There will undoubtedly be people who are murdered in the coming years
1. by foreign occupying troops who mistakenly overreact in a tense situation,
2. by petty private criminals because their victims are disarmed or cannot join a private militia due to the rules imposed by the occupying troops,
3. by drug gangs who bribe the foreign occupying troops to solidify their power over the helpless Haitian civilians.
Um… yeah. Here are a couple of reactions to the first section you quoted:
1.) This will be MUCH less than riots and un-policed gangs will inflict on the population were there no foreign troops helping to calm things down.
2.) Again, much less than if Port au Price was relegated to gang warfare
3.) What planet are you on?
While certainly some people may be harmed by foreign troops enforcing order, that number will be MUCH less than what would happen under anarchy.
You seem to be making some false assumptions though. One of them being that civilians are unarmed and unable to organise protection as in a typical government enforced police system.
You want to talk about false assumptions? How about this one: “There will undoubtedly be people who are murdered in the coming years by drug gangs who bribe the foreign occupying troops to solidify their power over the helpless Haitian civilians.”
And no, I am not assuming that civilians will be unarmed and unable to organize protection. I am assuming that they will be armed and able to organize.
The problem is that this organization will not be on a national scale, but on a neighborhood or gang scale. In places where resources are very limited (such as a country that was just decimated by a major earthquake) and populations are high (say, a major city) these gangs will fight each other for the limited and scarce resources. This will result in much more death and harm to the overall population than a coordinated central government will be able to provide.
Speculation. It is even impossible to say what the productive contribution of all government activities is, since it isnt gauged in the market and its payments are not voluntary.
This is in sharp contrast to market distributed protection services where it can be said with full certainty that both sides of a trade benefit.
As Rothbard put it,
Call the kettle black much? And are you really trying so say that there is less crime if there was no police force? In an area with a high population and not enough food and water? That if all the countries helping then moved out there would be massive starvation (Food is already a problem, with all the help they are getting). Further more, a "trade" with Haiti wouldn't work, because what are they going to give us? Free vacations?
1. Acidental deaths happen in practically all types of law enforcement. The notion that somehow militias of untrained Haitians would somehow react better in a tense situation than highly trained soldiers is ridiculous.
2. "Occupying" powers have formed and maintained local militias throughout history, i see no reason why that would be different this time. As for the disarming part practically only criminals in Haiti can afford firearms, the average Haitian can normally barely feed themselves on their $2 a day budgets so anyone that gets disarmed is most likely a criminal.
3. Its not a problem in Afghanistan so why would it be a problem in Haiti?
The Drug Gangs will most likely loose a lot of influence now that the Corrupt officials are replaced by foreing soldiers whose loyalty they cant afford to buy.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.