5 ms·
So you're forced to join a gang and fight their rival gangs, or you form your own gang equipped with rifles and grenades ready to commit violence, so that you c
by tejohnso 2mo ago
So you're forced to join a gang and fight their rival gangs, or you form your own gang equipped with rifles and grenades ready to commit violence, so that you can fight against joining that gang, or any other gang. Either way you're in a violent gang.
I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence.
- crypttales 2mo ago[dead]
- monkaiju 2mo agoNot sure its fair to equate a gang fueled by drug smuggling to a self-defense militia.
- inigyou 2mo ago[flagged]
- monkaiju 2mo agoOh yeah, you wont catch me defending the US government one bit. What I'm saying is a group of people in a community taking up arms to defend themselves is not inherently the same as a drug cartel.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- cwnyth 2mo agoApparently, words can just mean whatever people want, so long as it aligns with one's feelings or helps them feel superior to others.
- tejohnso 2mo agoYeah, I guess "self-defense militia" aligns more closely with some people's feelings than "violent gang" does. To each his own.
- eth0up 2mo agoIn case you need one, you have made a friend. Excellent comment, which fits the scene as might a custom tailored glove.
- 14 2mo agoThe reminded me of Johnnie Cochran "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" slogan he used during the O.J. Simpson murder trial.
- tejohnso 2mo agoThe only equating I did was to point out that either way you're stuck having to align with a group of people willing and ready to commit lethal violence with lethal weapons. Use whatever words you want but I think that's clearly violent and it's clearly a gang, which by definition is "a group of persons working together" or even more specifically, "a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends". In this case the newly formed gang is certainly unlawful.
- unclad5968 2mo agoI'm not sure that it's certainly unlawful to defend yourself against gang violence, but I'm not a Mexican lawyer. It's such an odd thing to say that people defending their homes are now a gang because they fight back against the cartel.
- esseph 2mo agoLaws != morality
- eth0up 2mo ago[flagged]
- wmf 2mo agoWithout oversight, a self-defense militia may expand beyond its original scope in unfortunate ways. The history of the Italian Mafia can be instructive here.
- bluefirebrand 2mo agoI'm pretty sure that a self defense militia was the standard way that people would defend their farms and livelihoods against violent outsiders for the majority of human history
- esseph 2mo agoThat gang has international arms. They have logistics trains. They have industry analysts! Sometimes maybe they have Pay and HR issues. They're a global business with external trade agreements with elements in other countries. They lease other business services back and forth like B2B.
- esseph 2mo ago[dead]
- inigyou 2mo agoThese gangs are states. We can tell this because they have monopolies on violence.
- arjie 2mo agoThe entire reason there is any conflict there is a lack of a monopoly on violence… The monopoly part is significant. It’s not just “doing a lot of”.
- cucumber3732842 2mo agoThe conflict isn't because of the lack of monopoly. The conflict and lack of monopoly are because whoever as the closest thing to a monopoly is doing such a bad job.
- gibbitz 2mo agoIn this case it's like cable TV. Only not a monopoly if you look at the whole country...
- threatofrain 2mo agoI don't think you need total control, just enough so that you're the go-to party for diplomatic and military negotiations in the geopolitical region.
- inigyou 2mo agoSo Russia isn't a state?
- psionides 2mo agoPersonally I would prefer no violence from either side…
- ahartmetz 2mo agoThe state monopoly on violence (+ a judicial system) tends to result in a low amount of violence... at least intra-state. Wars are another matter. Notably, there is no monopoly on violence between states. States are allowed and somewhat expected to be violent psychopaths externally.
- patcon 2mo agoI agree, not all violence is the same. But further, perhaps our sense of morality atrophies when we concede the idea of just violence (just as in "justice") only to the state. I presume those fighting the cartels might have more of a developed sense of civic pride and duty than anyone in a more stable place. Perhaps I'm wrong though
- esseph 2mo ago> But further, perhaps our sense of morality atrophies when we concede the idea of just violence (just as in "justice") only to the state. > I presume those fighting the cartels might have more of a developed sense of civic pride and duty than anyone in a more stable place. Perhaps I'm wrong though 100%. You can either become familiar with violence and temper it, or you are simply subject to violence by anyone that wishes it upon you. For most of the Western world we grow up as "house cats", but that isn't the case in much of the world.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- esseph 2mo ago> I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence. Like the Taliban?
- krapp 2mo agoAll states maintain a monopoly on violence. That's literally the definition of a state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- esseph 2mo agoDid you respond to the wrong comment? The OP is saying they want the state to maintain the monopoly on violence. My counter to that argument is the very existence of the current Afghan government. It's a "Are you sure you want that?" statement.
- Dig1t 2mo agoMexico has gun laws which are significantly more restrictive than the USA. There is only one legal gun store in the country, they must all be permitted, calibers are limited, and only permitted within the place of residence. "Monopoly on violence" is an illusion that's propped up mostly by the culture of the people who live in a country. Sweden's gun homicide rate has increased by 400% since 2010 due to nothing other than demographic change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_Sweden
- ButlerianJihad 2mo agoIn the 1990s, I traveled into Tijuana from San Diego County a few times. We usually walked, because of reasons. For people traveling north into the USA, the border checkpoint included long queues of vehicles and people alike, customs inspections, routine searches of everything, passport checks, and questions by actual Border Patrol officers. Walking south into Mexico, there was a broad, unsupervised walkway and a one-way turnstile. Large signs read: WELCOME ¡BIENVENIDOS! NO FIREARMS And that was it! We were in Mexico!
- jjav 2mo ago> I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence. Yes, until they go completely outlaw rogue like ice has done in the USA.
- halJordan 2mo agoAnd by go rogue you mean do exactly as ordered
- jjav 2mo agoIf you want to put it that way, yes. The US government is split into three branches with separation of powers. The executive branch does not have the authority to give orders which bypass laws and the constitution. Any agency that follows such orders has gone rogue, as following illegal orders is the definition of that.
- jopython 2mo agoThe Founding Fathers would have rejected that premise. They designed the American system in deliberate opposition to the idea of an unchallengeable state monopoly on legitimate force.
- groos 2mo agoThis is a bad take. When the stste is either unable or unwilling to offer security, what is the alternative? The 'vigilantes' are doing the honorable thing, protecting their communities from criminals and oppressors. I wish them all good luck as it seem like they need it. The danger always is that these militias can themselves become corrupt and oppress their own people.