Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Mexican drug cartels as anarchist?
- In a message dated 7/1/2011 12:42:39 PM Central Daylight Time,
>So, would the existing drug cartels under anarchism (now unable to collect
> Agreed, which is why I don't find them to be the major threat to an
> anarchist world that minarchists generally do.
black market profits, but still sitting on billions already made) be treated
like other state enriched firms (say, Xe) and be required to distribute
their ill gotten gains?
Some here envision that scenario (I don't).
If so, taking the ill gotten Zeta cartel billions will be quite difficult.
- It has been said that the Mafia started out as a band of
revolutionaries that went "legit"in that they bribed the state in
order to continue their role as thieves and do the things that the
state would not dirty its hands with (drugs, prostitution, gambling)
except for the highest levels which the CIA would handle. For a great
film on the evolution of a gang of thieves or mercenaries that evolved
into a state see Clavell's "The Last Valley".
On 12/9/11, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
> I haven't done any polls amongst anarchists or even market anarchists, so I
> don't know. I know that I've discussed and other anarchists I know have
> discussed criminal gangs aside from the state. In fact, amongst market
> anarchists, I think the view of the state as merely a criminal gang that has
> become a stationary bandit and then legitamized is probably the typical view
> for the origin of states.
> The problem for non-state gangs of this sort is that, absent special
> conditions, there are likely to only be a local problem. If state legitamcy
> goes away in toto -- i.e., the populace not only de-legitamizes any current
> states but finds states per se as not legit -- then any such gang aspiring
> to the state of being a state (forgive the pun:) will have an uphill battle.
> (Please note: This is not to say it will never ever ever ever happen, but
> just that it's much harder than replacing or forming a state in a society
> where the state per se is not legit -- even if the current or former state
> is viewed as not legit. One mgiht look at this as it's easier to become king
> in a nation where monarchy itself is presumed leg)
> From: "MikeHolmesTX@..." <MikeHolmesTX@...>
> To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 8:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Mexican drug cartels as anarchist?
> In a message dated 7/6/2011 3:58:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
> dan_ust@... writes:
>> Yeah, true, but these involve much higher risks under anarchy if the
>> populace has free access to arms. And the targets of opportunity that
>> big returns are likely to be well protected too. I don't think cartels
>> enjoy much of their former advantage in such a situation. So, they'd be
>> likely to shrink as criminal organizations and, in some cases, disappear
>> just like most of the rum running organizations fell apart after
>> was repealed.
> Yes, all true, though those rum running groups in many cases turned to
> smuggling other contraband like cigarettes or drugs. But they did shrink.
> But generally most anarchists, even market
> ones, don't like to talk about
> the issue of large groups of armed violent criminally inclined people, who
> the case of former drug cartels, will also be quite rich.
> I think there is a tendency to resort to the "posse" mentality. Yet few
> people in actuality joined posses and in many cases of armed bandit groups
> remote places, there is little citizen opposition. Of course the smarter
> armed gangs do make some local payments for the poor, sick, etc., to gain
> There is a chronic tendency among anarchists to believe that the State is
> the only large armed gang to worry about, the only seriously dangerous group
> of violent criminals. But that is wishful thinking.
> We all would hope that there would be a "steady state" (in the physical
> sense) of low violence and crime under anarchism. That tends to be our
> But statists and those who are fearful of anarchism tend
> to believe the
> exact opposite.
> Which is one reason I find the "fire the police and take care of yourself"
> kind of anarchist policy unsatisfactory. Not that we can magically invent
> convincing responses to every possible problem, but it is still an area in
> need of further research and examination.