9 ms·

You can't build stable countries in those places as long as narcotraffickers and commodity smugglers exist, and they will exist as long as we have repressive la

by cellis 3y ago

You can't build stable countries in those places as long as narcotraffickers and commodity smugglers exist, and they will exist as long as we have repressive laws on drug use (in the United States and other Rich Nations) and sanctions on commodities from the same. The problem is these combined policies incentivize defacto states that aren't democratic and will extort or thwart any well meaning developers. In countries without a strong rule of law you won't get far (absent finding a way to monopolize force yourself).

toss1 3y ago
>> (absent finding a way to monopolize force yourself) Exactly this. Any person who wants to live a self-determined life, and have a self-determined govt must be (individually or collectively) better armed and better prepared than everyone form the wannabe local lunch bully, regional warlord, or national authoritarian. IF not, they will take your lunch and your government every time. The GP's plan is great, but (s)he will need to start with a significant well-managed armed force. Otherwise, the local drug lord, warlord, mafia don, or authoritarian will ignore you until you create value, then decide they want it for themselves. If you cannot defend it, it will be theirs until they destroy it.
philwelch 3y ago
You’re putting the cart before the horse here. If there isn’t a strong rule of law, any economic activity is going to come under the control of protection rackets and other armed factions. That’s completely independent of any drug prohibitions or commodity sanctions. When it comes to commodity sanctions you’re even reversing cause and effect; the sanctions are usually imposed as a half measure against whatever armed faction ends up controlling commodity extraction in a particular failed state.
- cellis 3y ago
  >>> If there isn’t a strong rule of law, any economic activity is going to come under the control of protection rackets and other armed factions. I think you're restating what I said. Narco traffickers are able to subvert the rule of law via corruption. Their ability to perform corruption is a function of their profitability, which in turn is a function of the demand (and their ability to supply it), in rich countries. The demand is unmet domestically because of our prohibitions and draconian federal enforcement. So the rule of law breaks down there due to strong rule of law here. We are essentially exporting the market making there, and that sort of market making, while risky, is profitable in the extreme. As for the commodity sanctions while most maybe are well intentioned, they only serve to again allow those willing to take the risk of market making to rack up obscene profits. This is regardless of what circumstances lead to them, they empower actors who aren't particularly altruistic and certainly aren't democratic, to subvert the rule of law.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    > I think you're restating what I said. I’m not. Let me restate what I said, with emphasis: If there isn’t a strong rule of law, any economic activity is going to come under the control of protection rackets and other armed factions. Any. Economic. Activity. Not just drug trafficking. I’m very familiar with the argument that drug prohibition creates organized crime, but it’s not a fully general explanation for global instability or the resource curse. > As for the commodity sanctions while most maybe are well intentioned, they only serve to again allow those willing to take the risk of market making to rack up obscene profits. You still aren’t explaining how Western sanctions on conflict diamonds are capable of traveling back through time and creating the problem of conflict diamonds in the first place.
    - cellis 3y ago
      Upon reflection, you are right about the cause/effect wrt sanctions. While I don't see how sanctions can be part of a solution, I do now understand that they aren't the cause of instability either, as corrupt actors, or even completely legitimate governments can cause violent conflict over these sanctioned commodities. But, the part about narco states still stands...I don't see a way to fix the rule of law problem by just "having strong rule of law". Those countries already have laws e.g. against corruption. Especially in South and Central America, narco-organizations and drug related violence predominates the causes of instability.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        > I don't see a way to fix the rule of law problem by just "having strong rule of law". Those countries already have laws e.g. against corruption. El Salvador did it. At some point, which Mexico already reached a long time ago, cartels metastasize beyond narcotics and can sustain themselves on protection rackets. It’s very tempting to treat drug prohibition as some sort of monocausal explanation for organized crime, but even if that were true at some point, that doesn’t mean legalization would solve the problem. And I think the existence of conflict diamonds and the like already demonstrate that drug prohibition isn’t even necessary for this kind of problem to emerge in the first place.
janalsncm 3y ago
You can, but it requires a strong authoritarian hand. China used to be rife with corruption and organized crime, now corruption has been significantly reduced and organized crime is essentially nonexistent. Singapore is broadly considered one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. Mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and people will simply go around your city. You may think those punishments are unreasonably harsh, but then again you’re probably not a drug trafficker. And it’s not like the American punishments (decades in dangerous prisons) are much better.
- galaxyofdoom 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    Yes, but that is true of many countries at the highest levels. Example: New US government memos obtained by Just the News through a FOIA lawsuit reveal that the Obama Administration was still actively communicating with former Ukrainian Prosecutor Victor Shokin after Biden's December 2015 threat to withhold $1 billion in US aid unless then-President Petro Poroshenko fired him. Senior State Department officials sent a conflicting message to Shokin before he was fired, inviting his staff to Washington for a January 2016 strategy session and sent him a personal note saying they were “impressed” with his office's work. U.S. officials faced pressure from Burisma emissaries in the United States to make the corruption allegations go away and feared the energy firm had made two bribery payments in Ukraine as part of an effort to get cases settled. A top U.S. official in Kyiv blamed Hunter Biden for undercutting U.S. anticorruption policy in Ukraine through his dealings with Burisma. "10% for the big guy"
    - galaxyofdoom 3y ago
      [dead]
- imtringued 3y ago
  You don't need to be a drug trafficker. They just need to plant evidence and off you go.

by cellis 3y ago

toss1 3y ago

>> (absent finding a way to monopolize force yourself) Exactly this. Any person who wants to live a self-determined life, and have a self-determined govt must be (individually or collectively) better armed and better prepared than everyone form the wannabe local lunch bully, regional warlord, or national authoritarian. IF not, they will take your lunch and your government every time. The GP's plan is great, but (s)he will need to start with a significant well-managed armed force. Otherwise, the local drug lord, warlord, mafia don, or authoritarian will ignore you until you create value, then decide they want it for themselves. If you cannot defend it, it will be theirs until they destroy it.

philwelch 3y ago

You’re putting the cart before the horse here. If there isn’t a strong rule of law, any economic activity is going to come under the control of protection rackets and other armed factions. That’s completely independent of any drug prohibitions or commodity sanctions. When it comes to commodity sanctions you’re even reversing cause and effect; the sanctions are usually imposed as a half measure against whatever armed faction ends up controlling commodity extraction in a particular failed state.

cellis 3y ago
>>> If there isn’t a strong rule of law, any economic activity is going to come under the control of protection rackets and other armed factions. I think you're restating what I said. Narco traffickers are able to subvert the rule of law via corruption. Their ability to perform corruption is a function of their profitability, which in turn is a function of the demand (and their ability to supply it), in rich countries. The demand is unmet domestically because of our prohibitions and draconian federal enforcement. So the rule of law breaks down there due to strong rule of law here. We are essentially exporting the market making there, and that sort of market making, while risky, is profitable in the extreme. As for the commodity sanctions while most maybe are well intentioned, they only serve to again allow those willing to take the risk of market making to rack up obscene profits. This is regardless of what circumstances lead to them, they empower actors who aren't particularly altruistic and certainly aren't democratic, to subvert the rule of law.
- philwelch 3y ago
  > I think you're restating what I said. I’m not. Let me restate what I said, with emphasis: If there isn’t a strong rule of law, any economic activity is going to come under the control of protection rackets and other armed factions. Any. Economic. Activity. Not just drug trafficking. I’m very familiar with the argument that drug prohibition creates organized crime, but it’s not a fully general explanation for global instability or the resource curse. > As for the commodity sanctions while most maybe are well intentioned, they only serve to again allow those willing to take the risk of market making to rack up obscene profits. You still aren’t explaining how Western sanctions on conflict diamonds are capable of traveling back through time and creating the problem of conflict diamonds in the first place.
  - cellis 3y ago
    Upon reflection, you are right about the cause/effect wrt sanctions. While I don't see how sanctions can be part of a solution, I do now understand that they aren't the cause of instability either, as corrupt actors, or even completely legitimate governments can cause violent conflict over these sanctioned commodities. But, the part about narco states still stands...I don't see a way to fix the rule of law problem by just "having strong rule of law". Those countries already have laws e.g. against corruption. Especially in South and Central America, narco-organizations and drug related violence predominates the causes of instability.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      > I don't see a way to fix the rule of law problem by just "having strong rule of law". Those countries already have laws e.g. against corruption. El Salvador did it. At some point, which Mexico already reached a long time ago, cartels metastasize beyond narcotics and can sustain themselves on protection rackets. It’s very tempting to treat drug prohibition as some sort of monocausal explanation for organized crime, but even if that were true at some point, that doesn’t mean legalization would solve the problem. And I think the existence of conflict diamonds and the like already demonstrate that drug prohibition isn’t even necessary for this kind of problem to emerge in the first place.

janalsncm 3y ago

You can, but it requires a strong authoritarian hand. China used to be rife with corruption and organized crime, now corruption has been significantly reduced and organized crime is essentially nonexistent. Singapore is broadly considered one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. Mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and people will simply go around your city. You may think those punishments are unreasonably harsh, but then again you’re probably not a drug trafficker. And it’s not like the American punishments (decades in dangerous prisons) are much better.

galaxyofdoom 3y ago
[flagged]
- orangepurple 3y ago
  Yes, but that is true of many countries at the highest levels. Example: New US government memos obtained by Just the News through a FOIA lawsuit reveal that the Obama Administration was still actively communicating with former Ukrainian Prosecutor Victor Shokin after Biden's December 2015 threat to withhold $1 billion in US aid unless then-President Petro Poroshenko fired him. Senior State Department officials sent a conflicting message to Shokin before he was fired, inviting his staff to Washington for a January 2016 strategy session and sent him a personal note saying they were “impressed” with his office's work. U.S. officials faced pressure from Burisma emissaries in the United States to make the corruption allegations go away and feared the energy firm had made two bribery payments in Ukraine as part of an effort to get cases settled. A top U.S. official in Kyiv blamed Hunter Biden for undercutting U.S. anticorruption policy in Ukraine through his dealings with Burisma. "10% for the big guy"
  - galaxyofdoom 3y ago
    [dead]
imtringued 3y ago
You don't need to be a drug trafficker. They just need to plant evidence and off you go.