3 ms·

> The main mission, supplying medicines in the face of oppressive government regulations, is a noble one, one that people can get behind. I think drug prohibit

by wtbob 12y ago

> The main mission, supplying medicines in the face of oppressive government regulations, is a noble one, one that people can get behind. I think drug prohibition is stupid and wicked, but let's be honest: this is not about supplying medicine to patients but cocaine to users. That use should be lawful, but it's certainly no noble mission. > Or is there an actual plan behind being savages and basically making the entire world think they're just untamed animals? Every law is backed up by fear of violence. The cartels can't go to a legitimate court to enforce their contracts and settle their disputes, so they fall back on raw force. Over time, the sort of people who enjoy that sort of work do better than those who don't. There are evil people in the world who enjoy inflicting pain and suffering, and I daresay they do very well in such organisations. Genghis Khan annihilated cities which didn't cooperate with him; the Turks raped and murdered for three decades when they conquered Constantinople; what the Russians did in Berlin isn't fit to be printed; what happened in Allende is really no different.

MichaelGG 12y ago
> medicine to patients but cocaine to users ... no noble mission I wouldn't say it's ignoble, though you're right, their case would be far stronger if they were supplying a more varied product. Your explanation of violence doesn't explain why other groups get by with less violence, and otherwise appear to be respectable members of society. Look at a Chicago Outfit's massacre[1] and the Zeta's[2]. I know, I'm abusing the word massacre, but in one case, notoriety is because of the killing of a few rival criminals. In the Zetas case, they just rape, torture, and murder hundreds of innocent civilians. That seems very shortsighted and not beneficial to business. Unless it's a tactic to raise the barrier to entry by making the whole area just terrible to work in, overall. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacr... 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_San_Fernando_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_San_Fernando_massacre
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > In the Zetas case, they just rape, torture, and murder hundreds of innocent civilians. > That seems very shortsighted and not beneficial to business. An organized crime group that engages in this kind of behavior may, within a reasonable approximation, be rationally focused on maximizing their own experienced utility [0], but even if they are, their utility function may not weight financial returns as highly as, say, yours does. [0] I should emphasize that I am not at all taking the position that this is the case.
- chongli 12y ago
  As violent as the Chicago Outfit were, they still had to be careful much of the time. The Zetas are far more brazen because they're allowed to be. They live in a lawless backcountry, not the heart of one of North America's biggest cities. A better comparison for the Zetas would be groups like Boko Haram and ISIS.
wtbob 12y ago
> three decades Whoops, days, not decades. Dunno how that got through.

by wtbob 12y ago

MichaelGG 12y ago

> medicine to patients but cocaine to users ... no noble mission I wouldn't say it's ignoble, though you're right, their case would be far stronger if they were supplying a more varied product. Your explanation of violence doesn't explain why other groups get by with less violence, and otherwise appear to be respectable members of society. Look at a Chicago Outfit's massacre[1] and the Zeta's[2]. I know, I'm abusing the word massacre, but in one case, notoriety is because of the killing of a few rival criminals. In the Zetas case, they just rape, torture, and murder hundreds of innocent civilians. That seems very shortsighted and not beneficial to business. Unless it's a tactic to raise the barrier to entry by making the whole area just terrible to work in, overall. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacr... 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_San_Fernando_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_San_Fernando_massacre

dragonwriter 12y ago
> In the Zetas case, they just rape, torture, and murder hundreds of innocent civilians. > That seems very shortsighted and not beneficial to business. An organized crime group that engages in this kind of behavior may, within a reasonable approximation, be rationally focused on maximizing their own experienced utility [0], but even if they are, their utility function may not weight financial returns as highly as, say, yours does. [0] I should emphasize that I am not at all taking the position that this is the case.
chongli 12y ago
As violent as the Chicago Outfit were, they still had to be careful much of the time. The Zetas are far more brazen because they're allowed to be. They live in a lawless backcountry, not the heart of one of North America's biggest cities. A better comparison for the Zetas would be groups like Boko Haram and ISIS.

wtbob 12y ago

> three decades Whoops, days, not decades. Dunno how that got through.