Live data from Hacker News

Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

pbs.org

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#52
post #6
post #2

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.

Not sure its fair to equate a gang fueled by drug smuggling to a self-defense militia.

[flagged]

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#54
post #11
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These gangs are states. We can tell this because they have monopolies on violence.

The 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”.

Personally I would prefer no violence from either side…

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#55
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should send in the army. How is what's happening there now not already a war and a humanitarian disaster? The only difference is that the civilians are the ones forced into fighting and they're having to buy their guns from rival gangs to do it. Actual soldiers with the firepower of the government should be doing the fighting instead of random farmers.

Calderón did exactly that. Fought an all-out war with the cartels. 60,000 people dead and nothing changed.

He fought a war against unsanctioned drug trafficking. Drugs are not an enemy you can defeat. He should have gone to war against the cartels, but then I guess that's hard to do when your Secretariat of Public Security is working for them. Either way, as with any war, deaths are to be expected. Freedom and sovereignty are usually considered to be worth the cost.

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#56
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 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”.

Personally I would prefer no violence from either side…

The 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.

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#57
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 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”.

Personally I would prefer no violence from either side…

Personally, I would prefer 10B USD liquid and tax-free

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#58
post #6
post #2

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.

Not sure its fair to equate a gang fueled by drug smuggling to a self-defense militia.

Without oversight, a self-defense militia may expand beyond its original scope in unfortunate ways. The history of the Italian Mafia can be instructive here.
Post reply on HN