5 ms·

Gang crime seem to be a common weakness of democracies. There's a notable list of countries that had to resort to elect a quasi-dictator to get rid of gangs. As

Gang crime seem to be a common weakness of democracies. There's a notable list of countries that had to resort to elect a quasi-dictator to get rid of gangs. As my hometown is coming to grip with a bubbling gang war, I wonder if there is a better way.

pottertheotter 3y ago
What country, if you don’t mind saying?
- fvdessen 3y ago
  Belgium, the Antwerp port is the main entry point for drugs in Europe, and there is high demand for drugs in Belgium itself as well. The gangs used to be 'quiet' but there's been a drive-by shooting wave in Brussels recently, which re-opened the debate about what to do with all this. I know the situation is in no way comparable with what's going on in South-America, but there are also well known spots in the city where drugs are dealt openly, people even queue, which is a bit of a wtf Of course the extreme right is riding on this hard and winning a lot of popularity as a result
- mynameishere 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia_during_the_Fascist_regime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia_during_the_Fasc... All governments are basically mafioso. Consider the existence of national security laws of every government. These are a kind of legal Omertà.
yichi 3y ago
Dictatorship is very good at combating crime if it's under good hands (which itself is a tall order imo), just look at Singapore, the problem with dictatorship is the lack of accountability and 99% of dictators simply suck at governing hence democracy is usually better since most dictators have a severe case of Dunning–Kruger effect. People like Bukele and Lee Kuan Yew are very few and far between.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Do you have evidence of the first sentence? Or is it circular?: If crime goes down, they are 'good' dictators. What about the victims of those dictators, who lose lives and families and freedom? They don't much benefit from the 'good'.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > If crime goes down, they are 'good' dictators. Crime nearly always goes down with dictators, that's not a good metric. The question is how many completely innocent people have their lives ruined or lost in the process.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Crime nearly always goes down with dictators Wow, I am pretty well informed and I've never seen that. Do you have evidence of it?
      - Spooky23 3y ago
        In a police state, it’s good to be a cop.
wolverine876 3y ago
> Gang crime seem to be a common weakness of democracies. I've read many histories and that hasn't been a problem. I've lived all my life in democracies and it's never been a problem anywhere that I've lived. I also don't see a correlation. Countries with high levels of corruption, of every form of government, have organized crime problems. Haiti has a very serious gang problem but never much democracy. You might not read about gangs as much in dictatorships because, first, the government is a gang - they are a gang that took over government. And also there's no free press. And on the other side of the correlation, modern democracies are the safest, most prosperous places in the history of humanity. And they have a free press to report on everything. Nothing is perfect, of course; but compare them to the alternative (and to history), not to the almighty. Also, the premise that democracy is optional is irrational. If the people don't get to select their leaders, who the f- does? Who will do better? If they are so clearly better, why not have a vote?
- blackhawkC17 3y ago
  Democracy has largely worked and ushered in widespread economic and social development in the West. The issue is that many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West. Many countries are still stuck in a culture of tribalism and corruption and keep voting horrible leaders (the vast majority of Africa and a few in Asia and Eastern Europe). But I agree with you that people should have a say in who leads them. If they keep voting horrid leaders, that’s a problem they brought on themselves.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West That's an old excuse of dictators, one of a series of obviously self-serving justifications for their taking power and oppressing others. Consider the cultures worldwide where democracy has thrived: The 'West' (Western Europe/US/Canada), Eastern Europe, South Asia, East Asia (S Korea, Japan, Taiwan - the wealthiest part of China by far, per capita, despite China's constant attacks on them), Costa Rica, South America (Brazil, Chile, others), places in W. Africa (Benin, Senegal), E Africa (Kenya), etc etc. In fact, democracy's record is entirely the opposite. It's by far the greatest development in human history; and somehow, instead of pulling their weight, doing their part as our ancestors did, who sacrificed so much, so many are dallying with power-hungry dictators.
cjbgkagh 3y ago
I think people forget that universal suffrage and male suffrage are pretty recent phenomenon, so when talking about democracies we should understand that historical democracies were very different. As such this weakness may be more of a character of modern universal suffrage democracies. There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Historical humanity was nothing like what you have now, a product of generations of modern democracy which has yielded the most free, most wealthy, most prosperous places and times in the history of humanity. For ~95% of human (homo sapien) history, we were hunter-gatherers. Everything else is a recent phenomenon. Even starting with settled, post-hunter-gatherers, democracy wasn't common at all until the last couple centries. We left that past behind for a reason, and live far, far better now. > There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal. Who gets to decide that? No doubt you would be willing to let others rule over you, taking away your freedom and power? Whoever doesn't have a seat at the table is certain to be victimized by those in power.
  - cjbgkagh 3y ago
    I have never voted, and can’t vote in the country I live in. And I’m perfectly happy with it. You could say I voted with my feet and my wallet. There are plenty of ways to wield power without voting. I know it’s a touchy point for people, the justifications being if you’re taxed then you must be able to vote. I know plenty of people who would give up their vote to live tax free. Then there is also the draft, if you can be drafted you must be able to vote. I would rather abolish the draft. We live in an era with many firsts so historical comparisons are not generally particularly useful. And I think it’s too early to tell if all modern decisions are good ones. The point I’m making is people are thinking the two options are dictatorship or universal suffrage democracy and I’m saying not only does a middle ground exist but that middle ground used to be the default.
    - 3y ago
weweweoo 3y ago
Gang crime is primarily a symptom of poverty, inequality and lack of opportunities. Many rich Western European countries had very little gang crime, at least until they decided to create a new class of working poor from exploited migrants. Nordic countries in particular would have a super low crime rate, had migration been handled better.

pottertheotter 3y ago

What country, if you don’t mind saying?

fvdessen 3y ago
Belgium, the Antwerp port is the main entry point for drugs in Europe, and there is high demand for drugs in Belgium itself as well. The gangs used to be 'quiet' but there's been a drive-by shooting wave in Brussels recently, which re-opened the debate about what to do with all this. I know the situation is in no way comparable with what's going on in South-America, but there are also well known spots in the city where drugs are dealt openly, people even queue, which is a bit of a wtf Of course the extreme right is riding on this hard and winning a lot of popularity as a result
mynameishere 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia_during_the_Fascist_regime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia_during_the_Fasc... All governments are basically mafioso. Consider the existence of national security laws of every government. These are a kind of legal Omertà.

yichi 3y ago

Dictatorship is very good at combating crime if it's under good hands (which itself is a tall order imo), just look at Singapore, the problem with dictatorship is the lack of accountability and 99% of dictators simply suck at governing hence democracy is usually better since most dictators have a severe case of Dunning–Kruger effect. People like Bukele and Lee Kuan Yew are very few and far between.

wolverine876 3y ago
Do you have evidence of the first sentence? Or is it circular?: If crime goes down, they are 'good' dictators. What about the victims of those dictators, who lose lives and families and freedom? They don't much benefit from the 'good'.
- jjav 3y ago
  > If crime goes down, they are 'good' dictators. Crime nearly always goes down with dictators, that's not a good metric. The question is how many completely innocent people have their lives ruined or lost in the process.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Crime nearly always goes down with dictators Wow, I am pretty well informed and I've never seen that. Do you have evidence of it?
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      In a police state, it’s good to be a cop.

wolverine876 3y ago

> Gang crime seem to be a common weakness of democracies. I've read many histories and that hasn't been a problem. I've lived all my life in democracies and it's never been a problem anywhere that I've lived. I also don't see a correlation. Countries with high levels of corruption, of every form of government, have organized crime problems. Haiti has a very serious gang problem but never much democracy. You might not read about gangs as much in dictatorships because, first, the government is a gang - they are a gang that took over government. And also there's no free press. And on the other side of the correlation, modern democracies are the safest, most prosperous places in the history of humanity. And they have a free press to report on everything. Nothing is perfect, of course; but compare them to the alternative (and to history), not to the almighty. Also, the premise that democracy is optional is irrational. If the people don't get to select their leaders, who the f- does? Who will do better? If they are so clearly better, why not have a vote?

blackhawkC17 3y ago
Democracy has largely worked and ushered in widespread economic and social development in the West. The issue is that many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West. Many countries are still stuck in a culture of tribalism and corruption and keep voting horrible leaders (the vast majority of Africa and a few in Asia and Eastern Europe). But I agree with you that people should have a say in who leads them. If they keep voting horrid leaders, that’s a problem they brought on themselves.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > many cultures are quite incompatible with democracy, unlike the West That's an old excuse of dictators, one of a series of obviously self-serving justifications for their taking power and oppressing others. Consider the cultures worldwide where democracy has thrived: The 'West' (Western Europe/US/Canada), Eastern Europe, South Asia, East Asia (S Korea, Japan, Taiwan - the wealthiest part of China by far, per capita, despite China's constant attacks on them), Costa Rica, South America (Brazil, Chile, others), places in W. Africa (Benin, Senegal), E Africa (Kenya), etc etc. In fact, democracy's record is entirely the opposite. It's by far the greatest development in human history; and somehow, instead of pulling their weight, doing their part as our ancestors did, who sacrificed so much, so many are dallying with power-hungry dictators.

cjbgkagh 3y ago

I think people forget that universal suffrage and male suffrage are pretty recent phenomenon, so when talking about democracies we should understand that historical democracies were very different. As such this weakness may be more of a character of modern universal suffrage democracies. There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal.

wolverine876 3y ago
Historical humanity was nothing like what you have now, a product of generations of modern democracy which has yielded the most free, most wealthy, most prosperous places and times in the history of humanity. For ~95% of human (homo sapien) history, we were hunter-gatherers. Everything else is a recent phenomenon. Even starting with settled, post-hunter-gatherers, democracy wasn't common at all until the last couple centries. We left that past behind for a reason, and live far, far better now. > There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal. Who gets to decide that? No doubt you would be willing to let others rule over you, taking away your freedom and power? Whoever doesn't have a seat at the table is certain to be victimized by those in power.
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  I have never voted, and can’t vote in the country I live in. And I’m perfectly happy with it. You could say I voted with my feet and my wallet. There are plenty of ways to wield power without voting. I know it’s a touchy point for people, the justifications being if you’re taxed then you must be able to vote. I know plenty of people who would give up their vote to live tax free. Then there is also the draft, if you can be drafted you must be able to vote. I would rather abolish the draft. We live in an era with many firsts so historical comparisons are not generally particularly useful. And I think it’s too early to tell if all modern decisions are good ones. The point I’m making is people are thinking the two options are dictatorship or universal suffrage democracy and I’m saying not only does a middle ground exist but that middle ground used to be the default.
  - 3y ago

weweweoo 3y ago

Gang crime is primarily a symptom of poverty, inequality and lack of opportunities. Many rich Western European countries had very little gang crime, at least until they decided to create a new class of working poor from exploited migrants. Nordic countries in particular would have a super low crime rate, had migration been handled better.