Mexico is inching closer to a Venezuelan-style autocracy. Consider the case of María Oropeza, who was forcibly abducted in Venezuela by armed men without due process. Her crime? Sympathizing with the opposition. That’s the future Mexico risks: where justice is not blind, but partisan. Some dismiss these warnings as exaggeration. But as Adam Smith observed in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, people often ignore distant tragedies until they arrive at their doorstep.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata quote of the day – From Republic to Mob RuleJuly 6th, 2025 |
 29 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – From Republic to Mob RuleLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Just to be provocative:
That’s the past the US has endured, from 2009 until early this year.
Also: that is the present and recent past of the UK: two-tier justice.
And i do not (primarily) mean: justice for Muslims vs justice for non-Muslims.
I mean justice for the establishment vs justice for ordinary people.
I could go on with other countries, but i am less confident about them.
This is a complex issue.
Mexico – the State – has lost a lot of its sovereign power to the cartels, and to some other players taking advantage of the cartel chaos, in the last decade.
It’s been obvious that some drastic measures were going to be needed from Prez Sheinbaum to retake that power – drastic measures that would NOT be of a nature that would warm the libertarian heart.
It may well be that the best, quickest way to purge the country of the cartel power is going to be the establishment of some structure on a war footing.
But in all of the discussions I’ve seen, this (as set out in the OP article) wasn’t one of the scenarios discussed.
So, it will be interesting to watch.
Snorri,
I don’t think it’s provocative to say that since early this year the partisanship has been stepped up to near breaking point as unelected federal district judges stymie elected government by scattering nationwide injunctions like confetti while SCOTUS sits nervously on its hands.
The Mexican judicial elections were a farce, and the courts and “justice” system are indeed under the control of the Criminal Cartels (which, please remember, also have a political ideology – they support “Social Justice”, i.e. plundering) and the socialist party which rules Mexico (the socialist party is joined at the hip with the Social Justice Criminal Cartels) – but that is partly the fault of the opposition, for not getting themselves organised – although, yes, the media and the education system are dominated by the left (sound familiar?) which makes it an uphill climb for the non leftists.
Sadly even when “conservatives” win elections in Mexico they turn out to be leftists – for example Mr Fox (of the supposedly conservative PAN) won election as President of Mexico some years ago – but he introduced a “free” (taxpayer funded) health service, and endless “public-private” housing schemes – you, gentle reader, can guess what a corrupt mess they turned out to be.
“It all sounds horribly familiar Paul” – yes it does, the left took power in Mexico because both the conservatives (PAN) and the “center” (the leftist PRI) failed.
Of course, the socialists are also failing – but the media and education system in Mexico pretend their policies are a success.
Still things can change – many people thought the position in Argentina was hopeless, but it turned out not to be – thanks to President Milei.
And if there is one day a Mexican President Milei they should reintroduce silver money (not a silver “standard” – silver money).
The second biggest mistake of the administration of President Diaz was to move from silver money (which Mexico had – it is the biggest producer of silver) to a gold “standard” – this helped lead to the Mexican Revolution of 1910 – and the decades of violence that has never really stopped.
The biggest mistake of the Diaz Administration was to carry on the old Spanish practice of forced labour for people who had no visible means of support – this, quite understandably, produced terrible hatred for landowners and business enterprises that benefited from this forced labour – and this spilled over into terrible hatred for great majority of landowners and business enterprises that did NOT benefit from forced labour.
“Let us put vagabonds to work” sounds good as a slogan – but in practice it was a corrupt, and brutal, mess.
And it played into the hands of “Social Justice” monsters such as “General” Zapata – who had people murdered for such “crimes” as owning a horse, or having stairs in their house.
That the media (Hollywood and so on) and the education system (and not just in Mexico) present Social Justice monsters such as Zapata as “heroes” shows the level of ideological capture by the left in the modern world.
It is not just about the years after 1910 – it very much is about now-and-the-future.
Guatemala also kept the old Spanish practice of forced labour.
Indeed in Guatemala (up to the early 1900s) if a women was judged to be of “bad character” she could be sold, by the government, to a brothel madam – as a de facto slave-prostitute. Such women could be bought and sold by brothels.
“Still things can change – many people thought the position in Argentina was hopeless, but it turned out not to be – thanks to President Milei.”
There’s also the example of Bukele and El Salvador.
For those who do not know….
A gold “standard” (or, for that matter a silver “standard” – or any other form of these “standard” scams) puts de facto power into the hands of Credit Bubble bankers and business enterprises connected to them, and, via the “Cantillon Effect”, this leads to extreme inequality – as well as terrible boom-bust economic cycles.
Not that entirely fiat (edict – whim) money is better than a “standard” – it is worse.
But a “standard” should not be confused with honest money, and honest finance (lending out Real Savings – the actual sacrifice of consumption to enable thrift).
Even 1929 does not seem to have got into the heads of people that there is a massive difference between honest money (and sound finance) and a “standard”.
Although, again, entirely fiat money is even worse than a “standard”.
@Snorri Godhi
I’d argue that we have three tier justice in the UK now. We have ‘easy justice’ for any client group that is in political favour. We have ‘tough justice’ for any client group that is out of political favour. But we also have (and have had for some time) ‘scant justice’ for those who are part of the Establishment clique.
Henry Cybulski – that is an interesting example.
I can remember Bukele when he was the leftist Mayor of San Salvador – but he became disgusted by the endless plundering, and endless rapes and murders of the Social Justice Criminal Gangs.
Is his solution without problems? Of course NOT – there are many problems (abuses and so on). But given the terrible situation – what indeed was the alternative to what President Bukele did.
As for his love of Bitcoin……
I do not share his love of the “special numbers” – but I certainly have nothing against people who do.
Perhaps people like me (gold and silver fans) are the past – and the Bitcoin people are the future.
As long as Credit Bubble banking is ended, and honest money lending (I have nothing against money lending for interest) is followed – so good luck to he Bitcoin people, although I am not one of them.
By the way….
The only real alternative to the election of judges, is for judges to be appointed by elected people. So if the President or Congress appointed the judges in Mexico – how would that produce a different outcome from electing the judges?
Having the judges appoint themselves (via committees and so on) is a dreadful system – it means the courts will inevitably come under the control of the establishment collectivists. The farce in Israel – where judges enforce a constitution that exists only in their fantasies (i.e. they really enforce their own political opinions) springs to mind.
One does not have to look as far as Mexico to see a political biased “justice system” – have a look at Britain. And judges are not elected here – they are appointed by a Blarite committee.
Why did Republicans lose the Wisconsin Supreme Court election?
Did Elon Musk not spend enough money? No – the Republicans lost because their candidate was against abortion and most voters in Wisconsin are pro abortion.
Call it “mob rule” if you like – but that is democracy.
By the way I agree with the Republican candidate – but in a democracy the majority decide.
So get organised – convince people in Mexico to vote for conservative judges.
I thought the mob was a disparaging term used for the electorate in a direct democracy system of government?
It is, and that is why I am a constitutionalist. Unfettered democracy is as dangerous as no democracy.
Perry – a written Constitution normally judges to rule on it.
So the political struggle then becomes – who appoints the judges?
The Blairite system of a committee appoints the judges means, in practice, that the left rules.
So, at least Constitutional, judges might as well be elected – and in contested (free) elections.
A possible alternative would be randomly selected juries to judge these matters.
If the laws and Constitution are not plain enough for ordinary people to understand them, then the laws and Constitution are no good anyway.
Perry, the current system hands virtually all power to the political class. I don’t agree with unfettered democracy although Switzerland doesn’t appear to suffer much from it. I hope you can suggest improvements to our current system?
Stuart Noyes.
It would be difficult (to put it mildly) to get a good Constitution here in the United Kingdom – who would write it?
And even if, by some miracle, a good Constitution was written – what is to stop leftist judges subverting it?
We are back to “who appoints the judges?”
Or elect the judges.
Or have randomly selected juries for constitutional disputes.
The old conservative establishment – which produced conservative judges such as Sir Edward Coke and Sir John Holt, is dead.
The new establishment has nothing but hatred and contempt for both the British people and for the principles of liberty – the principles of the Common Law.
And it is from this new establishment (shaped by a despicable education system and a corrupted culture) that the new judges come.
WRT the power of the judiciary:
I see little danger in giving supreme power to the US Supreme Court, because their power is intrinsically limited:
(a) somebody has to petition them first;
(b) SCOTUS can abrogate, but cannot legislate;
(c) they take a long time to take a decision, which means that they can take few decisions.
NB: little danger is not the same as no danger.
Federal district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions are an entirely different issue.
Snorri – as Ted Cruz pointed out in his recent book, a couple of leftist appointments to the Supreme Court and the 1st and 2nd Amendments are as dead as the 10th Amendment (which was smashed by the Supreme Court judgments saying that the “common defense and general welfare” was NOT the purpose of the specific spending powers then listed in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States, but was a “general welfare spending power”).
But it is not “just” this – the Supreme Court can do things of its own, such as creating “rights” from nowhere – for example the early 1970s “right” to kill babies (recently overturned), or the 1960s “right” to be a vagrant, overturning centuries of law – and make some American cities hellholes.
Also the United States Supreme Court, back in the 1960s, destroyed the basis of State Senates, which were supposed to be a rural counterweight to the cities, demanding that the State Senates be elected according to population – which destroyed the point of having a State Senate.
Courts have also increased TAXATION – for example in New Hampshire (the Property Tax for education), but judges have also insisted on tax-and-spend in other States (California, Missouri, Texas) demanding more government spending on schools and other things, including for illegal immigrants, and Federal courts as well as state courts, the Supreme Court decision against Texas was in 1982.
And judges have violated legal agreements – such as the agreement that created modern New York City – each of the five boroughs was supposed to have a veto on tax increases – but the judges got rid of that.
Judges are not angels – they are just people, politicians in robes.
And in Britain the Blarite “Supreme Court” judges do not even bother wearing robes and wigs.
They are just politicians in suits – the same as other politicians.
But they are not, in Britain, elected – and the people can not remove them.
It is not just English speaking countries.
For example, people keep saying that the Prime Minister of Italy has “betrayed her promises” to stop the demographic transformation of Italy – i.e. the destruction of Italy. But the courts, the judges, have prevented much effective action.
The government of Hungary is correct (which is why the International Community hate them) – if the judges are not on your side, you are in office but NOT in power.
There is no point in being “in office” for 14 years (United Kingdom) if the judges and officials mean you are NOT in power.
Of course, there remains the possible alternative of randomly selected Constitutional Juries.
If the laws and Constitution are too complicated for ordinary people to understand – then the laws and Constitution are no good.
A question was asked before and after Brexit, “who governs Britain?”
As Richard North wrote, there is little point reclaiming powers from Brussels back to the same institution that gave them away.
A constitution can purely be a document or documents that set out how government is formed, who does what and have what powers and when elections are as examples.
The US constitution sets all this out. The constituted government cannot change it by itself. If the government passes a law that contravenes the constitution, its the duty of the supreme court to anul said law. There is a bill of political rights that us hopefully likewise protected against government change. I’m sure people will argue this point, but that is a fairly good setup where “we the people” have protection against tyranny.
Contrast to the UK. Our government can do what it likes. Stop elections, take all political rights away and is doing so. Hand rights judgements to a foreign court. Join a political union with governmental institutions that have supremacy over our national ones. Sign treaties that give hundreds of millions of people the legal right to come here. Create a supreme court. Effectively do what they want.
It’s time we put guard rails around our political class. Without them, they’ll continue to abuse us and destroy our country. The Harrogate Agenda has explored all these issues. Complaining about mob like when we have one already that’s a very small minority is counterproductive. Likewise being negative about our ability to create a constitution for ourselves.
Stuart Noyes – I say again…..
Then it all comes down to who the judges are.
You could have the best Constitution in the world – and it would not be worth the paper it is written on (indeed would be used for EVIL) if you have the wrong judges.
Who picks the judges – and who does one get rid of judges who go rotten?
Perhaps I’m an idiot but I still don’t understand how those who want a British written constitution modelled on the American one that originates in the 1780s. How are they going to ensure it is like that constitution, and not more like the post-Apartheid constitution of South Africa?
Paul – I believe part of the direct democracy clause from the Harrogate Agenda included being able to raise a petition and given enough support could result in a referendum.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/blogview.php?postid=5
A very good point Paul. Ultimately the state cannot police itself. It will inevitably serve itself, mostly against the interests of the population. We in whatever format is best need to be superior. I appreciate the population can be manipulated and not all look at issues with the above in mind. Many would prefer living in a cage.
Stuart Noyes – ah, I see what you mean.
Well, yes, Switzerland is better governed than Britain (although that is a low bar – and even Switzerland has got worse over time), California is badly governed (although no worse than the United Kingdom) – but the referendums are not blame for that, after all the Democrats have controlled the Californian State Legislature since the 1960s.
Indeed if one particular “Proposition” (the one that limited the amount of government benefits and public services that could be claimed by illegal immigrants) had not be voided by (intellectually corrupt) judges – California might have been saved.
The left claim that immigrants do not come for government benefits and public services – and then scream (really scream) when government benefits and public services are limited for immigrants.
The contradiction in the position of the left is extreme.
If the immigrants do NOT come for government benefits and public services, there should be no issue with not giving immigrants government benefits and public services.
Meanwhile Mexican leftists are rioting – smashing up shops and so on. Protesting against “Gringos” (racist slur) spending money in Mexico – yes, they hate people spending money in Mexico and keeping Mexicans in work.
I am reminded of the Spanish leftists who, ignoring the harm that Third World migrants are doing to Spain, rioted about Western tourists – upon which large areas of Spain depend.
The mind of leftists is strange – they hate honest employment, and love destroying business enterprises (as the Mexican rioters, racist rioters, are doing), and stealing money and taking bribes – which the socialist Spanish government does all the time.
Politics certainly does not have a good reputation in regards to any political party – but both the Mexican and the Spanish socialists take corruption and general criminality, to an extreme.
Well, no. What they’re protesting is the gentrification of large swathes of previously-cheap Mexico City and surrounds by monied Americans seeking a nice warm life with their powerful American dollars.
They are indeed pricing a lot of Mexicans out of their city.
They send us paupers with large families. We send them well-off retireds and WFH’s. We’re doing this wrong.
bobby b
Mexico City is vast (one of the biggest cities on the planet) – a few thousand American retirees are not really going to increase house prices.
It is like the Spanish leftists – rioting over tourists (who are the life blood of some areas of Spain) whilst ignoring the Third World migrants who do not bring in money, indeed are subsidized by Spanish taxpayers.
The United States is not the only place being swamped by migrant paupers – so is Western Europe.
Note I said “Western” Europe – if they turn up in Russia they are either conscripted into the army and sent to clear Ukrainian minefields (without mine clearing equipment – “just walk over there – and if you do not, we will shoot you”), or sent on to Central and Western Europe.
Indeed both the Russian government and the government of Belarus run a business of attracting in and (for a fee) sending on, Third World migrants.
It is a “double-win” the migrants pay them – and they get to know that Western and Central European nations will be weakened by subsidizing the migrants when they arrive.