Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

40% Positive

Analyzed from 1707 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#cartels#government#mexican#gang#gangs#those#violence#mexico#monopoly#drug

Discussion (59 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

tejohnso•about 2 hours 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.

inigyou•about 2 hours ago
These gangs are states. We can tell this because they have monopolies on violence.
arjie•about 2 hours ago
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”.
threatofrain•about 1 hour ago
I 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.
gibbitz•about 1 hour ago
In this case it's like cable TV. Only not a monopoly if you look at the whole country...
psionides•41 minutes ago
Personally I would prefer no violence from either side…
cucumber3732842•about 1 hour ago
The 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.
inigyou•about 1 hour ago
So Russia isn't a state?
ifwinterco•28 minutes ago
Reminds me of when ISIS was at its peak a few years ago and the BBC and all other news in the UK would always prefix it with “the so-called Islamic State”.

Like… no, it was a state. It had borders, it had a monopoly on violence within those borders, it collected taxes, it provided some public services.

Whether it offended the BBC’s sensibilities or not, it was a state

zhoBEENG•about 1 hour ago
You are completely correct. As much as many people don´t want to hear it, Mexico is a failing state. It´s extremely obvious when you are there that the United Mexican States lost most of the reins some time ago.

It started with the debt crisis, and its causes, but was definitively realized by 1994 when the Zapatistas took much of Chiapas.

Too much emphasis is put on the drug cartels alone, when the problem is much larger. I suspect by the end of the century maps will no longer show Mexico in its current form.

alephnerd•43 minutes ago
I'd put it the other way - the state turned into gangs.

Most of the core leadership of major cartels who haven't been arrested were mid-level officers in the DFS (Mexico's version of Italy's SID and Turkey's MIT from Operation Gladio days).

And what is interesting isn't the narcos who are arrested and indicted by the DoJ, but those who are arrested and then let go.

The story of Salvador Cienfuegos is a good example of that - arrested by the DEA on drug charges that were sealed while being Defense Minister, but charges were dropped for diplomatic reasons [0] or the DEA's investigation into AMLO in the 2000s and 2010s that was eventually dropped [1]. Meanwhile, giants like El Chapo or El Viceroy were successfully extradited or in the case of El Mencho killed.

To me, it feels like "untouchables" like Cienfuegos, Adán Augusto López, and Marcelo Ebrard or established networks even above them are likely running the show.

Sort of like how the KGB broke bad in the 90s or the Turkish military in the 1980s-2000s or the KCIA before Korea democratized in the 1990s or how leaders in the vice industry in Thailand tend to be associated with military leadership.

I also don't think it's a party ideological thing - PRI, PAN, and now MORENA have the same mid- and upper-level people.

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/magazine/mexico-general-c...

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/americas/mexico-pre...

esseph•3 minutes ago
[delayed]
patcon•23 minutes ago
I 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

monkaiju•about 2 hours ago
Not sure its fair to equate a gang fueled by drug smuggling to a self-defense militia.
wmf•31 minutes ago
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.
cwnyth•about 1 hour ago
Apparently, words can just mean whatever people want, so long as it aligns with one's feelings or helps them feel superior to others.
tejohnso•about 1 hour ago
Yeah, I guess "self-defense militia" aligns more closely with some people's feelings than "violent gang" does. To each his own.
eth0up•about 1 hour ago
In case you need one, you have made a friend. Excellent comment, which fits the scene as might a custom tailored glove.
tejohnso•about 1 hour ago
The 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•about 1 hour ago
I'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.
int0x29•about 2 hours ago
These self defense groups sound great until you think about all the problems with vigilante groups. Also they have a history of turning into cartels.

That and all things being equal I suspect most of the people in these groups would rather not be fighting.

autoexec•about 1 hour ago
It's not an ideal situation, but since the Mexican government refuses to do its job and protect their people and uphold the law what choice do they have?

Right now these people are just doing whatever they can to survive but it's just treating the symptom. The source of the problem is the Mexican government who is either incompetent or happy to take bribes to look the other way while their citizens are left the mercy of paramilitary gangs.

Thlom•about 1 hour ago
What can the government do at this point? We are talking about criminal syndicates with basically standing armies. If the Mexican government goes to all out war it will lead to a humanitarian disaster.
autoexec•about 1 hour ago
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.
e40•about 2 hours ago
What choice do they have?

This is not your usual vigilante group. This is a reaction to an overwhelming force of criminal gangs killing citizens and the government being powerless to stop them.

autoexec•27 minutes ago
> This is a reaction to an overwhelming force of criminal gangs killing citizens and the government being powerless to stop them.

Is the Mexican government, with their tens of billions in military spending, actually "powerless" to stop these gangs? I very much doubt it.

aucisson_masque•about 2 hours ago
What other choice ? Politics are yet to give a solution after decades of problems.
hereme888•about 1 hour ago
About 30% of Mexico is gang-controlled
aucisson_masque•about 2 hours ago
Mexico has been like that for decades, I believe it's top 1 priority for most Mexicans yet it's still not fixed. What gives ?

At some point when your government is so corrupt, you got to take weapon and organize yourself. It's sad.

burningChrome•5 minutes ago
>> Mexico has been like that for decades.

Back in the 60's and 70's my Dad worked or Lockheed Martin. He made frequent trips to Mexico to work with engineering teams there on projects he was working on. It only took him one trip to realize how corrupt the police were.

He had parked outside of his hotel with his rental car. Came out. It was surrounded by Policia. They told him he couldn't park here. "Sure thing, I'll move it and not park here again." "You don't understand gringo, you have to pay the parking fine now." He caught on, and asked how much it would cost to just park here, you know, rent this spot instead of paying their fine? The cops gave him an amount and he paid it and they left him alone the rest of the week he was there. He told me a bunch of other stories about the corruption there, not just the cops. It was pretty eye opening to hear some of these.

The corruption can't be fixed. Its engrained in the system. It was rampant fifty years ago, there is no fixing it - its completely normalized now. The cartels simply used the system against itself to gain total control and power.

rayiner•about 1 hour ago
Many countries are effectively ruled by gangs and cartels. That’s why kings became kind of a big deal in Europe. The states monopoly on violence was solidified back the
autoexec•about 1 hour ago
> At some point when your government is so corrupt, you got to take weapon and organize yourself. It's sad.

At that point you might as well point those weapons at the failed government that forced you to have to play soldier instead of protecting you. Not allowing your own citizens to be enslaved by roving bands of criminals is like the single most basic thing a country's government is for. Since the Mexican government has abandoned them and ceded control of that land to hostile armies I hope those poor farmers aren't still paying them taxes.

forinti•about 2 hours ago
A characteristic of most of Latin America is that the Police and the Army were created to protect power, not the people, and there hasn't really been an effort to change the mentality.
gibbitz•about 1 hour ago
Meanwhile in the US the laws are being changed to protect the wealthy, while the current administration is siphoning value of national assets into their own pockets. The poorer the country, the more likely this is to happen. I wonder how long it will take for warlords to set up shop in Kansas...
krapp•about 1 hour ago
That's a characteristic of police everywhere.
tantalor•29 minutes ago
Our heroic self defense group.

Their brutish narco terrorist cartel.

alephnerd•25 minutes ago
I'd recommend reading the history of Autodefensas and FARC/FLN in Colombia.

Anti-Drug militant groups have a habit of turning into drug lords as well.

sriacha•42 minutes ago
Highly recommend the 2015 documentary 'Cartel Land'
Kalanos•about 2 hours ago
the real war the US should be fighting
autoexec•about 1 hour ago
Why should the US be fighting Mexican gangs? Mexico should send their own army to fight the criminal gangs. If we want to send our army after gangs we have plenty of them right here in the US. We could start with the ones in our Sheriff's Departments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count...
themaninthedark•about 1 hour ago
And then we would get to hear about American imperialism forever....
nitwit005•28 minutes ago
Maybe after the US annexes Greenland, for some reason.
hereme888•about 1 hour ago
Why should the US fight Mexican cartels? They have their own armies and plenty of ammo.
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS•about 1 hour ago
If you think the outputs of Mexican cartels stay in Mexico, you're severely underinformed. Do you know how many civilian deaths (to say nothing of human trafficking and more) are directly due to Mexican cartels?

The US absolutely has an interest in the destruction of Mexican cartels.

hereme888•about 1 hour ago
I'm not uninformed about cartel drug manufacturing and resulting American deaths. That's why we had to seal the border, and we need to keep enforcing it. But to send troops into a country that denies their entry is another thing.

I don't mind bombing the cartels from a distance. I'd rather the U.S. continues to pursue diplomatic options vs. war.

krapp•about 1 hour ago
Also the cartels are funded and propped up by the CIA. We need them to destabilize the Mexican government, launder blood money, traffic children for our rich pedophiles and push drugs into our poor neighborhoods.
hereme888•about 1 hour ago
I'm not going down those rabbit holes. If a previous CIA was or was not responsible for that, that's that. Now, we're here.
TacticalCoder•about 1 hour ago
Those responsible for all those deaths are those doing drugs. A debate could be had as to drugs should be legal or not but if you're doing coke, meth, fentanyl, etc. you simply are part of the problem because those drugs are illegal and represent a big part of the 3 to 5% of the worldwide GDP that's linked to crime (official World CIA factbook numbers).

You are funding these cartels. You are both complicit and responsible for the countless deaths and power these cartels and drug dealers have.

I don't think the US should be fighting drug cartels: I think the US should be punishing consumers much, much, much more.

Have fun thinking about those killed by drug cartels next time you sniff.

a34729t•43 minutes ago
I was under the impression ferrying migrants over the border and avocados were almost as big revenue streams as the drugs. Et tu, avocado toast and gardener?
fhn•44 minutes ago
those that sniff aren't thinking about anybody except themselves, not one little bit
moralestapia•29 minutes ago
This is true, though.

But please do not say this out loud, you might hurt the feelings of a passing junkie.

fhn•about 1 hour ago
Just remember, American caused this