Discussion What's the difference between a gang/cartel and a government?

[KillingPain267]

Mexican cartel:


Government police:


Both "govern" you by threatening violent force to get what they want.

 

[33-vertebrae]

The difference seems to be that the police can rape, maim, and murder you with almost 100% impunity, whereas cartel and gang members actually go to prison.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Hey, for your information the police are meant to protect us (when they feel like it)

 

[_AllCatsAreGrey_]

The difference is just the given "legitimacy" of the State.

 

[littleadonis]

This is an insane comparison. Yes, any government is technically just the strongest gang in a marked territory, and the Mexican government may have problems, but it's far and beyond the absolute barbarism of cartels. The government has thousands of policies and a degree of ethics and democracy guides a lot of these policy decisions. Fundamentally, the point of a democratic government is that it takes a cut of people's wealth in order to fund and provide public services and protection that everyone can benefit from. Every government must use force in order to protect its citizens and maintain order.

The average cartel however is a system designed solely to take as much power as possible. There is absolutely no care involved in cartel life for human life, only ambition, and this pursuit of power and dominance over others is characterised solely by extreme expolitation and coercion. They will kill and torture people in the most horrifically brutal ways to instill fear and respect for them for the sole means of fulfilling their desire for dominance over everyone. They want this dominance solely to extract as much value from everyone and everything as possible.

It's so insensitive to the victims of cartels to characterise the extreme violence and eploitation from a cartel as a form of government. That's sick. And y'all know you would choose the Mexican government over a Mexican cartel anyday. Stop trying to be so edgy.

 

[KillingPain267]

This is an insane comparison. Yes, any government is technically just the strongest gang in a marked territory, and the Mexican government may have problems, but it's far and beyond the absolute barbarism of cartels. The government has thousands of policies and a degree of ethics and democracy guides a lot of these policy decisions. Fundamentally, the point of a democratic government is that it takes a cut of people's wealth in order to fund and provide public services and protection that everyone can benefit from. Every government must use force in order to protect its citizens and maintain order.

The average cartel however is a system designed solely to take as much power as possible. There is absolutely no care involved in cartel life for human life, only ambition, and this pursuit of power and dominance over others is characterised solely by extreme expolitation and coercion. They will kill and torture people in the most horrifically brutal ways to instill fear and respect for them for the sole means of fulfilling their desire for dominance over everyone. They want this dominance solely to extract as much value from everyone and everything as possible.

It's so insensitive to the victims of cartels to characterise the extreme violence and eploitation from a cartel as a form of government. That's sick. And y'all know you would choose the Mexican government over a Mexican cartel anyday. Stop trying to be so edgy.

How does the police and prison guards treat their prisoners? I'd rather endure a 3 minute beheading than rotting 30 years in a prison.

 

[littleadonis]

How does the police and prison guards treat their prisoners? I'd rather endure a 3 minute beheading than rotting 30 years in a prison.

Firstly, why 30 years? What did you do lol? And why 3 minutes? They can make it much longer if they want to. Just very random numbers pulled out of nowhere lol.

I hate the prison system too. But living under a cartel IS a prison. There is no perfect system in the world but a country ran by a cartel is about as fucking dystopian as it gets.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I'd rather endure a 3 minute beheading

 

[KillingPain267]

Firstly, why 30 years? What did you do lol? And why 3 minutes? They can make it much longer if they want to. Just very random numbers pulled out of nowhere lol.

3 minutes, based on cartel videos I've watched. The body doesn't last that long when cut and stabbed repeatedly. Sure, the victims are beaten beforehand as they get abducted, but so do suspects being arrested by Mexican pigs, and the beatings continue for your entire prison life. The pigs there even use forced confessions. That's why I see less and less differences.

I hate the prison system too. But living under a cartel IS a prison. There is no perfect system in the world but a country ran by a cartel is about as fucking dystopian as it gets.

I agree. I never said cartels were better. But study any dictatorship calling itself a government and they treated their enemies no different than cartels. Also, cartels rarely attack random citizens. Some cartels even condemn other cartels for doing so. But as long as you don't cross their paths, try to get in on the drug trade, be a member of a rival cartel, betray them or insult them, you're good. Same with living in a dictatorship or military state. But yeah, both are violent.

Yeah, "Funkytown" is one of the most extreme versions. But in most executions it takes no longer than 3 minutes. Government dictatorships have done much similar things. Ukrainians and Russians are ripping each other to shreds with drones as we speak. The soldiers there suffer for hours after getting hit by a drone bomb.

 

[_AllCatsAreGrey_]

This is an insane comparison. Yes, any government is technically just the strongest gang in a marked territory, and the Mexican government may have problems, but it's far and beyond the absolute barbarism of cartels. The government has thousands of policies and a degree of ethics and democracy guides a lot of these policy decisions. Fundamentally, the point of a democratic government is that it takes a cut of people's wealth in order to fund and provide public services and protection that everyone can benefit from. Every government must use force in order to protect its citizens and maintain order.

The average cartel however is a system designed solely to take as much power as possible. There is absolutely no care involved in cartel life for human life, only ambition, and this pursuit of power and dominance over others is characterised solely by extreme expolitation and coercion. They will kill and torture people in the most horrifically brutal ways to instill fear and respect for them for the sole means of fulfilling their desire for dominance over everyone. They want this dominance solely to extract as much value from everyone and everything as possible.

It's so insensitive to the victims of cartels to characterise the extreme violence and eploitation from a cartel as a form of government. That's sick. And y'all know you would choose the Mexican government over a Mexican cartel anyday. Stop trying to be so edgy.

I don't have the capacity to fully respond. You're making a lot of assumptions out of my statement. I'm not trying to be edgy, thank you very much.

My statement was about the coverage that the legitimacy of State provides for abuse of power. I'm in no way saying cartels are a form of government. Saying it's offensive to victims of cartels is a huge jump. I could as easily say that your statements are offensive to the victims of "legitimate" police violence.

I disagree that the function of police in a State is to protect everyone. It's clear that their purpose is slanted to the wealthy and status quo, that is who they serve and protect.

 

[KillingPain267]

this must be sarcastic post since the title is ironic. for once i thought someone ACTUALLY compared a cartel to a government but then i realized you're just trollin

please say that you're trollin' come onnnnnn

I'm dead serious. If you study the origin of these cartels, many of them started as community protection groups or vigilantes. They even brag about being good guys and condemn rival cartels as evil. Also, study the origin of every legitimate government; they all started as rebel groups, terrorist groups etc. using brutal torture on enemies. Case in point, Taliban in Afghanistan. In one day they went from terrorist group insurgents to legitimate government.

 

[_AllCatsAreGrey_]

I'm dead serious. If you study the origin of these cartels, many of them started as community protection groups or vigilantes. They even brag about being good guys and condemn rival cartels as evil. Also, study the origin of every legitimate government; they all started as rebel groups, terrorist groups etc. using brutal torture on enemies. Case in point, Taliban in Afghanistan. In one day they went from terrorist group insurgents to legitimate government.

Indeed. It makes me think about the history of the development of the police in the US. They started from slave catchers in the South and strike busters in the North. Their current capacity follows in that tradition.

 

[littleadonis]

I don't have the capacity to fully respond. You're making a lot of assumptions out of my statement. I'm not trying to be edgy, thank you very much.

My statement was about the coverage that the legitimacy of State provides for abuse of power. I'm in no way saying cartels are a form of government. Saying it's offensive to victims of cartels is a huge jump. I could as easily say that your statements are offensive to the victims of "legitimate" police violence.

I disagree that the function of police in a State is to protect everyone. It's clear that their purpose is slanted to the wealthy and status quo, that is who they serve and protect.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to OP. How is it not offensive? Imagine if some barbarians murdered your family and someone tells you they're akin to any legitimate government.

 

[FlufflesAway]

Indeed. It makes me think about the history of the development of the police in the US. They started from slave catchers in the South and strike busters in the North. Their current capacity follows in that tradition.

Yes, and this frustrates me endlessly with libertarian-thinkers. They just seem naive to reality and history. A lot of the institutions they talk about as being ideal creatures of a free-market already exist. They just don't like them now because they perceive themselves to be victims. Abolish government and the free-market will recreate it.

To the poster that tried to frame the question as nonsensical, it really is not. The difference between "gangs" and governments is that the gangs and such ilk are not yet the government. Governments can be thought of, and demonstrated via the analysis of history, as gangs at a highly developed stage. Cartels use abhorrent violence on individuals who are involved in their operations, and often that spills into 'civilian' life. Most organized crime groups have a ethos of not involving outsiders, and this is probably a result of operational practicalities more than anything else, though it's often codified as a sort of morality. As organized crime expands more people fall into their remit, and brutality doesn't scale in getting people to sustainably co-operate. More refined methods are required, and these refinements transform a criminal group into a 'legitimate government'.

Governments, due to their monopoly on power, have committed worse atrocities than any organized crime group. Due to the nature of organized crime they simply can't compete--they are vying for that monopoly on power and do not yet have the means. Show me an organized crime group that has used nuclear weapons on people. Show me an organized crime group with a higher murder toll than individual governments. You can't. I also doubt crime groups research novel methods of torture. Governments do, and again, due to their monopoly on power this results in extreme, inhumane, and abhorrent actions. With legitimacy these become "experiments" and fall within the domain of "science".

The perceived, real or not, of a particular groups actions as brutal is simply a matter of that groups ability to achieve its goals. Desperate, or to be more exact, people with less means at their disposal, will resort to more primitive actions, and these by their nature become more brutish.

 

[KillingPain267]

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to OP. How is it not offensive? Imagine if some barbarians murdered your family and someone tells you they're akin to any legitimate government.

The Taliban is now legitimate government. Women burned as witches were under "legitimate" kings. People held as political prisoners are under "legitimate" government. Black people under Jim Crow, that was "legitimate" government. Black people TODAY are shot under "legitimate" government. Most "legitimate" government in the third world today call themselves democratic and legitimate but torture people with prison, beatings, forced confessions etc. And whatever brutality western governments don't do to their own citizens now, they do it in the third world with their imperialist wars and interventions. I never said each and every government is as bad as cartels, but coming from an anarcho-pacifist perspective, every group using violent force to enforce their will is a type of government. Also, prison in itself is torture. If I came to your home, handcuffed you and locked you inside my basement for 10 years because you forgot to pay me a "fee" and you smoked cigarettes, I would be called a monster rightly so. EVEN IF I never beat you and I fed you with filet mignon every night. And yet when the "legitimate" government wants to imprison someone for decades due to not paying taxes or possessing weed, then suddenly it's all righteous and barely anyone questions the violence of it. It may not be "cutting off limbs" level violence, but prison is still violence.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to OP. How is it not offensive? Imagine if some barbarians murdered your family and someone tells you they're akin to any legitimate government.

I mean, there have been plenty of cases of the police murdering people's family members...

While I don't know if it's necessarily right to treat the police (and the government as a whole) and the cartel as being one-to-one, I would say that even if the police and the government were better than the cartel it wouldn't be by a lot. The police, for instance, are quite horrible and work in favour of the rich and powerful. They go out of their way to harm innocent people (especially marginalized groups) and even dogs and are well-known loving the authority and dominance that comes from their job. They don't even do their job a lot of the time for crying out loud, as is highlighted in the video I posted talking about Joseph Lozito. Honestly, if you want a taste of how awful they are, then this video does a good job at explaining some of the issues associated with the police (the video seems kind of stupid at first, Ik. But as it goes on it ends up being quite informative on the many issues regarding the police):

 

[cedartree]

The difference is what they're portrayed as in the media and what the state wants you to think about them

Mexican cartel:
View attachment 153686

Government police:
View attachment 153687

Both "govern" you by threatening violent force to get what they want.

 

[33-vertebrae]

This is an insane comparison. Yes, any government is technically just the strongest gang in a marked territory, and the Mexican government may have problems, but it's far and beyond the absolute barbarism of cartels. The government has thousands of policies and a degree of ethics and democracy guides a lot of these policy decisions. Fundamentally, the point of a democratic government is that it takes a cut of people's wealth in order to fund and provide public services and protection that everyone can benefit from. Every government must use force in order to protect its citizens and maintain order.

The average cartel however is a system designed solely to take as much power as possible. There is absolutely no care involved in cartel life for human life, only ambition, and this pursuit of power and dominance over others is characterised solely by extreme expolitation and coercion. They will kill and torture people in the most horrifically brutal ways to instill fear and respect for them for the sole means of fulfilling their desire for dominance over everyone. They want this dominance solely to extract as much value from everyone and everything as possible.

It's so insensitive to the victims of cartels to characterise the extreme violence and eploitation from a cartel as a form of government. That's sick. And y'all know you would choose the Mexican government over a Mexican cartel anyday. Stop trying to be so edgy.

I'm from the US, so I'll just use American cops as an example: yes, technically, on paper, cops have a standard of operation, code of ethics, yadda yadda.

In practice? We see police departments seemingly deliberately hiring sociopaths, cops constantly getting away with violating people's rights, abusing them, hurting them, or killing them and either being blindly defended by the public, or by their superiors. Even cops that are reprimanded with firing just get passed along to another department to continue their spree of abuse. Many cops have "records" a mile long of misdeeds and still get to be placed in a position of authority where they can do what they want with people at their own discretion, damn near.

The so-called "code of ethics" seems to only come into play when their crimes are openly exposed and enough people make an uproar about it and then some cops are finally held accountable.

Nobody is saying that cartels are angels - of course they are barbarians, psychopaths, blood-lustful criminals. But, so are many cops.

I don't care if it's considered edgy to be hyperbolic with the comparison; I've seen way too many people (children, animals, the demented elderly, the mentally ill) getting utterly fucked up by cops that to me, whether they are "peace officers" or gang members makes no difference.

 

[KillingPain267]

I'm from the US, so I'll just use American cops as an example: yes, technically, on paper, cops have a standard of operation, code of ethics, yadda yadda.

In practice?

Exactly. Ideology (or rather, propaganda) does not align with practice. There may be a constitution and a bill of rights. But are we really supposed to believe an organisation with armed goons will automatically follow their own limitations?

The Mafia has a code of ethics too. No killing of women and kids for example, but eventually journalists were able to show how the mob in Sicily brutally tortured a 10 year old boy to death. What about the infamous CJNG cartel in Mexico? They also are a group just wanting to "clean up" Mexico, and have a code of ethics. Lol. In 2009 they said "We are the new group Mata Zetas (Zeta Killers) and we are against kidnapping and extortion, and we will fight them in all states for a cleaner Mexico." Lol The Philippines has a constitution much similar to the American one, even better! In their constitution it is clearly stated that the police are not allowed to plant evidence, beat or force confessions. They have even passed extra laws outlawing police torture. But guess what the police there have been doing since the Marcos dictatorship, lol.

 

[littleadonis]

Bro y'all are so cynical. Everyone everywhere was oppressed by their governments in the past. But the 20th century has seen a massive change in how society perceives war and oppression. We are now living in the time with the least amount of violence, crime, poverty, and non-education as well as noncriminal deaths. The change has been undeniably dramatic and how we live today, especially in the western democratic world, is well and far beyond how the average person and even kings in the past used to live. We discuss and dissect intersectional oppression within society in order to identify and eliminate it. We live in welfare states where we support and fund the lives of vulnerable people. You're probably talking on here from the comfort of your own home on a technological device that costs hundreds at least and you're doing all of this within relative safety because your government protects you. You're all super privileged without even realising it. And yet y'all are like "yeah cartels should take over now." I get complaining about the still existent problems within society as we should in order to get society to where it needs to be. But comparing western governments to cartels is loony and can only come from a place of privilege where you haven't experienced the true horrors of the world, the horror and constant peril of the places that have no order. A democratic government has checks and procedures in place to listen to and determine what people want and the government is often made up of local constituents whose job it is to literally listen to and campaign for what you want. They have been growing increasingly democratic, human rights concerned, and environment concerned. A cartel member will murder you for your boots. So yeah, there's quite the difference between the two.

 

[KillingPain267]

And yet y'all are like "yeah cartels should take over now."

Nobody says this. What the hell are you talking about?

But comparing western governments to cartels is loony and can only come from a place of privilege where you haven't experienced the true horrors of the world, the horror and constant peril of the places that have no order.

Western governments are participating in and supporting genocide in Palestine as we speak.

 

[ZeroM24]

One can kill or torture us legally, the other illegally.

 

[FlufflesAway]

Bro y'all are so cynical. Everyone everywhere was oppressed by their governments in the past. But the 20th century has seen a massive change in how society perceives war and oppression. We are now living in the time with the least amount of violence, crime, poverty, and non-education as well as noncriminal deaths. The change has been undeniably dramatic and how we live today, especially in the western democratic world, is well and far beyond how the average person and even kings in the past used to live. We discuss and dissect intersectional oppression within society in order to identify and eliminate it. We live in welfare states where we support and fund the lives of vulnerable people. You're probably talking on here from the comfort of your own home on a technological device that costs hundreds at least and you're doing all of this within relative safety because your government protects you. You're all super privileged without even realising it. And yet y'all are like "yeah cartels should take over now." I get complaining about the still existent problems within society as we should in order to get society to where it needs to be. But comparing western governments to cartels is loony and can only come from a place of privilege where you haven't experienced the true horrors of the world, the horror and constant peril of the places that have no order. A democratic government has checks and procedures in place to listen to and determine what people want and the government is often made up of local constituents whose job it is to literally listen to and campaign for what you want. They have been growing increasingly democratic, human rights concerned, and environment concerned. A cartel member will murder you for your boots. So yeah, there's quite the difference between the two.

It's ironic that, yes, weapons of war are dirt cheap (internet connections and computers) whilst necessities are out of reach for many in the "western democratic world": food and shelter. Some people still grow up hungry. Labour still gets beaten with truncheons for asking for better conditions. Politicians still threaten to send in militarized forces for swathes of people who don't comply with coercion. Again, all this material wealth is a byproduct of technological progress. It is not somehow a magical, more egalitarian way of governing from a more humane, sympathetic, enlightened intelligentsia. The social conditions are much the same as it had been before the world wars.

It's interesting that your text is the only one in this thread yet that's trying to divert the discussion to non-related context.

 

[littleadonis]

Again, all this material wealth is a byproduct of technological progress. It is not somehow a magical, more egalitarian way of governing from a more humane, sympathetic, enlightened intelligentsia. The social conditions are much the same as it had been before the world wars.

That's a truly pseudointellectual take.

 

[untothedepths]

one protects society's agreements on what should and shouldnt happen within the major social construct that is civilization.

it can be a great thing when you have a government that upholds the law, stays the fuck out of peoples business when they arent hurting anyone, and purges corruption.

however, once corruption starts and festers, the whole thing goes downhill, slow or fast. corruption will always prioritize those who have it all, and never society as a whole.

im no boot licker though. im very scathing about governments, especially those who bend over backwards for rich bastards. you know............being anti-corruption.

 

[Buh-bye!]

I'm dead serious. If you study the origin of these cartels, many of them started as community protection groups or vigilantes. They even brag about being good guys and condemn rival cartels as evil. Also, study the origin of every legitimate government; they all started as rebel groups, terrorist groups etc. using brutal torture on enemies. Case in point, Taliban in Afghanistan. In one day they went from terrorist group insurgents to legitimate government.

you do make a point. have a nice day and thankyou for the clarification