BH
Veteran Member
Mexico has been an independent country for over 200 years now. Historically speaking, why can't it ever get itself together? Also, why does it seem it has always had a history of grave and serious corruption?
-
Features
Mexico
- Thread starter BH
- Start date
Well, they have managed to ship out all their rapists to the US, so that's something.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
That is funnier than shit!
Tristan Scott
Senior Member
I think their government is too small.
Their government is too small to protect itself from wide spread corruption. It is too small to protect labor, and it is too small to keep order. It's too small to provide services and to enforce regulations in living standards.
Their government is too small to protect itself from wide spread corruption. It is too small to protect labor, and it is too small to keep order. It's too small to provide services and to enforce regulations in living standards.
BH
Veteran Member
I had someone tell me that in some Mexican states the police cannot even enter private property to arrest you or fine you regarding crimes below a certain level unless you give them permission to enter the property or the owner gives permission for them to enter. I find that bizarre and hope it is not true.
BH
Veteran Member
Yes. I do know that much of Mexico's civil wars and unrest in the nineteenth century was over how strong the federal government should have been. Some, like Santa Anna, wanted a strong central government wheras others wanted the states and municipalities to have greater power. Something kinda like the Confederacy wanted for the states later up here in the 1860's.
I've also read that the indians and people of mixed indian descent inherited a political culture from the Aztecs where the rulers and nobles pretty much did whatever they wanted with no rebuke so the general populace never felt empowered to feel it should have a say in affairs. The Spanish came in and other than changing folk's religion and the names of the rulers pretty much left things the same for a long time.
I've also read that the indians and people of mixed indian descent inherited a political culture from the Aztecs where the rulers and nobles pretty much did whatever they wanted with no rebuke so the general populace never felt empowered to feel it should have a say in affairs. The Spanish came in and other than changing folk's religion and the names of the rulers pretty much left things the same for a long time.
untermensche
Contributor
It's called capitalism.
A disaster without massive government support.
A disaster without massive government support.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
That's definitely one of the bigger problems there.
I've noticed that as well. English and Dutch colonies have greater respect for individual rights, private property, and rule of law, that makes a stable capitalist society possible.
Just like Atheistic Catholicism, free market communism with private property, freely contracted slaves, and consensual rape.
untermensche
Contributor
Everybody but you calls it capitalism.
But sure.
The word really has no definition. It is a political term, not an economic term.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Some would call it neo-merchantilism.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Oh it has a definition, and that definition is different from that of corporatism with which you always confuse it. You insist it has no definition because I don't let you confuse it with corporatism.
Exactly. If capitalism fails, it means that it wasn't real capitalism.
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
Agree. They did not share the Enlightenment thinking and other changes of thought that the English did in the 18th century because Catholicism had and still has a powerful influence there with its fatalistic and hierarchical structure and small government does not extend social services of any import to its people. And this is the result.
There was a reason when the US won the Mexican War that we didn't annex the nation. It was too different culturally. Our military put a US friendly president in their highest office and we left.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
That's the No False Scotsman fallacy.
No, it's the mocking communism joke. If you're going to parrot communists, you should be prepared to be treated as one because everybody's equal.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
No, it's the No False Scotsman fallacy. "I don't care what the definition of X is, I'm going to call that X, so that when you use the definition I'll say you're using No True Scotsman. There's no such thing as something that isn't a Scotsman."
Ya, that's what I said. If you're going to wave the communist manifesto around, you can't be indignant when people suggest that you might be a communist.