4 ms·

I think what you are missing here - drug cartels are essentially mini factions that govern areas in the society. The cartels are the government and the governme

by ct520 6y ago

I think what you are missing here - drug cartels are essentially mini factions that govern areas in the society. The cartels are the government and the government is public face for the cartels essentially. How this evolved over time has been interesting, but make no mistake about it. They both protect each other interests domestically. It's not that they can't its that they wont. They attack themselves when they're disputes. Its very fascinating and no secret down there.

etrabroline 6y ago
Correct. It's basically the same relationship large financial interests have with the US government. When financial interests have enough influence, they become too big to fail, meaning any "corruption" by the big players is ignored, and so isn't really corruption anymore so much as a part of government policy.
- teruakohatu 6y ago
  Except there are rules, and when they are broken there are consequences. See Lehman Brothers and Enron. Maybe there are lines in Mexico that cannot be crossed, but from an non-American perspective I struggle to see where those lines are.
  - rapind 6y ago
    Based on the 2008 bailout, it wasn't the banks who suffered the lion's share of the consequences. Maybe the difference isn't so great as we perceive
  - ct520 6y ago
    kiki camarena
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
    > Maybe there are lines in Mexico that cannot be crossed, but from an non-American perspective I struggle to see where those lines are. The main rule is don’t antagonize the Americans too much. The big example is Camarena who was kidnapped, tortured, and killed by the cartels in the 1980s. It brought such a response from the US, that the cartels in general avoid trying to kill US DEA agents.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      From an open source, mexican "top cop" turns out crooked, mexico advises US to check his stateside counterparts: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-usa-corruption/mexico-urges-us-to-probe-of-all-officials-with-ties-to-ex-minister-idUSKBN22G2SK https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-usa-corruption/mex... Anyone know if there have been any resulting probes, north of the border? (I didn't pick up much english just now in a quick news search, and this is not very relevant to my interests.)
      - ct520 6y ago
        I’m not sure, but my goto blog for reference on Narco news is: http://www.borderlandbeat.com/ http://www.borderlandbeat.com/ Maybe they have more info?
  - xapata 6y ago
    It's possible Lehman Brothers went under simply because Paulson didn't like Fuld.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making+state+making+organized+crime https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making+sta... I found this paper by Charles Tilly, a well-known sociologist, to be enlightening and eye-opening. And I think the flip-side is also true, "organized crime" being little different from "legitimate state", except in scale and sometimes scale. But even more enlightening to me, building on top of this paper, was the opinion of a chief named Bear in the Vietnamese (iirc) jungle, who had to deal with both the "legitimate" (dominant) government and the "paramilitary" groups, who would both alternate tearing through his village and terrorizing his people. To Bear, all of this activity was the inevitable result of existence of power itself, just a fact of reality. Power which, inevitablly, one or another would struggle to acquire, with similar results regardless of who it was. This perspective allowed him to maintain and protect his tribe from both organizations, by acknowledging their power, acquiescing to it, and letting the wind bend his stalk but not break it, so to speak. Bear was a wise man who lived to old age in a place with everyday danger, so his words are worth something, IMO. --- I learned of Bear and his wisdom from a book written by an anthropologist who lived with his people for several years. I remember one of the stories being about how an unwanted premature baby was allowed to die, and how much this upset the anthropologist at first. Unfortunately, I do not remember the name of the book anymore. If anyone recognizes it, please comment here.
- Bobbcatt 6y ago
  >And I think the flip-side is also true, "organized crime" being little different from "legitimate state", except in scale and sometimes scale. This is well known in anarchist/libertarian circle. Government taking 30% of your income is essentially a protection racket. People who are born and only lived in a stable single government state just assumes that there is something privileged about the state itself. But that's just frog-in-a-well effect.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  "Lane, a superbly attentive historian of Venice, allowed specifically for the case of a government that generates protection rents for its merchants by deliberately attacking their competitors." In a more historical note, compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era

by ct520 6y ago

etrabroline 6y ago

Correct. It's basically the same relationship large financial interests have with the US government. When financial interests have enough influence, they become too big to fail, meaning any "corruption" by the big players is ignored, and so isn't really corruption anymore so much as a part of government policy.

teruakohatu 6y ago
Except there are rules, and when they are broken there are consequences. See Lehman Brothers and Enron. Maybe there are lines in Mexico that cannot be crossed, but from an non-American perspective I struggle to see where those lines are.
- rapind 6y ago
  Based on the 2008 bailout, it wasn't the banks who suffered the lion's share of the consequences. Maybe the difference isn't so great as we perceive
- ct520 6y ago
  kiki camarena
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  > Maybe there are lines in Mexico that cannot be crossed, but from an non-American perspective I struggle to see where those lines are. The main rule is don’t antagonize the Americans too much. The big example is Camarena who was kidnapped, tortured, and killed by the cartels in the 1980s. It brought such a response from the US, that the cartels in general avoid trying to kill US DEA agents.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    From an open source, mexican "top cop" turns out crooked, mexico advises US to check his stateside counterparts: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-usa-corruption/mexico-urges-us-to-probe-of-all-officials-with-ties-to-ex-minister-idUSKBN22G2SK https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-usa-corruption/mex... Anyone know if there have been any resulting probes, north of the border? (I didn't pick up much english just now in a quick news search, and this is not very relevant to my interests.)
    - ct520 6y ago
      I’m not sure, but my goto blog for reference on Narco news is: http://www.borderlandbeat.com/ http://www.borderlandbeat.com/ Maybe they have more info?
- xapata 6y ago
  It's possible Lehman Brothers went under simply because Paulson didn't like Fuld.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making+state+making+organized+crime https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making+sta... I found this paper by Charles Tilly, a well-known sociologist, to be enlightening and eye-opening. And I think the flip-side is also true, "organized crime" being little different from "legitimate state", except in scale and sometimes scale. But even more enlightening to me, building on top of this paper, was the opinion of a chief named Bear in the Vietnamese (iirc) jungle, who had to deal with both the "legitimate" (dominant) government and the "paramilitary" groups, who would both alternate tearing through his village and terrorizing his people. To Bear, all of this activity was the inevitable result of existence of power itself, just a fact of reality. Power which, inevitablly, one or another would struggle to acquire, with similar results regardless of who it was. This perspective allowed him to maintain and protect his tribe from both organizations, by acknowledging their power, acquiescing to it, and letting the wind bend his stalk but not break it, so to speak. Bear was a wise man who lived to old age in a place with everyday danger, so his words are worth something, IMO. --- I learned of Bear and his wisdom from a book written by an anthropologist who lived with his people for several years. I remember one of the stories being about how an unwanted premature baby was allowed to die, and how much this upset the anthropologist at first. Unfortunately, I do not remember the name of the book anymore. If anyone recognizes it, please comment here.

Bobbcatt 6y ago
>And I think the flip-side is also true, "organized crime" being little different from "legitimate state", except in scale and sometimes scale. This is well known in anarchist/libertarian circle. Government taking 30% of your income is essentially a protection racket. People who are born and only lived in a stable single government state just assumes that there is something privileged about the state itself. But that's just frog-in-a-well effect.
082349872349872 6y ago
"Lane, a superbly attentive historian of Venice, allowed specifically for the case of a government that generates protection rents for its merchants by deliberately attacking their competitors." In a more historical note, compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era