And the most dangerous parts? Are they due to cops or cartels? I don't know what this place is, but I have to ask whether it's an urban or rural location, along with its population.
I mean the highest crime rate is probably a major city under state control and even if there is a major cartel presence they probably pay off the cops rather than kick them out so honestly there’s probably a lot of cops in the most dangerous parts of Mexico.
Man, I wonder how the native people of southern Mexico would like to hear such a dismissive attitude from another native? I mean, it's not like they fought and forced out the gangs, cartels, and federales themselves anyway...
Yes.
The EZLN, a rather large chunk of southern Mexico. If you paid attention to other people in the thread, you'd already know successful communes around the globe don't have established police forces. This small step "police reform" peddling that centrists like to talk about? They've skipped to the end.
It depends on the region. The problem with most of the police in Mexico is they work for whatever Cartel maintains control over that region. So essentially most of Mexico is policed by the Cartels themselves.
Actually EZLN has had problems with the cartels and last year they lost control of town to the Zetas because they don't have enough military power compared to the Zetas, however the point still stands that the areas under control of EZLN that aren't being attacked by the Cartels or the Mexican government are pretty safe, surprising considering they've been in a war during all this time, the same cannot be said of all Anarchist regimes as for example Revolutionary Catalonia (AnarchoSyndicalists) regime, did suffer from a lot of crime during it's existence, so it's remarkable that the EZLN that has less of a structure than Revolutionary Catalonia have achieved also, you're completely wrong about these being places nobody gives a shit about, as I have already stated both the Cartels and the Mexican government want control of the area and the Mexican president has expressed a lot of disdain for them as EZLN and himself have a very long history of conflict that spans most of his political career.
How many people are in mass graves due to the cartels? That does not always work out as intended. Cartels not caring about a region =\= the people actually being able to fend them off if they do become interested in a region. It is like some reservations being left alone to their own until people became interested in mining resources off their lands and then killed, raped, murdered until the people complied. That is how this works in reality. On reservations when the feds prevented the tribes from prosecuting non tribal members, people literally have to flee their homes and hide when the gangs come through or they are raped, kidnapped, robbed, murdered. Then you get to come back to your home and try to put the pieces back together until the next attack comes. You have no clue what you are talking about here. Between that and the torture abuse schools, my immediate family fled. My extended family who still lives there is still being abused due to this extremely non functioning arrangement.
I live in an area people care about so what you are saying is I wouldn't be safe here. I sure as shit don't want to live under Zeta or Oath keeper control here. Your plan is people are only allowed to live where other's don't care about? You realize how bad that sounds? They only exist where those with force allow them to exist. If they change their minds or approach, they lose control, just like the town that was lost to the Zetas.
I can't even leave my home without dying unless the air temperature is below 70F and I am supposed to organize? No TY, I will just call the police and let them handle it. That is what we pay them for. The objective here is to protect the people FROM these things happening, not have more people doing them. You may salivate over street wars, I don't care to be anywhere near that. My cousins lived in the grove. The crazy shit I saw when living there has made me never want to see any of that idiocy again. It was stupid then and it is stupid now and it will still be stupid next week. " Turf wars" are stupid and no we do not need more of them.
If only there was a way to communicate with people without leaving your house.
Again with the stupidity of saying that people don't care about these areas, so let me be clear, because maybe you don't have the capacity to understand but specifically what stands in the way of peace achieved within the EZLN are the Neoliberal Capitalist regime of the President and the Libertarian Capitalist regime of the cartels, it's almost as if I don't know Capitalism was the problem.
Devils you literally skipped right over Kae explaining that people in fact do give a shit about the territory under anarchist control.
Yes but have you considered more cops to cop the capitalist cops into being good cops.
You just stated that the Zetas took control over a town because they had the firepower. If they CHOOSE to use force against those areas to take them , they can. You saying the president and cartels are saying they want those areas,=\= moving in with crushing, devastating force to take them anyways. When they REALLY want them, that is what they do. Talk is cheap. When they choose to use force, they will regardless of who they have to kill, then they pile them up in mass graves like Zetas like to do and take the resources and build what they want there.
No, I really didn't. He stated that zetas took a town they wanted. Politicians " talking" but not exterminating the people there shows they don't care as much as you think they do. When they really want something, they just take it and dig another mass grave like Zetas did for like 12 states in Mexico. Talking =\= doing. When they want to actually do it, the locals get crushed.
Except that isn't really true. There is still the underlying idea of cops and that crime in those communities will be punished by police, not to mention federal authorities. If you want to see areas here that really don't have police presence then look at tribal lands where you do see a good amount of crime that goes unpunished since people can go there, do something and then take off without the tribal authorities being able to catch them and the feds not caring much.
If the US really opposed N. Vietnam why’d they lose?
The EZLN? Doesn't that have a militia? Isn't it one of a number of groups engaged in conflict against the Mexican government and other cartels? I'm not sure if that's really an argument for police abolition. If anything, it's more of an argument that Mexico's cohesiveness is fragmenting. Which is an argument that can seemingly be applied to the United States as well...
...seriously?
Organize, not communicate. We're all "communicating." If you wanted to abolish the police, chances are you would have to do more than sit in front of a computer.
Most countries in the world have capitalism. By that logic, the problems you're describing above should be found worldwide. I'm not going to tell you what the causes are of Mexico's decline, but "capitalism" strikes me as hardly the answer.
What does capitalism have to do with the police?
-Because the US couldn't invade the North without dragging China and/or Russia into the war.
USA