how much stuff is out there. Millions of the scholarship pool goes un-awarded every year.

I also just thought of another way that education could be paid for. By the parent's employer as a work benefit. I don't exactly know how viable this option would be, but it is a valid one.

agreed but I think we're still not talking about enough to cover both merit based scholarships for high level education (which I think we'd both agree are very important) as well as covering the costs of those who's parents can't afford even public schooling.

As to the second part, it's a cool idea and it's already done to a certain extent in the states with medical/dental coverage. That being said, I suspect the kind of job where you'd get "education coverage" would be the kind of job that gives one healthcare/dental coverage ie. highish level jobs (better than minimum wage type stuff) who'semployees could probably afford to pay for mid-level education for their kids anyway.

This is a simple disagreement that we won't be able to resolve. You think this will still be a large problem under capitalism and I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I'm not saying that every single person will be able to afford great education, but significantly more than most would be able to provide decent education.

*shrugs* yep I think we just have to agree to disagree until somewhere actually tries out the whole pure free market thing. At which point we'd have something to go on.

I'm not disputing that there exists a base cost. However, this cost would be reduced in a free market (due to increased competition in the industries that provide things like bricks, construction crews, asphalt, etc.) and a main reason that the current system runs at a loss is because nearly all of its funding comes from the government, that government does not provide it with much, and current schools are not for-profit.

agreed, but you can see the pretty massive costs schools run at. While they're not currently for profit, those basic numbers probably wouldn't change much so you can (sort of) work out what each parent would have to be capable of paying in order to send their child/children to a school that is of the current public quality. Here's where we generally run into WAG(wild ass guess) territory though where I posit that the cost is too great for many families leading to substandard or no education and you posit that the increase in disposable income due to the lack of taxes will be sufficient.

I also noticed you asking about roads, health-care, and such. Those would also be taken out of government hands. Roads would be provided by private companies in that their upkeep would be funded by per-use tolls and subscription services, and health would be insurance like it is now except with less regulations to increase competition and, you guessed it, reduce costs.

this one's kind of another debate but tolls on all roads mean a drastic increase in the price of all commodities which has nasty effects on the price of goods.

I also can't necessarily speak for others, but when we say "provide for the safety of the individual" we usually mean military, police, courts, and defense agencies like the CIA and FBI.

yah, that's where we differ. I tend to believe that the safety of the individual is best provided for when the good of society as a whole is considered.
ie. providing universal health care is better for every individual even those who could afford to pay for private health care as it means that fewer people go untreated and therefore fewer outbreak possibilities exist.
also, sanitation, education, etc.

[Servantium]

Incorrect, read my post again.

"Because the only threat to a free market is government regulation"?

Yeah, government regulation. Not government. Unless you think by regulation I meant all laws, which would be understandable. I indended the statement to refer to economic regulation.
~~~~~

DaWoad, this conversation has been enjoyable for me, but it seems like we're about to descend to the point where we just repeat the same thing over and over again ad nauseam, so I'm only going to refer to the new points I brought up that weren't about schools:

I also noticed you asking about roads, health-care, and such. Those would also be taken out of government hands. Roads would be provided by private companies in that their upkeep would be funded by per-use tolls and subscription services, and health would be insurance like it is now except with less regulations to increase competition and, you guessed it, reduce costs.

this one's kind of another debate but tolls on all roads mean a drastic increase in the price of all commodities which has nasty effects on the price of goods.

It would not increase price of commodities, and here's why: Capitalism works as a system and not on an individual basis, for instance you can't ONLY privatize roads and expect things to work out, you can't ONLY privatize education and expect things to work out. In theory (which is where the whole entire field of economics is a bit meh) the whole cost to the individual would be lower than they would be when the government provides things because you're not paying for things you don't use and the things you do use are cheaper.

yah, that's where we differ. I tend to believe that the safety of the individual is best provided for when the good of society as a whole is considered.

This is why a bunch of libertarians take issue with everything other than capitalism. To us society is not an actual thing, it's just a word for the sum total of all humans in a group. Society doesn't have needs and there is no such thing as "the good of society as a whole" because society is not an entity on its own. It's just a collection of individuals, and, arguably, there is nothing good for all individuals. Therefore, to provide for "society as a whole" you have to unjustly inconvenience a lot of societies members, thus not providing for "society as a whole."

ie. providing universal health care is better for every individual even those who could afford to pay for private health care as it means that fewer people go untreated and therefore fewer outbreak possibilities exist.

Not really...providing health-care for individuals doesn't really prevent outbreaks because health-care is a reactionary service.

also, sanitation, education, etc.

And our argument is that these things would be better and cheaper if the government got out.

[Zutroy]

On what basis do you make this arguement?

One of the basic requirements of any science is that its models are capable of making consistently accurate predictions.

How many standard economic models predicted the financial meltdown?

I think it may be possible to create an economics that is a soft science, but most conventional economics is about as scientific as astrology.

That's a contradiction of capitalism, not economics as a whole. All you've pointed out is that bourgeois economic models are flawed.

[Sungai Pusat]

On what basis do you make this arguement?

One of the basic requirements of any science is that its models are capable of making consistently accurate predictions.

How many standard economic models predicted the financial meltdown?

I think it may be possible to create an economics that is a soft science, but most conventional economics is about as scientific as astrology.

1. Your idea of science is mixed up. Science is not consistently making accurate predictions, but rather to think of a hypothesis and then working on finding whether it is true or false.
2. Well, the financial meltdown was seen by, not models, but by economists and people and such.
3. Maybe, but first, fix your system of science first.

[Westwickport]

Mixed-Economy, especially that structured with common economic ideas as the Rhenish system (Social Market economic system). Basically, in between capitalistic and socialistic economic systems.

[Great Altai]

One of the basic requirements of any science is that its models are capable of making consistently accurate predictions.

How many standard economic models predicted the financial meltdown?

I think it may be possible to create an economics that is a soft science, but most conventional economics is about as scientific as astrology.

1. Your idea of science is mixed up. Science is not consistently making accurate predictions, but rather to think of a hypothesis and then working on finding whether it is true or false.

No kidding? And how do you propose we discover whether something is true or false? Could it not be by testing our hypothesis, that is, by making a prediction and seeing if it holds up to testing? Hypotheses/predictions that stand up to repeated testing are called "theories", whereas "scientific ideas that do not confer any predicative power are considered at best conjectures and at worst pseudoscience".

My contention is that mainstream economics, with perhaps a few exceptions, falls into the latter category.

[Great Altai]

One of the basic requirements of any science is that its models are capable of making consistently accurate predictions.

How many standard economic models predicted the financial meltdown?

I think it may be possible to create an economics that is a soft science, but most conventional economics is about as scientific as astrology.

That's a contradiction of capitalism, not economics as a whole. All you've pointed out is that bourgeois economic models are flawed.

Yes, I qualified my original statement with "conventional" and "mainstream". I don't know if you consider that to say "bourgeois" or not. I don't think communism has stood up particularly well either, though.

[The Merchant Republics]

1. Your idea of science is mixed up. Science is not consistently making accurate predictions, but rather to think of a hypothesis and then working on finding whether it is true or false.

No kidding? And how do you propose we discover whether something is true or false? Could it not be by testing our hypothesis, that is, by making a prediction and seeing if it holds up to testing? Hypotheses/predictions that stand up to repeated testing are called "theories", whereas "scientific ideas that do not confer any predicative power are considered at best conjectures and at worst pseudoscience".

My contention is that mainstream economics, with perhaps a few exceptions, falls into the latter category.

So hard economics is not credible to you? What then is your opinion on the issues of economics? We certainly can't not have a study of economics, even if it is flawed, their retain some basic rules of behaviour among humans in a market situation, how do you entail us to study it?

As a rather interesting point, I actually tend to agree, though that is because I have some affinity with the Austrian School of economics. Which likewise rejects a hard science/empirical approach to economic analysis.

[Staenwald]

1. Your idea of science is mixed up. Science is not consistently making accurate predictions, but rather to think of a hypothesis and then working on finding whether it is true or false.

No kidding? And how do you propose we discover whether something is true or false? Could it not be by testing our hypothesis, that is, by making a prediction and seeing if it holds up to testing? Hypotheses/predictions that stand up to repeated testing are called "theories", whereas "scientific ideas that do not confer any predicative power are considered at best conjectures and at worst pseudoscience".

My contention is that mainstream economics, with perhaps a few exceptions, falls into the latter category.

Economics is FAR harder than the physical sciences- they dont have the anomalous results oyu get when dealing with people, who do everything differently each time. Economics is mathematics and social science, where economists have to monitor the bahaviour of consumers and businesses to come up with the reasons that things happen, what causes those reason etc.

[JJ Place]

No , the Sicilian Mafia is an example of how government gets set up.

The Sicilian Mafia emerged due to the withdrawal of feudal government as capitalism emerged on the island,

A withdraw of Feudal government with a remaining presence of Feudal Government?

they are structurally an anarchist organisation as no single leader organises them.

No, they where not organized as an anarchist organization ; and having no single leader organizing a society does not make that society an anarchist society.

They are tribal anarchists - with each clan conducting business in its territory, and clans communicating between one another and perhaps following the leadership of a particularly powerful leader if they need to, or when the need arises.

So, your saying each had a tribal government , and each tribe followed the leadership of a particular powerful leader of government when they thought it would benefit their collective or tribal interests?

Under normal conditions no such leader exists and they go about their daily business in their own defacto jurisdictions, extracting protection money and providing protection and murder services in return.

Then , your saying that there is no National Government of all tribes , there are only City or State governments of each tribe; City and State Governments carrying out the exact functions of Government as City, County, State or Providence, and National Governments provide in the modern era? Essentially, the Sicilian Mafia comprised City and State governments , and simply did consist of National Governments , while carrying out all of the functions of all levels of government? That's not Anarchy, that's smaller societies holding an increased power of City and State at the expense of the National Government; Anarchy is not a synonym of City and State's Rights.

They are the perfect historical case study of capitalist anarchy at work.

That's not Anarcho - Capitalist, that's just government changed from National Government to State Government. In the times of the Sicilian Mafia taking over for the previous Feudal Governments, government intervention potentially might just have lessened , and people might have began to gain increased levels Capitalism , and a lessening of extortion, exploition, and tyranny of government, and , an increase in freedom in society ; however, the change from Feudal governments to the government of the Sicilian Mafia where not changes from Government to Anarchy ; they where slight changes of government and of the existence and of the operation of government in Societies .

The society under the control of the Sicilian Mafia was not Anarcho - Capitalist; the society of the Sicilian Mafia is an example of City and State's Rights in an absence of a Nation Government . That is Not a society of Anarcho - Capitalism.

[Materialistia]

Shut up, if it weren't for nonconformists there would be no Atheism today.

Pfft, choosing the option you think everyone else won't like is just another type of conformism.

A real nonconformist doesn't give a fuck what other people think. You'd be hard pressed to find one.

Anyhow, I like to think that Atheism exists for a better reason than "society thinks God made everything so I'm going to be edgy and different and say there's no God lol"

Considering the overwhelming number of people I know that are Christian merely because their parents are as such (and the slightly lower number of people I know that are Jew for the exact same reason), I believe conformism alone is a very strong factor in one's belief.

[Voerdeland]

1. "Stealing" for schools and hospitals is bad, but "stealing" for police is good? Why?
2. I believe that the state has a duty to give equal opportunities to all citizens. Without social welfare and public education children from poor families wouldn't have big chance of social advance. Yes, I know - many rich businessmen, politicians, sportsmen etc. are from poor families. But they are a minority. The majority of poor children remains poor in their adulthood.
3. Social security improves "real" security, because poor people do not have to steal. Crime rates would be much higher if we didn't have welfare programmes.

1. Schools and hospitals only provide a benefit for some members of a nation, whereas police protect (in theory) everyone's rights. Additionally, schools and hospitals provide a good (education, health-care) that is easily provided by the free market. Police protection however, would be difficult to privatize. (However, some form of fee system could be utilized, but that's here nor there)
2. Equal Oppurtunity as you frame it is a highly subjective term. Should the poor person who is shooting up on meth get a stipend from the gov't because that is "fair" and would give him a chance to quit doing meth and start a business? What is the likelihood of such a thing happening? Furthermore, how is it ethical to "steal" from those who have worked hard to become rich (or even those born into a rich family, someone had to work hard) in order to give to those who haven't?
3. Don't know about the truthfulness of the claim, but assuming it is true, the question again comes up of the ethics involved. If the aforementioned meth-head was going to steal food because he spent all his money on meth, does that give him a larger claim to someone else's food?

I believe that taxation (called "stealing" in our discussion) is the lesser evil and is needed to fund the security (consisting of military, police, but also social welfare, healthcare and education). Privatisation of healthcare would be like replacing police with private security agencies. It'd have the same result: some people would be left without ANY protection.

[Sociobiology]

caring about someone else's welfare before your own, or risking your own welfare for the sake of someone else is the definition of altruism, reciprocal altruism is a great example its were two individuals help each other, both are behaving altruistically, even if they have good evidence the other will return the favor. please understand the meaning of a word, before you argue its implications.

It's an accepted fact that human beings have an evolutionary imperative to propagate their own lineage. It's a very "selfish" impetus that has nothing to do with altruism.

you can behave altruistically for selfish reasons, food sharing is an example giving up food you could eat to someone else is an altruistic act, even if by doing so you improve the chances of your own survival, again please learn what an altruistic behavior is.

[Glorious Homeland]

The Sicilian Mafia emerged due to the withdrawal of feudal government as capitalism emerged on the island,

A withdraw of Feudal government with a remaining presence of Feudal Government?

they are structurally an anarchist organisation as no single leader organises them.

No, they where not organized as an anarchist organization ; and having no single leader organizing a society does not make that society an anarchist society.

They are tribal anarchists - with each clan conducting business in its territory, and clans communicating between one another and perhaps following the leadership of a particularly powerful leader if they need to, or when the need arises.

So, your saying each had a tribal government , and each tribe followed the leadership of a particular powerful leader of government when they thought it would benefit their collective or tribal interests?

Under normal conditions no such leader exists and they go about their daily business in their own defacto jurisdictions, extracting protection money and providing protection and murder services in return.

Then , your saying that there is no National Government of all tribes , there are only City or State governments of each tribe; City and State Governments carrying out the exact functions of Government as City, County, State or Providence, and National Governments provide in the modern era? Essentially, the Sicilian Mafia comprised City and State governments , and simply did consist of National Governments , while carrying out all of the functions of all levels of government? That's not Anarchy, that's smaller societies holding an increased power of City and State at the expense of the National Government; Anarchy is not a synonym of City and State's Rights.

They are the perfect historical case study of capitalist anarchy at work.

That's not Anarcho - Capitalist, that's just government changed from National Government to State Government. In the times of the Sicilian Mafia taking over for the previous Feudal Governments, government intervention potentially might just have lessened , and people might have began to gain increased levels Capitalism , and a lessening of extortion, exploition, and tyranny of government, and , an increase in freedom in society ; however, the change from Feudal governments to the government of the Sicilian Mafia where not changes from Government to Anarchy ; they where slight changes of government and of the existence and of the operation of government in Societies .

The society under the control of the Sicilian Mafia was not Anarcho - Capitalist; the society of the Sicilian Mafia is an example of City and State's Rights in an absence of a Nation Government . That is Not a society of Anarcho - Capitalism.

There was no remaining feudal government in many of these regions that it had withdrawn from at the time? The mafia clans are not comparable to city or state governments since they do not bother themselves with attempting to manage the people or territory, all they do is extort protection money and be violent if that doesn't happen; they don't put it to any use in terms of national infrastructure. They happened as a consequence of a lack of state control and the emergence of a capitalist system. These mafia clans behave according to an unwritten set of loose rules, a common law if you will; that they enforce amongst themselves in order to remain traditional. They do not enforce these rules onto others, beyond the aforementioned protection money. They are not a government since they do not govern, only amongst themselves.
They are however the product of a lack of state enforcement and monopoly on power, and anarchist in structure. Sure they're more authoritarian anarchists than liberals, just as the Pushtun on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border can be considered as religious conservative anarchists. That doesn't mean their complete lack of centralised government, social basis on a non-codified common law is unanarchist.

[George W Bush AOED]

Bushism