Regarding the recent embarrassment of the Mexican President buy the Sinaloa Cartel-


I'm an older American white guy. I was raised on movies which glorified the struggle of men against a corrupt authority. Think 'First Blood'. But obviously those movies are bloody stupid places to hang your political world view. A solitary man is more likely to be a crazy screw up than is a civil society as a whole. See Ted Kazinski.
We should obey the law.
And yet.

They have two options in that part of Mexico; ineffectual klepto state or gangster narco state. Plato's Republic is not on the menu.
The narco gangs are not 18th century political philosophers. (We know this because they don't argue about the merits of slavery. (POW!)) I don't know what sort of ideals they approach their operations with but I won't be surprised to learn that they parrot the usual freedom fighter, universal rights of man, Pueblo hero bullshit. Nor would it shock me to learn they were closer to a death cult. Doesn't matter.

But should we treat them as a state? Aside from taxation collection and their own security, they don't seem to provide any of the services of a state, so probably not.

But aren't they closer in operation to the India Trading Companies? They have a quasi government function. They shovel cash into the central government. There's a corporate style power structure which almost akin to a social order. So 'a little statey' you'd have to concede.

And there is no way our own national security state doesn't know where all their $ accounts are. And it's not like we couldn't roll up to the bank of Belize or wherever and ask for all their cash. I doubt these financial institutions have the wherewithal to deny the USA. And we aren't doing that.

So we're complicit for some reason.
Therefore, they operate in a zone where they are semi sanctioned by the state. Which is horrifying.

But they are NOT the government. And when they are able to dictate terms to the legitimate government, that's a problem. And not a problem to be solved exclusively by penalizing the drug users among us, I think.

I'm not sure what a strickly deondic approach would suggest. If most or even a sizable minority of people's lives are better because of these organizations existing, aside from the silly rich dealers, should they continue on as is? Is there any evidence one way or another?
The smart response may be regulating the piss out of them. That seems to make organizations risk averse and would tend to minimize the damage they'll do. Opiates not withstanding.
But that implies a strong central state which can enforce regulations.

Which brings this full circle. This narco-gangster-quasi-state can only exist where the legitimate state is too week to stop it. And once it's established, well, as they say, "Power concedes nothing..", so good luck getting rid of it.

Chicken, meet my friend the egg.

oldNslow wrote on 11/04/19 at 19:42:28:


You've built a wall of prejudice between yourself and common ground with your neighbors, accepting this caricature in place of meaningful relationships and dialog.  You haven't described any person I know- either they are some tiny, well hidden fringe, or a construct of imagination.

"And there is also a huge, insane, suicidal, ideological  contingent that argues against any border control at all."

This is a lie.   There are no signification numbers- outside of radical Liberians -who advocate "against any border control at all."   You are just making crap up.   The remainder of your scree is likewise such a funhouse mirror distortion of any common advocacy as to be unrecognizable as anything real.

Coming soon to a small US border town near you:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/americas/mormons-attacked-us-mexico-border/ind...

It's only a matter of time before this starts happening on the US side of the border.
These guys don't care about borders or national sovereignty. Do you think that they are not aware that we don't either anymore?

Mark has a perfect record of believing stuff he makes up, and is constantly ready to bet his credibility- a much devalued currency -on it.  

Houston is a metropolitan city.   At our community pool, English is the least common language heard.   My neighbors to the left are from Mexico, Vietnamese to the right, and Chinese across the street.   I greatly value the character diversity imbues this city with.

Mark can't have an actually conversation about reality, being a long time permanent resident of his own imagination.   His "undisputed facts" are typically expressions of his own animus- and are intended to be disputed.   His lies are just provocations.  Mark, by choice, is seldom more than a petty troll.

Mark has a perfect record of believing stuff he makes up, and is constantly ready to bet his credibility- a much devalued currency -on it.

Bet me.

TT says

Criminals don't care about laws.  Nothing new.


CORRECT!
And THAT'S why banning any or all guns will NEVER succeed.

No.
Criminals won't care about the law.
Only law abiding people will lose their gun to the government..
Because
It's the
Law..
Pretend otherwise,,