PDA

View Full Version : The Mexican State Possibly will Collapse - If it did, would you move to Mexico?




mediahasyou
02-26-2009, 03:05 PM
...and set up a libertarian society? ;)

article: http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11444354

ihsv
02-26-2009, 03:16 PM
http://www.ronpaulky.org/facepalm.jpg

nate895
02-26-2009, 03:27 PM
Why don't you just move to Somalia? Their government already collapsed, and your money could go pretty far there.

akihabro
02-26-2009, 03:46 PM
Why don't you just move to Somalia? Their government already collapsed, and your money could go pretty far there.

It closer, we know mexican food and love their tequila!

mediahasyou
02-26-2009, 03:57 PM
I like how people here would rather fight the strongest military in the world in a revolution than start a libertarian society in a weak state.

Mesogen
02-26-2009, 03:57 PM
Since Somalia has no real government to speak of would you call this a "voluntary society"?

mediahasyou
02-26-2009, 04:01 PM
Since Somalia has no real government to speak of would you call this a "voluntary society"?

Somalia has several very corrupt and oppressive small governments.

nate895
02-26-2009, 04:01 PM
I like how people here would rather fight the strongest military in the world in a revolution than start a libertarian society in a weak state.

Yeah, I kind of like my home, my friends, and my family. They mean a lot to me, and I am not going to forsake them for the purposes of living in a "free society" in a foreign land which I have no ties to.

pcosmar
02-26-2009, 04:02 PM
With the planed collapse of the US The Global plan is for a North American Union.
Why would you have to move?

nate895
02-26-2009, 04:03 PM
Somalia has several very corrupt and oppressive small governments.

Not true. Their system of common law forbids taxation, and their criminal justice system is entirely compensatory. Also, the areas surrounding Mogadishu have virtually no governing authority beyond a few competing warlords who you pay for protection from. Sounds like your anarcho-capitalist/voluntary system you desire.

mediahasyou
02-26-2009, 04:05 PM
The drug cartels, which act as governments themselves, are surviving in weak states. A libertarian society would be able to survive just as well with private protection forces.

Mesogen
02-26-2009, 04:07 PM
Somalia has several very corrupt and oppressive small governments.

And it would never turn out like that in a stateless society somewhere else, right
:)

mediahasyou
02-26-2009, 04:10 PM
Not true. Their system of common law forbids taxation, and their criminal justice system is entirely compensatory. Also, the areas surrounding Mogadishu have virtually no governing authority beyond a few competing warlords who you pay for protection from. Sounds like your anarcho-capitalist/voluntary system you desire.

That is war, not anarchy. War is two competing governments who compete to enslave a people.

A private protection agency would compete for the service of a person.

Mini-Me
02-26-2009, 04:12 PM
And it would never turn out like that in a stateless society somewhere else, right
:)

This is an important point, even if it's given sarcastically. Anarchy in Mexico would look nothing like anarcho-capitalism...anarcho-capitalism could only ever come about in a country where the people were already overwhelmingly libertarian and deliberately chose to do away with the state because they didn't feel they needed it anymore. Mexico, on the other hand...well, that's going to just turn from a centralized narco-state into a decentralized narco-state. ;)

Mesogen
02-26-2009, 04:14 PM
.anarcho-capitalism could only ever come about in a country where the people were already overwhelmingly libertarian and deliberately chose to do away with the state because they didn't feel they needed it anymore

Ah! So it is just a utopian fantasy.

mediahasyou
02-26-2009, 04:18 PM
And it would never turn out like that in a stateless society somewhere else, right
:)

We still have governments that roam our city streets killing people. They are called gangs. People will always try to claim authority.

The question is: Would you rather be protected by the government or by a private business? Do you trust the government that much?

nate895
02-26-2009, 04:19 PM
That is war, not anarchy. War is two competing governments who compete to enslave a people.

A private protection agency would compete for the service of a person.

What makes you think Mexico will turn out so much differently then?

mediahasyou
02-26-2009, 04:19 PM
Ah! So it is just a utopian fantasy.

No.

Mini-Me
02-26-2009, 04:21 PM
Ah! So it is just a utopian fantasy.

Perhaps, but I think it's unfair and too early to disdainfully write it off as such. I'm a minarchist myself, but the anarcho-capitalists have a lot of good points anyway, and I try to keep an open mind to the idea. I'm just not 100% sold on it. In any case, there's no way in hell it's going to come about in Mexico anytime soon.

nate895
02-26-2009, 04:22 PM
We still have governments that roam our city streets killing people. They are called gangs. People will always try to claim authority.

The question is: Would you rather be protected by the government or by a private business? Do you trust the government that much?

Governments tend to be stronger than private businesses. A private business is limited to the amount of resources you are willing to give it in a competitive market. The government is a regulated monopoly that can utilize much more resources to protect you from the roving bands of gangs, especially since they have the power to call up the militia in the event of a total breakdown of law and order.

PureCommonSense
02-26-2009, 04:24 PM
This kind of thought is a waste of time chasing some ideal anarchy that so many libertarians desperately cling to. We are better off working to change things where we are starting at the local level. A true libertarian revolution has to be a bottom-up process of reforming government...not daydreaming about foolishness like anarcho-capitalism.

torchbearer
02-26-2009, 04:25 PM
Governments tend to be stronger than private businesses. A private business is limited to the amount of resources you are willing to give it in a competitive market. The government is a regulated monopoly that can utilize much more resources to protect you from the roving bands of gangs, especially since they have the power to call up the militia in the event of a total breakdown of law and order.

True, and businesses are usually dictatorial in nature. You have no say in what the head is going to do.

Mini-Me
02-26-2009, 04:27 PM
Governments tend to be stronger than private businesses. A private business is limited to the amount of resources you are willing to give it in a competitive market. The government is a regulated monopoly that can utilize much more resources to protect you from the roving bands of gangs, especially since they have the power to call up the militia in the event of a total breakdown of law and order.

It's still important to recognize that at the most basic level, the government is really just the dominant gang though, and it operates using the same exact mechanism: protection money. That's all taxation really is. Because the government is nothing more than a glorified and extremely organized gang with no remaining competition, the people in charge will only respect the people at large so long as the people at large make them. Regulatory (Constitutional) checks and balances help, but we've seen how the government can erode them until the people no longer have any real control. I do think there are certain hypothetical checks and balances that would easily enable the people to keep the government at check, but what we're currently witnessing is an entity with almost no competition that has shed most of its regulatory straightcoats.

nate895
02-26-2009, 04:28 PM
True, and businesses are usually dictatorial in nature. You have no say in what the head is going to do.

Unless you own stock, but then you'd be paying twice for your protection service.

I also fear a mafia-like system without government (after all, isn't the mafia "protection"). If you don't have any protection service, one of the protection agencies might see to it you get robbed. At least with government, you pay very little taxes and the make sure there is little mafia activity going on.

nate895
02-26-2009, 04:30 PM
It's still important to recognize that at the most basic level, the government is really just the dominant gang though, and it operates using the same exact mechanism: protection money. That's all taxation really is. Because the government is nothing more than a glorified and extremely organized gang with no remaining competition, the people in charge will only respect the people at large so long as the people at large make them. I do think there are certain checks and balances that would easily enable the people to keep the government at check, but...what we have right now is a government/gang that's gotten out of control.

Very true

Damn, it looks like mafias can sometimes be our best friend or our worst enemy depending on how much we control them.

mediahasyou
02-26-2009, 04:31 PM
Governments tend to be stronger than private businesses. A private business is limited to the amount of resources you are willing to give it in a competitive market. The government is a regulated monopoly that can utilize much more resources to protect you from the roving bands of gangs, especially since they have the power to call up the militia in the event of a total breakdown of law and order.

The governed people would choose a protection agency if given the choice. They would simply not consent to giving resources to that government. Private business would win in any fight against government.

american.swan
02-26-2009, 04:32 PM
I don't think you understand the USA's current immigration policy. There is a serious reason why we let so many immigrants in and the main reason is the dilute the libertarian population.

The USA is probably the only nation with such libertarian leaning people. Here in Korea the whole populous expects government intervention. Why would I want Koreans immigration to the US? I won't. Their Obama lovers.

Same could be said of some religions. Muslims are generally very nice good people. But some fringe elements take their writings seriously, which state, (paraphrase) "If you are allowed to build a temple to Allah, that land must be taken and controlled for Allah." So generally Muslims won't do much, but once the population of Muslims is high enough, the fringe elements will begin bombings and what not to take the land for Allah.

America must be destroyed. The elite can't handle all the guns and all the libertarian thinkers. Whatever it takes, America is going to look a lot different soon.

As hard as we fight, I question if it will be enough. Too many socialist/fascist/communist have been allowed to settle in our land and of course our public education system reeks of socialism. I may be that it will take acts of God to stop the elite's one world government plan.

tremendoustie
02-26-2009, 04:33 PM
Governments tend to be stronger than private businesses. A private business is limited to the amount of resources you are willing to give it in a competitive market. The government is a regulated monopoly that can utilize much more resources to protect you from the roving bands of gangs, especially since they have the power to call up the militia in the event of a total breakdown of law and order.

Do you mean the extra resources the government can get by confiscating them from unwilling participants?

If so, I'll stick to a voluntary private business, thank you, I don't want people to be mugged on my behalf.

If, however, by "government" you only mean a very strong, central voluntary business, then I'm all for it. However, since you called it a "regulated" monopoly instead of a natural one, I'm thinking this is not what you mean. By this do you mean the "government" would force participation, and violently drive off any competing protection agencies?

mediahasyou
02-26-2009, 04:36 PM
I don't think you understand the USA's current immigration policy. There is a serious reason why we let so many immigrants in and the main reason is the dilute the libertarian population.

Do you have a right to tell someone they can't live in a certain area when they have bought property? I believe not. This is why I support the free movement of people.

nate895
02-26-2009, 04:36 PM
You mean, the extra resources the government can get by confiscating them from unwilling participants?

I'll stick to a voluntary private business, thank you, I don't want people to be mugged on my behalf.

If, however, by "government" you only mean a very strong, central voluntary business, then I'm all for it. However, since you called it a "regulated" monopoly instead of a natural one, I'm thinking this is not what you mean. By this do you mean the "government" would force participation, and violently drive off any competing protection agencies?

I believe in a compromise system, one where you can, theoretically withdraw consent from the government and look out for your own protection elsewhere, thereby giving the government competition. It would basically be a central voluntary business, but you'd have a say in it to a greater extent than a corporation.

If all government end up stealing too much and protecting liberties too little, my government system will collapse gradually, and being a gradualist libertarian to begin with, that is always the best solution to begin with anyway.

What I meant by regulated was that the entity would have regulations placed upon it from the people.

tremendoustie
02-26-2009, 04:40 PM
I believe in a compromise system, one where you can, theoretically withdraw consent from the government and look out for your own protection elsewhere, thereby giving the government competition. It would basically be a central voluntary business, but you'd have a say in it to a greater extent than a corporation.

If all government end up stealing too much and protecting liberties too little, my government system will collapse gradually, and being a gradualist libertarian to begin with, that is always the best solution to begin with anyway.

What I meant by regulated was that the entity would have regulations placed upon it from the people.

Sounds good to me. I think fewer protection agencies with some sort of a voting system would probably be more stable than a large number of small agencies. As long as it's voluntary, I'm all for it -- if you started the business you describe, I'd probably be a customer.

I betcha MHY would be fine with this too. I think we minarchists and market anarchists tend to think we disagree more than we do. If we agree that the initiation of violence is wrong, and that whatever agency exists should be voluntary, and open to competition, after that point we're basically just debating business strategies.

nate895
02-26-2009, 04:50 PM
Sounds good to me. I think fewer protection agencies with some sort of a voting system would probably be more stable than a large number of small agencies. As long as it's voluntary, I'm all for it -- if you started the business you describe, I'd probably be a customer.

I betcha MHY would be fine with this too. I think we minarchists and market anarchists tend to think we disagree more than we do. If we agree that the initiation of violence is wrong, and that whatever agency exists should be voluntary, and open to competition, after that point we're basically just debating business strategies.

I just think the current state and federal governments need to be reformed by the adding of clauses about withdrawing consent and procedures to do that.

tremendoustie
02-26-2009, 04:51 PM
I just think the current state and federal governments need to be reformed by the adding of clauses about withdrawing consent and procedures to do that.

I see, so the means is the issue, not the end. Yes, I agree with this, let's morph government into the first voluntary protection agency, although I am sure competitors will come. I am sure the transition will be more peacable and politically feasible this way.

LibForestPaul
02-26-2009, 05:39 PM
It's still important to recognize that at the most basic level, the government is really just the dominant gang though, and it operates using the same exact mechanism: protection money. That's all taxation really is. Because the government is nothing more than a glorified and extremely organized gang with no remaining competition, the people in charge will only respect the people at large so long as the people at large make them. Regulatory (Constitutional) checks and balances help, but we've seen how the government can erode them until the people no longer have any real control. I do think there are certain hypothetical checks and balances that would easily enable the people to keep the government at check, but what we're currently witnessing is an entity with almost no competition that has shed most of its regulatory straightcoats.

No, gluttony,greed, slothfulness, envy and pride of the masses are the reasons our rights have eroded.

nate895
02-26-2009, 05:49 PM
I see, so the means is the issue, not the end. Yes, I agree with this, let's morph government into the first voluntary protection agency, although I am sure competitors will come. I am sure the transition will be more peacable and politically feasible this way.

Well, I am unsure as to what the end will be. It could be that a government could dominate this system, or it could be that governments are entirely inept at protecting liberties, even with the ever looming threat of competition, and that it will die as a consequence.

american.swan
02-26-2009, 05:53 PM
Do you have a right to tell someone they can't live in a certain area when they have bought property? I believe not. This is why I support the free movement of people.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I think what your talking about is voting, which I question is a good idea or not. Sure, let foreigners VISIT America. Sure, absolutely let foreigners BUY property. But I have to question if it's a good idea to allow socialist/fascist to enter our country to vote. Granted, I want to allow them to vote, but do they understand our heritage? Did their fore fathers die for liberty? Koreans absolutely adore foreign passports. Koreans send their pregnant woman to Canada and the US to give birth for citizenship. Do these new voters believe in responsibility and small government? I know for a fact they don't. As kind and as nice and as loving as foreign socialist can be, the vast majority could be labeled our enemies at the voting booth.

Think about it.

Chosen
02-26-2009, 07:54 PM
http://www.ronpaulky.org/facepalm.jpgHahahahahaha.


"Hello. I am here to setup a Libertarian society. I know that you are a third world country which has practiced racist ethnic national socialism, that the average education level of an adult is 1st grade and most of you cannot read and will never understand critical analysis in your lifetime. I also understand that you have cultural practices which prefer violent authoritarianism and machismo to force others to live in your prescribed manner...I know that you have no respect for the laws of your neighbor countries and do not respect the rule of law in general, except when you want to use the law in an authoritarian manner to take from others or to justify violent and racist behavior...Here's a copy of For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand, now I have to setup a libertarian society, there's lots of unpacking to do..."

idiom
02-26-2009, 08:11 PM
Do you have a right to tell someone they can't live in a certain area when they have bought property? I believe not. This is why I support the free movement of people.

How is freedom of movement compatible with Private roads?

Also would you rather have a mafia with strict rules of operation, or a mafia with no rules.

Mini-Me
02-26-2009, 08:34 PM
No, gluttony,greed, slothfulness, envy and pride of the masses are the reasons our rights have eroded.

Sure, the complacency of the masses has enabled the government (and the special interests it serves) to break free of its chains without a fight, but it's a utopian pipe-dream to actually consistently expect anything better from the masses over the course of years, decades, and centuries. Any long-term "plan" for limited government that relies solely upon the ability of the masses to remain eternally vigilant, well-informed, and intelligent is doomed to fail...and the failure of such a plan will only accelerate once the public becomes complacent enough to permit the government to influence the media and education system. Considering the US Constitution contains such weak (almost nonexistent) measures for the people and states to enforce its restrictions, the leviathan we have today was simply inevitable. If we are to have a government, the only way to avoid it turning out like Washington, D.C. is to implement seriously strong checks/balances that only require a relatively active/interested minority to keep the government in check.

Athan
02-26-2009, 09:46 PM
...and set up a libertarian society? ;)

article: http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11444354

Take some advice from a hispanic who speaks spanish and lives 30 minutes from the Rio Grande River. Don't bother.

You don't really understand that Mexico is a fucked up state. It isn't a weak state at all. The Cartels there run the show. Period.

They own officials or kill them. The people are in a general state of helplessness and there is NO order. Why? If they are not fucked up by the government, they are fucked by the cartels, and fucked bylaws that are fixed in a bad way.

There ARE reasons why they come here in deserts, with human smugglers that are notorious for fucking over immigrants, and with nothing on their back. It isn't because the state is weak or that it is on the verge of collapse. Jessie Ventura can do it because he is one badass former motherfucking navy seal. People just don't fuck with that even if it is just a reputation.

Don't get me wrong. There ARE places to hang out like tourist spots for Americans which is probably what many think mexico is like. In those areas, all mexicans there know tourism is where they get their cash and violence and paramilitary action there is bad for everybody. When the dollar crashes those places could get fucked in more ways than one.

We would have FAR more progress in general just showing signs saying "Ron Paul was right, enjoy the meltdown America voted for" type signs in major traffic zones. In mexico people would just laugh or take you out because you are not corrupt enough to have connections.

tremendoustie
02-27-2009, 12:55 AM
Well, I am unsure as to what the end will be. It could be that a government could dominate this system, or it could be that governments are entirely inept at protecting liberties, even with the ever looming threat of competition, and that it will die as a consequence.

Yep, either way is fine with me. I actually hope the first case is true, there will be less disorganization -- as long as the "government" is strictly for self defense, of course.

When many anarcho-capitalists refer to government, they mean coercion and force. So, when they diss government, they may not disagree with you at all -- since you support only a voluntary non-coercive "government". I think this mix up occurs very often, and leads to unnecessary disagreement.

H Roark
02-27-2009, 03:04 AM
If the Mexican government collapsed, would you move to Mexico?

I already live in California.

Mesogen
02-27-2009, 10:48 AM
We still have governments that roam our city streets killing people. They are called gangs. People will always try to claim authority.

The question is: Would you rather be protected by the government or by a private business? Do you trust the government that much?

Do you trust "private business" that much? I mean, I could probably pay them protection money if I had it. Let's say you're broke and can't pay them. Then what? It would be a shame if something were to happen to this nice house.

Deborah K
02-27-2009, 10:57 AM
Okay, I'm sure by now everyone knows that I am a fervent believer in the government's intent to merge us with Canada and Mexico economically and politically. I've laid out the reasons and the evidence many times over. Since a very serious campaign was launched to stop the NAU, which includes a house concurrent resolution to stop the NAU known as HCR40:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.40:
a resolution that Dr. Paul himself has co-sponsored, I now believe that the pressure to stop the NAU has convinced the gov't that other tactics will be needed to achieve that goal.

I think the collapse of Mexico is by design so that the US can annex it.

Deborah K
02-27-2009, 11:35 AM
We still have governments that roam our city streets killing people. They are called gangs. People will always try to claim authority.

The question is: Would you rather be protected by the government or by a private business? Do you trust the government that much?

Soooooo.....you like Blackwater?

angelatc
02-27-2009, 11:55 AM
Not true. Their system of common law forbids taxation, and their criminal justice system is entirely compensatory. Also, the areas surrounding Mogadishu have virtually no governing authority beyond a few competing warlords who you pay for protection from. Sounds like your anarcho-capitalist/voluntary system you desire.

Except that it is actually warlordism.

angelatc
02-27-2009, 11:56 AM
Okay, I'm sure by now everyone knows that I am a fervent believer in the government's intent to merge us with Canada and Mexico economically and politically. I've laid out the reasons and the evidence many times over. Since a very serious campaign was launched to stop the NAU, which includes a house concurrent resolution to stop the NAU known as HCR40:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.40:
a resolution that Dr. Paul himself has co-sponsored, I now believe that the pressure to stop the NAU has convinced the gov't that other tactics will be needed to achieve that goal.

I think the collapse of Mexico is by design so that the US can annex it.

NPR had a story on this morning about our troops going there... but just to train the Mexican Army, you understand.

Deborah K
02-27-2009, 12:07 PM
NPR had a story on this morning about our troops going there... but just to train the Mexican Army, you understand.

uh huh.......;).......:(

Minlawc
02-27-2009, 12:18 PM
I think the collapse of Mexico is by design so that the US can annex it.

Exactly, which is why I voted no. In the end it would be just like moving from Ohio to Texas.

Kraig
02-27-2009, 12:27 PM
Anarchy will not be possible in Mexico as long as the US holds any power. They will intervene in countries all around they world does anyone really think they won't intervene in the weak country on our own border? They will either completely annex it or setup a pro US puppet government.

RevolutionSD
02-27-2009, 12:41 PM
No, and here's why: A collapsed Mexican government has NOTHING to do with anarcho-capitalism. Communism actually started in Mexico. The people have been treated to centuries of totalitarian fascist/socialist governments. The ideas haven't changed there a bit- just because the government collapses does NOT mean it will become some kind of anarchist paradise- UNLESS the memes in people's heads are changed. Otherwise, people will just clamor for "another" government as this one collapses, paving the way for more of the same (either officially or unofficially run by gangs).

Freedom is an inside job. That needs to change before we see any positive changes within any countries.

RevolutionSD
02-27-2009, 12:43 PM
Everyone needs to watch this video about Somalia to understand why Somalia or Mexico are NOT and have nothing to do with enlightened anarchist societies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI

constituent
02-27-2009, 01:14 PM
no-

but i would visit there more often.