>Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on 25 July 1785 with the capture of the schooner Maria, and Dauphin a week later.[9] All four Barbary Coast states demanded $660,000 each. However, the envoys were given only an allocated budget of $40,000 to achieve peace.[10] Diplomatic talks to reach a reasonable sum for tribute or for the ransom of the captured sailors struggled to make any headway. The crews of Maria and Dauphin remained in captivity for over a decade, and soon were joined by crews of other ships captured by the Barbary States.[11]
>In 1795, Algeria came to an agreement that resulted in the release of 115 American sailors they held, at a cost of over $1 million. This amount totalled about one-sixth of the entire U.S. budget,[12] and was demanded as tribute by the Barbary States to prevent further piracy.
>The U.S. included a fucking frigate in the payment
>U.S. pays tribute for the next 15 years until Jefferson gets elected
Cuckposting aside, have criminals ever had so much influence over states?
Or was the fact the Barbary corsairs were backed by North African city-states an exception?
Algeria didnt exist until France invented it in the 19th century
You must be talking about the Regency of Algiers, a city-state part of the Ottoman Empire
>Cuckposting aside, have criminals ever had so much influence over states?
Sure. Ever heard of the USSR?
The War on Drugs allows violent non-state actors to have great influence over states; but in that case it's the states decision to give them power, and an effective subsidy, so it's not quite like piracy or terrorism.
The line between a state and an organized criminal organization is very thin.
See: Russia.
>>548650
> Cuckposting aside, have criminals ever had so much influence over states?
The Irish mob had a lot of influence over US politics.
>>548867
It's the intention that matters, Mr. Westerner.
>>548875
>I want to enrich myself and gain power over others
Said the emperor
>I want to enrich myself and gain power over others
Said the brigand.
>I want to enrich myself and gain power over others
Said the warlord, the mafiosi, the king, the knight.
>>548882
Then the distinction is that some are paid to protect you and your property, and follow the rules you have given it through a constitution, and whose members or representatives do not have any special powers or rights over the people they work for.
If any of these are not true, you are not living in a state that deserves your support. You are under occupation.
>>548919
>some are paid to protect you and your property
Literally what the mafia does.
>that's a nice shop you got there
>it would be a shame if something... happened to it
>how about paying some protection money
As it turns out, most states throughout history have been coercive, parasitic and undemocratic.
>>548945
>Literally what the mafia does.
Yep.
>As it turns out, most states throughout history have been coercive, parasitic and undemocratic.
Yep.
But there is no such thing as the absence of a state. So you should only lend your support to those that match something like the criteria I laid out; they follow a constitution that you have personally voted on, and their members and representatives have no special powers or rights that you don't personally have. Ideally you'd own one share of the government, but for some people this is too close to socialism for them to stomach (somehow more people owning more things equals socialism to Americans...).
>>548978
Well, what I'm getting at is that it's pointless to try to point down what states were most influenced by criminality, because there's no meaningful distinction between a state and an organized crime outfit, besides democratic institutions which were extremely rare until modernity.
>>548992
Then we agree. Both deal in violence, but it is possible for it's use to be more or less legitimate.
