Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#51

Post by wudangmonk »

fransje26 wrote: post #38
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"new state apparatus in place. Political parties were banned, and a governing council had been elected..a military force was chartered" Yeah, how does this work? This sounds more like civil war. Admittedly, one side of the war staying to themselves. But, also, break down of any overall government. If Idaho suddenly did this people would freak out, would call it communism, and attack.

> If Idaho suddenly did this people would freak out, would call it communism, and attack. Well, of course. People would start taking control of their own lives, and we don't want that. What would come next? The right to control their own body? How ludicrous. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/04/23/1246611...

It doesn't really make sense to compare it to something in the U.S where both parties fight over meaningless stuff like who can go into which bathrooms and which books you can burn.

In Mexico the local government is the problem since they are often part of the cartels so the only way to change things is for these communities to setup a local milita, kick out the goverment/police and put a very utilitarian government in its place.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#52

Post by FrustratedMonky »

huimang wrote: post #50
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make that argument in both directions. Better be careful what you are arguing for. The same arguments for 'States' to have the right to legalize pot is the same arguments the South uses for slavery. Texas could secede and enslave Mexicans and remove women's rights. That would be 'taking control' as they desire it. California could secede and give everyone free pot and mandatory beach days. That would be their…

Respecting human rights and self-autonomy is not the same thing as removing rights from people to benefit the companies/government and I wish people would stop arguing in bad faith that they're remotely similar.

You might need to clarify that position.

It is a problem when someone wants 'autonomy' in order to enforce reduced 'right's on others, or another way, my 'autonomy' is greater than your 'autonomy'.

So, lets say I'm commanded by my god to enforce that you must have kids. And I get enough people together to secede, in order to enforce these beliefs onto others. Then the people caught in this situation do have rights taken away.

Or, other people cross dressing offends me, thus I should have the right to pass laws to prevent them doing that, my 'autonomy' outweighs theirs.

It does get confusing, when some groups say they want 'autonomy' over their body when it comes to vaccines, but when it comes to 'autonomy' over having kids, suddenly it is a metaphysical law from god that can't be compromised.

Both are cases of bodily 'autonomy', and one group believes since it is a law from god, that it should be enforced onto others by government laws, which is really taking rights away.

When the group that thinks your 'autonomy' is an affront to their god, and you become the problem to be 'removed', and they are now running the government, now the government is taking away rights and infringing on the individual's 'autonomy'.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#53

Post by moralestapia »

alephnerd wrote: post #42
skrebbel wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow that’s some serious A-Team level story

Yea, and then those kinds of organizations become corrupted themselves because money and power are extremely alluring. Look at the Autodefensas in Colombia and Michoacán, or the origins of the Taliban in Kandahar's opium belt (Maiwand) in the early 1990s. Militas are not hallmarks of direct democracy - they are hallmarks of societal and political collapse.

I'd an already corrupt environment for any other "maybe corrupt in 10 years" any day.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#54

Post by nathan_compton »

amelius wrote: post #27
nathan_compton wrote: post #21

Its interesting that if you are sitting on top of something valuable its great, as long as its not too valuable. At a certain point people are willing to kill and cheat for something really valuable, and then if you are sitting on top of it, you're fucked.

Something is missing in your theory. Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, etc. are sitting on something really valuable.

It isn't really that exploitable, though. You couldn't march up to any of these people and take it and have it keep its value. It's not like Musk has a 4 billion dollar diamond in his stomach.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#55

Post by ASalazarMX »

anigbrowl wrote: post #9

In Cherán, however, there was no such violence. Nor were there any avocados. Thirteen years ago, the town’s residents prevented corrupt officials and a local cartel from illegally cutting down native forests to make way for the crop. A group of locals took loggers hostage while others incinerated their trucks. Soon, townspeople had kicked out the police and local government, cancelled elections, and locked down the w…

> Thirteen years ago, the town’s residents prevented corrupt officials and a local cartel from illegally cutting down native forests to make way for the crop.

This is a key take. Organized crime doesn't rule regions outside the control of the state, they're managed by a coalition of local corrupt politicians and businessmen that use them to do their dirty work. The town residents were wise to fight not only the illegal criminals, but their legal supporters.

People are getting tired of deeply corrupted govermments blaming everything bad on the runaway cartels, while they're the real intellectual authors.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#56

Post by h0l0cube »

makeitdouble wrote: post #33
h0l0cube wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People would pay extra for ‘conflict-free’ avocados I bet

We have a similar conundrum for coffee, and the "this coffee is ethically good" handling is just complicated. It works at super small scale, for extra invested people. The bigger the scale becomes, the murkier it is, and at some point a vendor is just selling a label with not much reality behind it.

Are you talking ‘ethical fair trade’? Because there’s definitely reputable and properly audited designations in this space (edit: namely the green and blue Fairtrade International and Rainforest Alliance, all the imitation marks are junk)

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#57

Post by singleshot_ »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #49
fransje26 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Idaho suddenly did this people would freak out, would call it communism, and attack. Well, of course. People would start taking control of their own lives, and we don't want that. What would come next? The right to control their own body? How ludicrous. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/04/23/1246611...

You can make that argument in both directions. Better be careful what you are arguing for. The same arguments for 'States' to have the right to legalize pot is the same arguments the South uses for slavery. Texas could secede and enslave Mexicans and remove women's rights. That would be 'taking control' as they desire it. California could secede and give everyone free pot and mandatory beach days. That would be their…

fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#58

Post by FrustratedMonky »

singleshot_ wrote: post #57
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make that argument in both directions. Better be careful what you are arguing for. The same arguments for 'States' to have the right to legalize pot is the same arguments the South uses for slavery. Texas could secede and enslave Mexicans and remove women's rights. That would be 'taking control' as they desire it. California could secede and give everyone free pot and mandatory beach days. That would be their…

fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments.

""fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments.""

I probably need it spelled out, since to me your sentence is directly showing how they are they same argument.

If the 'state' as in states rights, wants to limit my 'health and welfare' say by limiting my health insurance and giving everyone guns, then that does also infringe on my individual rights. I'm placed in a situation of not being in a safe area with access to resources to live a healthy life. And yes, in todays world that is a 'States' right, and everyone can move. But you can't say those are separate.

If a 'State' wants to cause harm to it's own citizens, then that becomes then a conflict between the "State" and the "Central" government, who must also insure everyone has some equal measure of safety and welfare.

You're forgetting that some peoples 'morality' causes harm to others. Which can then bring into conflict the state and the central gov. Like when in Ameristan the 'state' gov starts persecuting people, maybe even disenfranchising the ability to vote at all, then the Central gov has to step in. Now there is Central-Local-Individual conflict.

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#59

Post by selimthegrim »

nathan_compton wrote: post #54
amelius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something is missing in your theory. Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, etc. are sitting on something really valuable.

It isn't really that exploitable, though. You couldn't march up to any of these people and take it and have it keep its value. It's not like Musk has a 4 billion dollar diamond in his stomach.

Now I’m envisioning Musk like the Christmas goose in The Blue Carbuncle

Re: Mexico’s anti-avocado militias

#60

Post by selimthegrim »

downut wrote: post #47
prmoustache wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also live in Spain, but my partner is Mexican and I know a number of argentines including one who just spent months travelling in latin america. She travelled mostly alone, spent many nights sleeping in a van on her own in Mexico and said she felt much safer than in the Buenos Aires area where she used to live before moving to Spain. And Buenos Aires is considered a safe city. Last time I was in Mexico I never felt…

I'm a gringo and have driven all over NW Mexico: BCS/BCN and Sonora. So cities: Guaymas, Nogales, Puerto Peñasco, Mexicali, Tijuana, Ensenada, La Paz, Cabo, etc. With my wife and occasional daughter, we've city-hiked extensively CDMX, Querétaro, Guadalajara, Oaxaca, and by design not the wealthiest areas. Also by design we are happiest when we're the only gringos around, for instance in a restaurant. We all stick out…

Mordida, not mordita.
Post reply on HN