Is Mexico near collapse?
posted at 6:55 pm on January 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Department of Defense thinks so, or at least that a political collapse is within the realm of possibility. In fact, they think a collapse is about as likely south of the border as it is in Pakistan. Where Islamabad’s risk comes from radical Islamist terrorists, the drug trade is what might do in Mexico:
Mexico is one of two countries that “bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse,” according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.
The command’s “Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)” report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. “In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.
“The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.”
No kidding. We’ve discussed the problems of failed states on a number of occasions and the risks they pose to national security. To my recollection, no one has seriously gamed out what having a failed state on our border would mean.
Why the concern? Mexico’s security forces have deteriorated sharply, and corruption has created conflicting loyalties within them. Drug cartels have perverted the state organs of law enforcement and security, turning them into mercenaries and worse. Earlier this week, Mexico’s government sent 2,000 troops into Juarez to quell a rising war on the streets that has already killed 35 people — since the beginning of the year. That’s a murder every eight hours since New Years Day. Even Mexico’s federal government can’t trust the local police.
How would the US protect itself from a warlord-ridden Mexico? We’d have to give serious consideration to arming the southern border to a far larger extent than any time in our history. Cross-border cooperation on drug smuggling would come to a halt, as we might find ourselves in a situation shown in the movie Traffic in which we wind up unwittingly allying with one cartel over another in the guise of official governmental contacts. And that’s not even mentioning the opportunities for terrorist groups to exploit lawless regions for their own purposes, right on our doorstep instead of half a world away.
In fact, a failed Mexico would quickly become our primary national-security concern. Immigration issues would become secondary, at best.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Only some conservatives. Too many, though.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM
And let’s do it before Mexico totally collapses.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 9:14 PM
But if the ‘children’ happen to steal it from dad or get their 16 year old buddy to get them some…wait, how old do you have to be to go to the store and buy??
And maybe, instead of a garden in the back yard…6 rows of corn, couple rows of carrots, just make the whole damn thing dope…or since it’s legal to buy…they’re gonna sift all the seeds out??
How about Poppys??? Probably lot of places you can grow them. Why not?? Meth and LSD…don’t even need to grow them…are they in the legalize and tax free for all too???
Coke?? Easy to grow as well.
Let me know where we need to draw the line and explain why.
BigWyo on January 14, 2009 at 9:16 PM
So much for “la reconquista.”
J.J. Sefton on January 14, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Mom!
FeralCat on January 14, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Don’t worry…be happy…
The One will simply wave the Magic Green Card and all will be well!
BobMbx on January 14, 2009 at 9:23 PM
shocker: that this day would be coming has been discussed for 20+ years in AZ.
just another “crisis” coming our way for the govt to make hay with …
AZ_Redneck on January 14, 2009 at 9:23 PM
shocker … wait until they learn they can’t trust their own military either …
AZ_Redneck on January 14, 2009 at 9:25 PM
maybe they could write a letter to Paulson … little TARP might help …
AZ_Redneck on January 14, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Lou Dobbs shows the drug wars going on.
They are shooting at the media on air in their buildings.
The mayor of El Paso wanted to legalize drugs.
Stay out of Mexico for a while.
getalife on January 14, 2009 at 9:37 PM
When you mention individual rights to progressives, they call you a fascist. When you mention individual rights to conservatives, they call you a communist. Liberalism is dead, and liberty died with it.
hicsuget on January 14, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Yes.
baldilocks on January 14, 2009 at 9:49 PM
As I understand it, the war on drugs has not been a success. Then, how will you stop anyone from selling drugs to children?
Johan Klaus on January 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM
card ‘em.
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Well…being a Texan, I say let ‘em collapse! I can say with certainty that I am well armed enough to stop the advance of a small army…and I am the rule not the exception down here in Alamo land. Now those folks over in New Mexico, Arizona, and Flakifornia might well raise the white flag at the first sign of some gangbanger drug scum coming across the border, but we…will just call it an extended hunting season!
BadMojo on January 14, 2009 at 10:01 PM
There are limits to what can be achieved through government.
How do we stop anyone from selling alcohol to children right now? How did we stop anyone from selling alcohol to children during prohibition?
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 10:02 PM
GOD!!!!
I hope they set it on FIRE!!!
grtflmark on January 14, 2009 at 10:03 PM
I would argue that a conservative for whom individual rights are sacrosanct and inviolate is not a conservative at all, but a (Classical) Liberal.
If you think rights are a gift from God, then you have no compunction against abridging them when God demands it (e.g. miscegenation, pornography, prohibition). If you think rights are an American tradition, well, America also has a long tradition of violating the rights of individuals (e.g. slavery, the draft, antitrust), and an anti-rights tradition can be found to justify any new abuse of government power.
To defend rights as absolute at all times in all cases requires more philosophical knowledge and consistency than conservatives think they need, and thus conservatives end up being championed by people like Pat Buchanan, George W Bush, and Mike Huckabee. In no speech at the Republican convention this year were individual rights mentioned, and in no conservative’s television appearance or op-ed after the fact was their absence lamented. “Country First” was the slogan of the day, not because this particular country is the guarantor of liberty (it would have been even less so than it is now had McCain been able to carry out his campaign promises), but just because.
There’s no point in running–America needs philosophical change before any worthwhile political change can be effected. We had eight years of Republican big government socialism because that’s what Republicans and independents want, and we’re due for a few years of Democratic bigger government socialism because that’s what Democrats and independents want. As for the Libertarians, all they want is anarchy. In a democracy, people get the government they deserve, and conservatives deserve an Obama administration no less than do progressives.
hicsuget on January 14, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Mom!
FeralCat on January 14, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Only if you are spayed/neutered. I take my feral cats very seriously! :)
catlady on January 14, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Now that’s funny!
BadMojo on January 14, 2009 at 10:07 PM
You want god to set mexico on fire? what kind of christian are you?
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 10:07 PM
The mayor of El Paso wanted to legalize drugs.
Stay out of Mexico for a while.
getalife on January 14, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Nope. The mayor vetoed the vote.
- You got that wrong.
GOD!!!!
I hope they set it on FIRE!!!
grtflmark on January 14, 2009 at 10:03 PM
- Let’s not get too wacky… this isn’t Gaza we’re talking about here.
TexasJew on January 14, 2009 at 10:12 PM
you don’t have to search very far to discover the racist, nativist scum that is the base of today’s GOP, do you?
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 10:12 PM
you don’t have to search very far to discover the racist, nativist scum that is the base of today’s GOP, do you?
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 10:12 PM
stfu, pinche pocho.
Don’t slander my party. That is not the issue here.
TexasJew on January 14, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Feets, don’t fail me now!!!
FeralCat on January 14, 2009 at 10:17 PM
hicsuget on January 14, 2009 at 9:41 PM
An interesting quote from Locke, but I disagree with part of your statement before it. I concur that what we generally call Liberals are really Progressive, having their roots into Wilsonian theology (for want of a better phrase), and that those people do tend to use the defense mechanism of labeling those whose hold opposing views as “fascist”, never minding the delicious irony that these progressives are truly the fascists in our midst.
Where I disagree with you is the second half of the statement, but I did think your response further down on this thread was most interesting. I do not think of that being a classical liberal, though it does give me pause.
I concur we get the government we deserve (in this case Obamamaniacs) but hope that somewhere we can change our country’s mindset and get back to shrinking our government’s reach. Will be hard to do, but it can be done.
catlady on January 14, 2009 at 10:18 PM
SECOND LOOK AT ADDING MORE SOUTHERN STATES!
Seriously. It’s the best way to deal with a Mexican collapse. We get more nice beaches and new supply of oil, and they get a stable government and the opportunity to learn a proper language.
It’s a win-win!
wearyman on January 14, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Feets, don’t fail me now!!!
FeralCat on January 14, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Honey, you can run, but you can’t hide. I have trapped more tom cats than I can count, and it always amazes me how stupid they are when the small head is doing the thinking.
catlady on January 14, 2009 at 10:21 PM
If you do not yet believe that they are following you everywhere you go and have your home bugged I may still be able to help you, otherwise you are on your own.
Sigmund on January 14, 2009 at 10:22 PM
There are hundreds of members here from all over the country, as well as a few others, and you find one rare example and use it to label the entire base of the party? How is that not biased, you bigot?
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM
In other words they are almost human.
Cheshire Cat on January 14, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Sigmund on January 14, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Didn’t I read I post somewhere that the guy from “The Prisoner” died today, too? His name was Patrick McG something. Gotta love that huge white bubble thing that came out every now and again to wreak havoc. Say – could we use that on our borders?
catlady on January 14, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Noneya why don’t you come to my white racist redneck house and let me show you the real definition of racist? You pussy folks that hide behind a keyboard as an anonymous bad ass make me want to vomit. I spent more time deployed in the Indian ocean/Persian gulf than you have been breathing so, yea, I’m calling you out. They are Friggin’ wetbacks and I’ll calL it to their face. They ignore our law and invade our country and crapeaters like you condone it and point your pathetic little fingers at everyone else and mutter “racist.” F-U jittbag.
GlocknRoll on January 14, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Yep, that’s right, Cheshire Cat!
catlady on January 14, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Build someone a fire and they will be warm for the rest of the night. Set someone on fire and they will be warm for the resat of their life.
Cheshire Cat on January 14, 2009 at 10:27 PM
From the phrases and examples you used in your post, I take it you’ve read Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. One of the points Goldberg didn’t make in his book was that, before the rise of the Progressive movement, it was the Liberals of the Democratic party who stood for individual rights in the Jeffersonian sense of the phrase. After 1933, when the term “Liberal” was changed by government propaganda to mean “in favor of the New Deal,” the remaining actual Liberals had to join the conservatives in the Republican party. Consequently, the modern-day Republicans play host to both Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes.
Britain and Australia (and possibly a few other countries; those are the only ones I’m familiar with) still have a “Liberal” party that stands for something along the lines of the original meaning of the term. It was only here in America that the language was corrupted in this fashion.
If you liked Goldberg’s book, you’d probably enjoy reading von Mises’ Liberalism. It was written in 1927, and, like most works from the time, it gives a very different picture of the politics of the time than that which today’s history books present.
hicsuget on January 14, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Bubbles are dandy but electricity is quicker.
Sigmund on January 14, 2009 at 10:29 PM
But you may not have long to do it here because it’s a bannable offense.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 10:29 PM
lovely
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 10:31 PM
They are Friggin’ wetbacks and I’ll calL it to their face.
GlocknRoll on January 14, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Not in my neck of the woods, Senor, since, like the great theme music (by Johnny Rivers) from “Secret Agent Man” (the pre-”Prisoner” show that made the late Patrick McGoohan a star) said: “Odds are, you won’t live to see tomorrow.”
TexasJew on January 14, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Anyone want to take a nice day trip to Tijuana for the day, get some food, tequila, and a picture with a painted donkey…………..
…………. then get your head cut off?
Seven Percent Solution on January 14, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Noneya is a nice gringo. I think that I will come and live with him. Me and Maria and our 8 ninos. Uncle Papan and aunt Gabriela too. And cousin Inez and her 6 ninos too.
NoBordersJose on January 14, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Anyone want to take a nice day trip to Tijuana for the day, get some food, tequila, and a picture with a painted donkey…………..
…………. then get your head cut off?
Seven Percent Solution on January 14, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Only if I can get a painting of Elvis on velvet.
TexasJew on January 14, 2009 at 10:39 PM
I make up my opinions from facts and reasoning, and not to suit anybody but myself. If people don’t like my opinions, it makes little difference as I don’t solicit their opinions nor their votes.
- William Tecumseh Sherman
MB4 on January 14, 2009 at 10:43 PM
The thing you should keep in mind is that you’re guilty of the same basic offense as GlocknRoll, Noneya: Prejudice; judging an entire group from on the actions of a few—and in this case, the actions of one.
He called a group of people “wetbacks” whereas you called another group “racist, nativist scum”. I don’t know if he’s only referring to illegals or all Hispanics, but if only illegals then his position is actually more defensible than yours, since at least everybody he so labeled is actually guilty of an offense.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 10:45 PM
oy….
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Uhm, Mexicans are annexing parts of the Southern US as we speak. Maybe holding onto to territory acquired in the 19th century ought to be a first priority before the new round of Empire-building begins in earnest.
aengus on January 14, 2009 at 10:46 PM
is that like there being “good n***ers” and “bad n***ers” as racists are fond of saying?
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Allahpundit once banned a commenter for using the term “wetbacks”.
aengus on January 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Could you explain your question? I don’t understand.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I know. But regardless it doesn’t negate my point to Noneya.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 10:54 PM
To clarify. I understand what you’re talking about, I think, (like how rappers use the term?), but I don’t understand how it’s relevant to my comment.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Our drug money helps corrupt Mexico. The best way to help would be to decrease demand by giving 3rd time drug possesors the death penalty. If you can’t figure it out after two convictions, you are either too addicted or too stupid to save.
KW64 on January 14, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Let me guess, Obama is too conservative for you? Perhaps Stalin would be more to your liking…
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Or perhaps Mao.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 11:00 PM
“In fact, a failed Mexico would quickly become our primary national-security concern. Immigration issues would become secondary, at best.”
Ed, how wrong can you be?! With the narcos taking over a flood of Mexicans would be heading North. Not to look for work but to escape the violence and blood letting.
And the polls in Washington wonder why we need a fence on the border. The DoD report was case number one.
Dr. Dog on January 14, 2009 at 11:00 PM
hicsuget on January 14, 2009 at 10:28 PM
thanks will investigate the book
catlady on January 14, 2009 at 11:02 PM
you seem to be excusing his racism as long as it’s for “good cause”, is that right?
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Dr Dog,
A fence will NOT WORK! It is a stupid stupid idea! Maybe in some areas it can be used as PART of the solution, but not the whole.
catlady on January 14, 2009 at 11:07 PM
KW64 on January 14, 2009 at 11:09 PM
An electrified fence with remote control gun mounts situated in the middle of a 1/2 mile wide mine field would at least slow the flow…
BadMojo on January 14, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Like I said.
hicsuget on January 14, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Whole premise of this thread is flawed.
Mexico’s problem is NOT drug gangs, its the breakdown of law and order.
The drug gangs are a symptom… not a cause.
Once the law is no longer equaly enforced, or respected, then a society will break down into smaller and smaller, more and more violent elements, until something comes along which will impose order.
Mexico, and Central America, has been going down this road for years due to corruption, and a poor legal system… and they have exported some of their problems here…
Every User in America could go drug free tomorrow, and it would not solve Mexico’s problems.
Romeo13 on January 14, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Oh, I think I see: you’re referring to my point that GlocknRoll’s comment may potentially be more defensible than yours, depending upon his intent, which we can’t be sure of. Let me explain.
You called me and virtually everybody else here a “racist, nativist scum”, but I’m certainly not a racist or a nativist and I don’t consider myself as scum either, (though probably some would quibble with that). :) However, regardless, you referred to us ALL in that way based only on the statements of a single person. You made a false accusation.
With regard to GlocknRoll’s use of the term “wetback”, I don’t defend the use of the term, and somebody was indeed banned a few years ago for it’s use here. However, if GlocknRoll had intended to apply the term only to illegal aliens—ALL of which are guilty of being here illegally—although the term may still be offensive, the intent may not have been. In all likelihood the intent was meant to be offensive to Hispanics or migrant workers or whatever the word usually means, but that doesn’t change the underlying accuracy of my point. Your intent, Noneya, was certainly prejudiced whereas GlocknRoll’s case is less certain.
None of this changes the fact that using the term can get you banned.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 11:19 PM
…based on your own prejudices.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 11:20 PM
And then the libs would beg every Mexican to come live here and pretend that no harm would come of it.
Grafted on January 14, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Perhaps you’re more in tune with the new leaders of China, then. They’re pretty capitalist, some say more so than the US, yet they’re not above executing or imprisoning for life people whom in many countries would only be guilty of exercising their rights.
I find it interesting that while you seem to be an advocate of free markets you appose the freest market of them all, the illegal drug trade.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 11:25 PM
ok, fair enough, except that my accusation wasn’t based on prejudices, it was from reading this thread, the one about the cop in oakland, and anything dealing w/ race here at Hot Air.
Noneya on January 14, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Liberals love to say how we should reduce demand for oil, coal, etc. but if you suggest we reduce demand for narcotics, they go ape as the thread comments above shows. Our drug money has wreaked havoc in Columbia as well as Mexico, and Afghanistan is also completely corrupted by drug money for heroin and many of of our inner cities as well. Why have we no responsibility for fixing those problems but infinite responsibility for reducing CO2 emissions even when China, India, Indonesia etc. etc. never will.
KW64 on January 14, 2009 at 11:29 PM
No, I’m saying that it’s uncertain his comment was prejudiced whereas we know for certain yours was. His probably was as well, but it’s possible he uses the term to refer to illegal aliens only. Because of the history of the term, (and I’m not sure what it is), it is deemed unacceptable at HotAir, but I’m not sure everybody who uses the term is always referring to the exact same thing.
I don’t call illegal aliens “wetbacks”, but I don’t like people invading our country illegally either. Some have claimed that “illegal alien” is a prejudiced term as well. Perhaps some people have taken to using the term to refer to illegal aliens as an expression of their anger.
What does it mean, anyway? Does it refer to people working hard in the fields and having sweaty backs? If so, and I’m only speculating, perhaps it is more indicative of a strong work ethic. I don’t know enough to defend the term, or even if I would want to, but unless you’re arguing that your use of the terms “racist” and “nativist” and “scum” mean something different than they traditionally do, you can’t possibly have the same excuse.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Unlike China, we have elections and juries to restrict govenment abuse. Markets for materials that are dangerous to others are properly restricted. For example, I would not advocate free markets for nuclear warheads. I hope FallingRock would not either. In my judgement addictive drugs are dangerous to individuals and society and thus free market principles should not be expected to apply.
KW64 on January 14, 2009 at 11:36 PM
This could be The Golden Opportunity for Duh Bamma to fix the Illegal Alien problem for once, and for all.
America’s military could go in, take over, and we could end up with Mexico as our next 3 states. This would make the Mexicans who regularly cross our border legal citizens, give us direct access to kicking the snot out of the drug cartels, and we would end up swimming in oil.
Think about it.
DannoJyd on January 14, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Which confirms my point….based on your own prejudices. There’s are a lot of new users here that signed up in the past year or so so I’m not going to pretend that there aren’t some bad actors here now, but few of the regulars are. Your statement rolled us all into the same tortilla and labeled it according to your own prejudice.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I agree. Employment verification and enforcement is the key. A wall can be circumvented and even if it were built the government probably wouldn’t maintain it or monitor it to the extent that it would be effective.
Also, with socialists running our government I’d be concerned that if they actually built a wall there purpose may not be the same as ours.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Do people still live in Mexico ?
dave264 on January 14, 2009 at 11:45 PM
I think I’ve made my point, but just one last stab: You ask if I’m excusing “his” racism. Your original comment wasn’t about “his” racism, you said, “racist, nativist scum that is the base of today’s GOP”.
Which includes most everybody here.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Yes they do, Dave. They moved back to Mexico when America’s economy got flushed.
DannoJyd on January 14, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Drug money is no more to blame than alcohol or coffee money. The black market is to blame and the scale of cash it generates relative to the smaller size of the Mexican government…. The black market drives the corruption. Strip the cash out of it and it will shrink, making the payoffs less tempting for Mexican government officials and entities.
FloatingRock on January 14, 2009 at 11:59 PM
So am I right to assume that you are against the most dangerous and addictive drugs of them all, alcohol and tobacco? They are the undisputed champs. Alcohol has the most collateral damage such as accidents and violence whereas tobacco is among the most addictive drugs and has the highest death toll.
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:04 AM
In the cop thread, you were the first to post something which could be interpreted as racist. In this thread, you luckily had two racists posting before you decided (like you did in your initial comment in the other post) that we all are racists.
You are welcome to believe that, and even to post that, but it sure won’t make friends and influence enemies.
You are welcome to attack those who wish ill upon Mexico and its citizens as racist, but certainly don’t tar the rest of us with that same brush, because it won’t stick to anyone but the person wielding the brush.
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 12:06 AM
No. The term “wetbacks” refers exclusively to illegal immigrants. It used to be that the only way to sneak into Texas ilegally was to swim the across the Rio Grande.
President Bush has said “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande”–so clearly Bush is intent on discriminating against people who cannot swim. For shame!
aengus on January 15, 2009 at 12:12 AM
I am. And, I believe the maxim is “two wrongs don’t make a right”, and by the use of proof by induction, N (where N is an integer greater than 1) wrongs don’t make a right either.
Sadly, we are stuck with the two wrongs you ticked off, with all of the side effects you mention, because society in its infinite wisdom has determined to allow alcohol and tobacco to be sold on the open market.
It seems that you and KW64 are in violent agreement, methinks.
unclesmrgol on January 15, 2009 at 12:12 AM
For those of you who have been following my comments on this thread, this is the difference between a libertarian/market conservative approach to government and a Liberal one:
No mention of rights was made by KW64, not even when he referred to “government abuse.” (Abuse of what?) He especially did not mention the rights he intends to violate with his prohibition on all things “dangerous to individuals.” Of course, by arrogating his judgment above the judgment of the individuals he plans to imprison, he is declaring it his principle to violate the rights of any person he, on any whim he may have, deems to be an “anti-social element.”
A Liberal, by contrast, sees the problem first and foremost as one of rights. The Liberal government of a free society would only step in should the drug users in question begin to violate the rights of others through rape, murder, theft, vandalism, etc. It is only then that a crime is committed, and a “Night Watchman’s State,” committed to protecting the rights of every individual, prosecutes only criminals.
Market mechanisms are good and useful (I’m an economist, and, being a Liberal, an unabashed Capitalist), but they are not an end in themselves. As FloatingRock pointed out, China’s government is harnessing market forces to further totalitarian objectives. A free society that protects the rights of all individuals is the end that should be sought–once one is established, markets will work their magic without further intervention.
hicsuget on January 15, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Mexico needs the second amendment. Concealed carry would make a big impact, as would local militias. If that is not enough—if government corruption is just to great—they can use it to create a new government.
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:15 AM
And here we have another individual for whom individual rights are anathema. A free society does not allow its citizens to do things–the citizens do them by right (that’s why they’re called “rights” and not “privileges”).
hicsuget on January 15, 2009 at 12:18 AM
That’s all?
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:20 AM
That is because in society 9/10ths of the adult population have been drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco for centuries. Narcotic substances created in laboratories or brought back from Southeast Asia by war veterans do not deserve some kind of non-discriminatory equal status just because people enjoy imbibing them. Alcohol and tobacco do not induce schizophrenia, unlike LSD and (rarely) marijuana.
aengus on January 15, 2009 at 12:23 AM
At least your not a hypocrite about it. I can respect that, at least.
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Yep, they have *wet backs* from swimming to America.
aengus on January 15, 2009 at 12:24 AM
You’ll find that many conservatives here share your view. A significant percentage.
No, liberals view it first and foremost as an issue of power. Elements on both sides of the political spectrum view the government as a means to enforce their will on others. Note that liberals are the source of smoking bans, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, life-preserver laws, trans-fat laws, light-bulb laws and on and on.
What’s more, combine everything I said above with socialized health care, in which the government will make decisions about your health for you. Once your health and body belongs to them, these sorts of laws will only increase. The enforcement efforts will actually result in peoples deaths as medical care is withheld due to “poor judgment” and the only alternative for treatment will be to leave the country, assuming there is anyplace else to go.
No, the right is less than perfect on issues of individual freedom and liberty, but the left is far worse.
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Sure, the left strongly believes in rights—”collective” rights. This is a different concept from “individual” rights.
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:38 AM
You haven’t been following my posts in this thread. When you say “liberal,” what you mean is “progressive,” i.e. Hillary Clinton and Lyndon Johnson. When I say “Liberal,” what I mean is “Liberal”, i.e. Thomas Jefferson, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill.
Words have meanings; thus I insist on using them correctly. Sorry for any confusion.
hicsuget on January 15, 2009 at 12:43 AM
There’s no evidence at all to indicate MJ is a factor in schizophrenia. I know what you’re talking about, but it’s not evidence of any kind. If you think it is then you should be a strong supporter of Al Gore’s efforts to combat global warming because the science is far and away stronger for it.
And consumption of MJ is thousands of years older than alcohol consumption, and it was not brought back from Vietnam, although it was available there. It was sold by American drug companies before it was prohibited in the 30’s , (or whenever it was). The stuff they sold was more potent than the dreaded “BC bud” that is demonized by the government and anti-drug groups today.
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:46 AM
The most important distinction one can make. Well done, FloatingRock.
progressoverpeace on January 15, 2009 at 12:49 AM
I saw that and figured that’s what you were probably referring to but if you want to redefine the modern variant of the word “liberal” your wasting your time. Use the modern words or else take up your effort with modern liberals. I would suggest your time would be better spent using the modern term for whatever you’re referring to, or, if one isn’t already available, invent a new term and spread it around to see if it will stick.
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Sorry if that sounded flippant. My point is that I don’t want to be one of a handful of people in the modern world who’s learned to use use the archaic form of a word that means something else entirely to everybody else, especially when the two forms of the word are at odds.
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM
FR,
I don’t think that societal norms and taboos need be based on provable scientific hypotheses. I can’t that the God of the Bible exists in terms of scientific evidence either but I don’t consider that justification for promoting an atheistic society. LSD is too harmful to be made legitimate by society at large. If everyone took it there would be no society.
Anyone who wants to take it (as some of my friends do) need only use a bit of disgression and tact in avoiding police inquires. Foisting it on society at large as a good in itself on libertarian principle is anathema to me. Why is that necessary?
aengus on January 15, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Thanks.
FloatingRock on January 15, 2009 at 12:58 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »