3 ms·

>>> 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'

by 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.

by cellis 3y ago

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.