Talk:Racketeering

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

On 23 July 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Racket (crime) to Racketeering. The result of the discussion was moved.

Protection Racket

I guess the plan to reduce CO2 emission is the same. Mallerd (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern-day unions could be considered to be rackets as well. 24.141.76.19 (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are rackets, as the offending organizations threaten and perform no illegal actions. If CO₂ emission were actually illegal, then subsidizing low-emissions fuels could perhaps be construed as legalized racketeering, although the subsidies would actually serve a purpose other than protection (keeping the industry profitable), so it still wouldn't really be racketeering. Unions, on the other hand, could only be rackets if quitting were illegal . . . which might be a problem, not to mention the fact that businesses don't actually pay unions, per se.

Interestingly, a person committing herself to an institution could perhaps be considered a racketeer, since she is receiving psychological treatment lest she commit a crime. Of course, the person isn't actually intending to commit said crime if not given treatment, but the threat is still there, in a sense. Eebster the Great (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see how government grew out of racketeering. Originally taxes were "tribute"; you paid a warlord not to harm you or your property. A protection racket. The warlord used your tribute to fund armies to conquer more land and extract more tribute. Only later did they start offering services in return to the taxpayers. Nowadays service delivery is the dominant use of the tribute, but there is a straight evolutionary path from the racketeer to the king to the president/prime minister of today. It's also worth noting that larger organised crime syndicates sometimes do offer a form of service; their hegemony over the area excludes other criminals, thus in a sense offering a genuine form of "protection".82.71.30.178 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If government is not a racket, that is only because government defines what is legal and illegal. The legality of government is a tautology with a whopping Catch 22. Right now I am trying to buy a little colored sticker to go on my license plate. It is a very expensive little sticker. I have no more use for it than the citizens of 19th century New York City had for the dance-tickets that the gangs sold to them. If I do not have the sticker on the license plate, and I venture to drive around, I will be threatened or assaulted by men in gang colors with guns and clubs and badges. So I buy the sticker. Some of the "rackets" listed here are not rackets at all. Rum-running and tobacco-sales are not rackets. No one is threatened for not buying. The customers are willing. In the case of rum-running, it is the failure to pay government extortion that makes the commerce illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.158.141 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governments did not grow out of warlordism. They are a consequence of living in groups. Taxation didn't exist in small hunter gatherer groups, in tribes or in early farming societies, nor did they exist in the first city states of Mesopotamia. The public sector had yet to be privatized.Vilhelmo (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of "racket" in the "protection racket" sense is unclear, but according to the OED is unlikely to have derived from illicit dances due to chronological attestations. The noise aspect of "racket" came much earlier, from gaelic "racaid". I'm removing etymology from the article as it's uncited and contradicted by an authoritative source. --Andrew (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Too Big To Fail". The financial institutions (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Federal Reserve, et al) that created the bubbles and/or fraudulent derivatives that led to the economic collapse and Great Recession, are given taxpayer money and tasked with "fixing" the problem they caused. Classic case. 125.25.210.104 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the protection racket: This only works in countries with a weak Police. So in fakt the racketeers become the Police, protecting their clients. In a country with a strong Police you wouldn't pay anything but call the cops. That's why you need to pay taxes! And what happens if you resist to pay taxes? Right, you go to jail! So therefore there isn't any difference between a state or a mafia. However only states have written constitutions and laws, the mafia only has unwritten laws. But this doesn't mean that they're less fair. Oh, and by the way: Never think that the Police protects people! They don't, they just solve crimes and put people in jail. Real protection is: "You attack or kill anyone of us? Then you're dead." 178.197.236.217 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. Taxes are applied against Capital, where Protection Money is not. Those refusing to pay taxes will be prosecuted according to the law, which is either a monetary sanction, confiscation or imprisonment - but never murder. Also, those refusing to pay is not beaten or bullied, such actions even from collection agencies is considered criminal. If government steps away from laws, then it is considered corrupted, but not "evolving from or to". To very same degree, there is a difference between professional army and guerrilla.77.4.41.90 (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

African National Congress

The ANC shouldn't be on this list. It's a legitimate political party. Unless someone can come up with a good justification for including it, it should be removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.236.47 (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If someone has a good argument for its inclusion, feel free to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.236.207 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully 9% of the ANC's most senior body are post-Apartheid criminals convicted of fraud, theft, drink driving, corruption. The leader of the ANC used political pressure to avoid facing charges for corruption regarding an arms deal with France. The ANC is currently working towards instituting censorship of the free press by establishing restrictive legislation and tribunals. Lower ranking members of the ANC (city councilors) have been discovered to be engaging in assassination plans to avoid having their corruption uncovered. The organization is criminal from it's head (Jacob Zuma) to it's lowest level officers. So although it poses as a legitimate political party, it is constantly engaged in illegal activity. It's a racket. The fact that the leader faced racketeering charges (amongst the 783 charges he escaped) is further evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.117.56.211 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of MegaUpload

I have removed MegaUpload from the "See Also" list. It simply does not meet the criteria of a racket. Thus far it has only been established as a company potentially involved in illegal activities, and not a "racket". With that criteria, any company/organization/group engaged in illegal activities could be labeled as a racket. This is simply not the case. We must be careful not to extend our scope of the definition, and maintain logic and reason when defining something as one thing or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.173.148 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco Industry

I added FIFA because the top board of the company was just arrested for racketeering. Would love to know why someone deleted this entry. Please explain. I will keep adding it.

Is that enough references for you for the racketeering of FIFA?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.231.17 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added tobacco industry since Federal Judge Kessler found in 2006 them guilty of racketeering. http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.161.49 (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that violation of the United States law Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act should not be conflated with the commission of racketeering in a general sense. According to the referenced article, the companies were found liable for conspiracy and fraudulently misrepresenting the health risks. While these may be covered under a law titled Racketeering, this appellation does not mean that the acts covered meet the common definition of the term. ENeville (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racketeering scams

Perhaps the most used racketeering scam needs to be mentioned: Pizzo_(extortion) This scam is basically a service supplied by organised crime organisations to shops in which they

promise not to destroy property in the shop or the shop itself
protect the shop from other criminal organisations, and smaller gangs

Obviously, the first is illegal and so generates frustration, but the second seems like a useful service 109.133.100.120 (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what happens if you don't pay taxes? The government puts you in jail, therefore destroys your life. This is considered "legal", but in fact it's the same method like the racketeers use. And should I talk about how man jews were legally murdered in Nazi germany some 70 years ago? Laws aren't good only because they're laws. If they destroy privacy or attack innocent people, these are crimes, no matter if legal or not.--178.197.236.217 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually if you don't pay your taxes, they send you a letter telling you what you owe in taxes, interest and a monetary penalty. Then you have a tax debt that they may collect by garnishing your wages or selling your property. But the government won't throw you in jail for not paying taxes alone. Not paying your taxes is not a crime, after all you may not be able to pay them for some misfortune. At least in most western nations. They only throw you in jail if you falsify your tax returns or deliberately fail to file a return and then give them some frivolous excuse like "the tax law is invalid" or "taxes are racketeering". Or if you don't pay the use-fee for the license plate and driver's license and then use the road (a service) the government owns because doing so is basically theft of service. You can live a basic life earning less than the allowed tax exemption and never use the government's services, then you will never have to be responsible to pay a cent in taxes. In neither case will the government burn down or otherwise vandalize your house or your store. If you don't like what the government does with your taxes and/or you don't want populist fascists like Hitler and Trump to run the government, you need to vote. 104.234.240.207 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In EU country where i live government vandalizes property, at minimum, to gain forced entry, if protection money, called "property tax", is not paid. Then they use violence or threats of it to remove owner. From the owner's perspective it's no difference, if housed is burnt down or he is violently removed from it, as now house can not be used anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.131.208 (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand exactly what type of organized crime you are talking about? It seems a little vague and ambiguous. What are they doing in these shops they protect??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:7708:69ED:5778:35D5:2EB0 (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Government

When you really think about it, the state as an institution qualifies as a racket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.129.184 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Increasingly correct.--178.197.236.217 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC) It's not only a racket, but the biggest racket. 200+ strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.27.93 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Since when can you vote the people in charge of a racket out of power? Go vote if you don't like what the government does. 104.234.240.207 (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gambling?

why does this article contain no mention of gambling? is this not closely related? Tango303 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Government Agencies Section

Is there any actual reason that said departments are listed, or is this vandalism by Anarchists? Doctordubin (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "wire room" redirect here?

What is a wire room? 2001:630:53:479:E5D2:127D:AA83:3348 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia listed here?

As a resident of BC I'm also not a fan of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, but they're not a racket. And even if they were, the inclusion of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia still makes no sense as they're no different than many other (essentially all?) vehicle insurance corporations and so the item in the list should be Insurance Companies in general, not a specific one. I think the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia should be removed from this list, or changed to Insurance Companies in general if someone wants to make an argument for why Insurance Companies in general are a racket (though that's outside the scope of my point here). 96.48.47.48 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem?

It's not just to "solve a problem" Private landlords are racketeers. Cheaply produced products are rackets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:7708:69ED:5778:35D5:2EB0 (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Health Insurance" in See Also?

Nothing in the article contents suggest that health insurance has anything to do with racketeering, and its inclusion in the See Also section is very suggestive and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.119.236 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was vandalism. It has since been removed. --Jayron 32 01:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racket (crime) → Racketeering – Both an abstract noun and a specific instance of that noun are equally valid titles for an article, but moving it to Racketeering will enable us to drop the parenthetical disambiguator, making it the preferred choice per WP:NATURALDIS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIG. Natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above and fine per WP:GERUND. -- Netoholic @ 13:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.