• 3 Posts
  • 97 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 19th, 2023

help-circle
  • Obviously, Mexico is a big diverse country so you’re going to find good areas and bad areas. However, we’re talking about the state of the nation as a whole.

    It’s not really a secret how the cartels get their weapons. America is the world’s biggest arms manufacturer and exporter, and it’s the country with the highest amount civilian owned guns per capita in the world. It doesn’t really take much for a bunch massive crime syndicates to organize smuggling operations to bring guns across the border. Mexico’s strict guns laws are supposed to be there to prevent this from happening, but they’re not. The same goes for the money, again they’re crime cartels selling things that are illegal, though now they’re controlling actual industries too, but that’s besides the point.

    Nobody is responsible for the cartels besides Mexico. They popped organically inside the country, they grew inside the country, and they still operate inside the country. The Mexican government knows who they are and what they do, but they’re choosing to look the other way. Shifting blame is just a dishonest way to avoid putting pressure on the only party that can do anything about these cartels, and that’s the Mexican government.




  • I feel like your issue is that you’re not probably giving yourself space.

    Being active is good, it’s healthy. However, that’s not what you need. What you need is a break. You need a break from politics and social media. You need to have a complete reset mentally, and the way to do that is to shut off all the noise and spend at least a month living your life without any social media. Like actually take the steps to block all the social media apps/sites for all your devices. That means no Lemmy, no Reddit, no Discord, no Instagram, no Facebook, nothing.

    You also need to talk with your girlfriend and tell her to stop talking about politics with you full stop, perhaps this would be good for her as well, but I digress. You need to explain to her as well as understand yourself that this is a serious boundary that you need to have for your well being. You’re aware that doomscrolling and social media are bad for you, however, you need to take action to give yourself the break that you need.


  • I hate the people who get those shitty bluetooth speakers and blast them in public. The people who blast music from their phone’s speakers are assholes, but you could still say that they don’t have headphones on them, but the people with the speakers? They intentionally went out of their way to buy a device for the purpose of being a public nuisance. They’re a special of asshole.








  • What a load of nonsense

    First of all, why are you comparing the homicide rate a country to specific cities? That’s the epitome of cherry picking. Compare country to country like a normal person. The US homicide rate in 2023 was 5.763 (ranks 66th), and Mexico’s in the same year was 24.859 (18th). This means that Mexico’s homicide rate is more than FOUR times higher than America’s homicide rate. Mexico’s homicide rate is so insanely high that it has more total murders annually (32,252) than the US (19,796), a country with 3x it’s population. The difference alone is so high that if it was ranked globally, it would rank 8th ahead of Pakistan and below Colombia, both notoriously dangerous countries with very high populations. Do you understand just how insanely dangerous Mexico is? Clearly not.

    What’s crazy is that the US is a dangerous country. It is the most dangerous developed country by far. For Mexico to make the US look this safe in comparison means that it’s basically a war zone, and it is. Mexico is quite literally classified as one of the handful of countries that is experience a major war. That’s how bad the cartel wars have gotten. Pretending that US is anywhere near Mexico is beyond disingenuous.

    But do you know what the federal Mexican government is doing about all the cartels and their rapes, human trafficking, drugs, violence, assassinations of local politicians, persecution of journalists, extortion, massacres, racketeering, barbaric executions, fraud, and literal fucking torture concentration camps? Nothing. They’re doing nothing. The current president, Sheinbaum, and her predecessor, AMLO, are both notorious for enabling the cartels. They let them do whatever they want without any consequences, and the people are paying the price for it.

    No Mexican is going to ever tell you that the cartels are the fault of America. That’s the most mind numbingly idiotic take that anybody could have about the situation there. This is how I know that you’ve never talked to a Mexican in your life. Trying to infantilize Mexicans by blaming the issues of their country on America or Europe is just racism of low expectations. Mexico has agency and Mexican know that this the doing of their government’s corruption, incompetence, and negligence. These cartels should’ve been squashed the moment they arose, but they weren’t and they still aren’t even though things are getting out of control. This brainrotted mentality of thinking that you’re smart for blaming America for anything and everything neither makes you sound smart nor does it make your assertions true. The same goes for saying “America bad” as a comparison, it doesn’t negate the points brought up.

    You can play all the mental gymnastics you want, it’s not going to change the fact that Mexico is an incredibly dangerous place and the Mexican government is not ruling in the interests of its people, and nobody is more vocal about this than Mexicans.



  • direct democracy

    Let me ask you a question, let’s suppose you committed a crime and your community wants you to face consequences for it, but you disagree with their terms… do you just disassociate and go to another federation to escape the consequences? This sounds like a very flawed system.

    kids consenting

    Is this not highly exploitable? If a bunch of pedos create a federation where they promote the idea of kids consenting, could they just not draw kids to associate with them? That sounds like an easy way for kids to get groomed and abused. Giving kids the ability to consent sounds like deeply flawed idea unless you have some mechanism that resolves this issue.

    economics

    There are 4 main points that I want to address:

    1. Decentralized distribution - Capitalism and Marxism are not everything in economics, but the two ideas you drew upon are free markets and Marxist style resource redistribution, and these two contradict each other on a fundamental level. Decentralized distribution CAN work but not on a grand scale like a society. People can choose to pool their resources together, others can choose to donate some of their wealth to charity, however, to manage an entire economy in this way, you need to be able to control everything otherwise you’re going to face a lot of dysfunction due to lack of participation. For example, let’s suppose a bunch of farmers unite and refuse to partake in the redistribution efforts because selling their crops to the highest bidder is in their best interest. In your system, these people can voluntarily disassociate, but if that’s the case then your system is left with a huge shortage of food unless you buy from them the way they want or you find some magical way to replace their farms. If the former is allowed, then why would anybody with any sort of wealth participate? The only people who would are the needy, and so you will always be operating in a deficit of resources. Compulsion via taxes or property seizure have to be necessary at some point to make this idea work properly.

    2. Degrowth - That’s going to be a very hard sell for most people. If you’re critical of the infinite growth model we have under capitalism, that’s perfectly fair. However, economic growth does correlate with higher standards of living. Things like cars, planes, and smartphones might not be necessary, but they are luxuries that we want to have because they make our lives easier. Washing machines, for example, aren’t a necessity either, but nobody wants to spend all day washing clothes by hand anymore. Washing machines are one of the biggest reasons why the suffragette movements took off, it’s because a lot of women had more free time to focus on other things, like their rights. The point is that technology enables progress, and technology is a byproduct of economic growth. Asking people to forgo modern conveniences to live under harsher economic conditions is a recipe for violent revolution.

    3. Money and labor - Of course money and organization don’t build things, that’s just silly. They serve different roles in the economy than labor. Money is just a tool that helps facility trade so we don’t have to barter like in the stone ages. There is this common misunderstanding in far left ideologies that labor is the source of ALL value in an economy and that money is inherently bad, but money is just a tool like no other and it has no morals or intentions. As for workers, they’re just one component of the economy, an essential component, but component nonetheless. Things like capital, entrepreneurship, technology, consumption, government, trade, and markets are also essential parts to an economy. An economy can’t run purely on the labor of workers. You need to have all these things for an economy to run. You need to at least have organization for better coordination, hierarchies for accountability, and specialization for expertise.

    4. Work - In any economy, there are jobs that are necessary but not pleasant like garbage collectors, janitors, and sewer workers. In Fascist or Marxist societies, these jobs are filled by force. The government assigns people to work them whether they like or not. In capitalist societies, these jobs are filled with incentives like a handsome salary or good benefits package. In anarchist society, how would these jobs be filled? You’re opposed to both compulsion and financial incentives like profit. Do you have another idea to get people to do these jobs? Because I can tell you nobody wants to voluntarily go into a sewer to clear blockages.

    justice

    The reason why laws exist in the first place is because they set an objective standard for society. Sure, all laws are arbitrary in nature, however, they still provide a point of reference, and that’s vital for both prosecution and self defense. You’re right that every case is different, however, that’s what courts are for. Courts exist to provide the nuanced judgement needed for each individual case. That being said, the courts still have to work within the confines of the law, otherwise judgement is left entirely to the personal whims of certain individuals. If there are no general laws, then there’s no standard. If a criminal killed somebody but is friends with the people who are casting judgement on him, then there’s nothing stopping them for ruling in his favor even if he objectively did something wrong since they get decide the standard on a whim.

    Criminals

    I’m not gonna lie to you, that sounds like a really bad idea. Think about it from the point of view of the criminal. Let’s say suppose some guy is a religious nut who beheaded a person for criticizing his religion. He’s clearly guilty, and he has zero remorse for what he did. In your system of justice, this person has the choice to avoid consequences or stay in a prison unless he decides to be cooperative. Unless the criminal is brain dead, they’ll always choose to say they’ll be cooperative every time whether they mean it or not. Now let’s suppose this criminal is now back out on the streets facing zero consequences, and he comes across the family members of the person he murdered. The family members try to hold him accountable by telling everybody he’s a murderer, and this criminal gets annoyed and kills them as well. Again, no remorse. He’s now back in prison facing the same choice of staying in prison or being cooperative… what’s stopping the cycle from repeating again? Is there a 3 strikes and you’re out rule? Do you just keep repeating the cycle in hopes this criminal will eventually change? Do individuals have to kill him or imprison him themselves to get justice and a peace of mind?

    good faith vs participation

    I’m having a really hard time understanding your logic. You want a system that’s entirely based on voluntary decision making at every step… however, there’s no mechanism to enforce laws or contracts AND you’re also not operating under assumption that people are going to participate in good faith, that’s just an inherently flawed system. Having participation to feel “confident” as the foundation of a society is completely ridiculous. Since you acknowledge that bad people exist and will exist in an anarchist society, then you must also understand that these people feeling confident is NOT a good thing. There’s nothing worse than bad people feeling enabled to do whatever they want. Having federations of islamists or nazis or marxists or white supremacists running around doing whatever they feel like with no recourse, as there are no laws or a greater authority, is as dystopian as it gets. These are people who follow ideologies that fundamentally disagree, hate, and actively seek to undermine your system and the freedoms it enables. It’s a prime example of the paradox of tolerance.

    bad faith actors

    You seem to have a weird view of what is arbitrary and what is not. How can you possibly call laws arbitrary but the lack of them not? Similar to what I said in the justice paragraphs, calling laws as a concept arbitrary is undeniably true, however, they also exist to provide an objective standard. Their objectiveness, and thus their legitimacy, derive their establishment by the state, which is usually seen as the collective will of the people. This doesn’t mean every is perfect, but the idea of laws providing a common standard removes arbitrary prosecution and punishment. Laws allow everybody in a society to understand what is deemed wrong, why it’s considered wrong, and what the consequences for it are. Without laws, there is no standard. People can be persecuted for any time and for any reason, and they can be punished in any way. All these decisions fall to the whims of select individuals who have the ability to change the standards as feel like. How is that not arbitrary? If anything that’s as arbitrary as it gets.

    anarchy vs states

    Not all states are equal, and it’s wrong to assume states are a monolith. Norway and Afghanistan are both states, but they’re clearly VERY different from each other. Norway is one of the safest, most peaceful, most prosperous, most free, and most educated societies in the history. Afghanistan is the opposite. There’s clearly good models and bad models for states. Yes, there are broken, tyrannical, and violent states. I’m against those too. However, there are functional, free, and peaceful states. I’m in favor of those. Just because some states are bad that doesn’t mean the entire concept of a state is as well. Your logic seems faulty to me, it’s like saying because malpractice happens, we should get rid of medicine and rely on self healing.

    Also in case, we’re not on the same page. I think monopoly of violence is inevitable. I disagree with your notion that it’s a choice. I think it’s a apart of nature and humanity. Since it’s a part of our reality regardless, the discussion should about how we can best control and regulate violence to minimize it’s negative affects.


  • Circular reasoning

    The argument in question doesn’t rely on circular reasoning because it presents two distinct claims that serve different purposes. First, it observes that states have historically outlasted alternative systems, suggesting this dominance may reflect functional advantages. Second, it asserts that states are necessary because they provide stability, order, and large scale governance. These aren’t self reinforcing statements; rather, they work together inductively: one offers historical evidence, the other draws a normative conclusion. Dismissing this framework as circular misunderstands the logic, it’s not assuming what it sets out to prove but reasoning from historical prevalence to present utility.

    If I said “states are necessary because they exist” then that would indeed be circular logic because the conclusion is essentially assumed in the premise, and you would be correct in your critique. However, that’s not what I’m doing. I said “The historical dominance of states suggests they serve functional advantages, which is why they are necessary.” That’s not circular, that’s inductive reasoning. I’m using historical evidence to support my claims.

    Pride

    I think we’re mostly on the same page here, so I think we can just move on. I’m glad we’re on the same page.

    Practice and theory

    It seems we both agree that theory and practice are connected, but we might be framing that relationship differently. My aim wasn’t to suggest that practice alone answers theory, but that repeated failures in practice can point to deeper issues in the ideology itself, especially when those failures are consistent across different contexts. You’re right that analyzing practical failure should involve identifying specific problems like disorganization or poor communication. That is exactly where theory becomes relevant. Many of these issues stem from key anarchist principles, such as a rejection of hierarchy or centralized coordination. In this case, I am not shifting between unrelated levels. I am showing how the theoretical framework can produce structural vulnerabilities. Similarly, in the example involving Islamism, pointing out widespread governance issues can reasonably lead to a closer inspection of the ideological foundations that might contribute to those outcomes.

    Strawmanning

    It’s interesting because I felt like a lot of your arguments were strawmans of my arguements. For example, when you summarized my positions, you gave me different stances from what I held. I thought it was intentional like I did with your pride arguments, however, I’m understanding now that it’s not intentional. I feel like it’s the same for me. I probably did mischaracterized a few of your arguments, so I am going to concede this point. However, I would like to point out that any misrepresentation comes from a point of misunderstanding rather than malice.

    History

    1. Franco - My point with the anarchist getting destroyed isn’t about responsibility, the nationalists were clearly responsible for destroying the anarchist. We’re in agreement on that part. My point is that anarchy lacks the means of self preservation because it fundamentally opposes the mechanisms that provide for common defense like a centralized organization and monopoly of violence. Because of this, anarchy is inherently prone to getting destroyed by external forces compared to other ideologies and systems.

    2. Anarchy related deaths - I’m mostly referring to the Red Terror in Spain. I understand that the Anarchists were not the only groups in the Republican faction, however, they were still a significant part of it like the FAI and CNT for example. I also understand that there was a lot of infighting amongst the Republican faction between Stalinists, republicans, socialists, and anarchists. However, specifically in the the anarchist controlled portions of Spain, there was still a lot of violence caused by mobs and individuals carrying out their own justice, and that led to the deaths of thousands.

    3. Ukraine - I mean what you’re describing to me here sounds like a textbook de facto state. States exist in a spectrum where one extreme end is defined by totalitarian authoritarianism where the states controls every aspect of life and society and the other extreme end is anarchy where there is no state. Most states, operate somewhere between the two extremes. Ukraine at this time was a state that leaned closer to anarchy on the spectrum without actually being anarchy. We both agree that Ukraine at this time had state like attributes like a military, a system of governance, and common law. My point isn’t that Ukraine under the RIAU wasn’t influenced by anarchist principles, it clearly was, but I’m saying that using this an example of anarchy being functional isn’t accurate because it wasn’t actually anarchist and it’s sustained functionality can be directly attributed to its state like apparatus.

    4. Language - I mean that’s a fair point actually, I’ll concede this point because we are essentially arguing the same thing from different ends. I suppose a few years, months, or even weeks is still not nothing, and so I suppose you’re right in this sense. However, I still stand by the notion that previous anarchist attempts in history have not demonstrated enough sustainability to be considered a viable alternative to the state.