"Should we outlaw this" vs "freedom" is an interesting and hard problem especially if you are generally inclined to mistrust the state and not see it as a great benefactor of humankind by default. I live in a country that is quicker to outlaw certain things which in the US would be considered a breach of freedom of speech (or religion). Nazi symbols is one example but 1%er symbols were also outlawed for a while until it got overturned. I'm favoring the "don't outlaw" stance but the other side has sensible arguments as well.<p>Scientology is another good example. I can see the argument for "freedom of religion" but depending on your views about the state it has a certain obligation to protect citizens from their own idiocy. The borders in the sand are hard to draw.<p>A very common case is that people who vehemently disagree with outlawing Scientology also strongly believe vaccination is a good idea. I think that's a fairly inconsistent stance but it is also completely reasonable (as in it protects the person and also others like their family in both cases).<p>Political parties are also a good example. I think the stance of "never outlaw, society has to handle that and let the idiots be idiots" is perfectly reasonable but parties get tax money for various things and I can see how people have a problem with their tax money funding neo-nazi organizations.<p>I used to be more radically pro freedom no questions asked but these days my stance is pro freedom by default but some deep thinking and gut check for individual cases. It bothers me a lot that I'm fairly inconsistent (since I am against maximum freedom in quite a few cases) but it's the most reasonable course of action for my value system.
Was expecting "because they control a lot of money", but got reasoning more in line with Ankh-Morpork's Patrician's view on the Guild of Thieves.
Because making membership of an organization illegal is a violation of freedom of association, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan?
They were historically a legitimate feudal organization, they have a strict code of honor, they provide aid to local people in the event of natural disasters, they have political ties, there's few Japanese laws specifically to help prosecute organized crime, some of the groups disdain certain activities like theft or drug trade, and they operate in a quasi-open fashion.
How is this so much different than HA? It's not like their hangouts are unknown and unlisted and members make a big deal of showing where they belong.
It's very scary that the world has become a place that people think it's normal to arrest people just because they are a member of a group without any evidence that person has committed a crime.
I'd like to think it's because the cost of fighting them is higher than the cost of letting them operate.<p>Sadly it might be more to do with social acceptance.
What if they didn't exist, would Japanese society be better? It looks like all the good points they have could be replaced by local community initiatives and collective planning.<p>Imagine a society free of aggressive and predatory crime. It's possible with the technology we have today. What are we waiting for?