Losing Faith in the State, Some Mexican Towns Quietly Break Away

[Burning Hammer]

You never said culture, you said ethnicity.

Those preying on them were just the same as them.

True, but ethnicity in Mexico is vast. From black to ginger Mexico has it all. Culture is the next layer. When people look at societies they look at the face first then how it works.

 

[Arkain2K]

I wonder who is assisting them with the know-how about forestry management.

Not sure who's leading the effort, but Cherán's vast nursery is no joke: its current output is 1.5 Million pine trees a year, which they're planting as well as selling. That's pretty awesome.

The Mexican Institute of Water Technologies is also helping them turning a nearby extinct volcano into a fresh water reservoir and filtration facility for daily use:

http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/utopia-in-michoacan/

 

[freaky]

So you're saying government is overrated and we should all revolt and be our own small town?

I like it. No more taxes. We keep what we earn. The point of a government was to protect it's citizens. But in today's world, there's no more war. We no longer need a government. Let's revert back to the good ole days of tribes and villages.

Oh after we nuke the shit out of middle east that is.

 

[Rod1]

Not sure who's leading the effort, but Cherán's vast nursery is no joke: its current output is 1.5 Million pine trees a year, which they're planting as well as selling. That's pretty awesome.

The Mexican Institute of Water Technologies is also helping them turning a nearby extinct volcano into a fresh water reservoir and filtration facility for daily use:

http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/utopia-in-michoacan/

Nice, i used to do some work in a nursery just like that run by the army when i was in college.

 

[Rod1]

So you're saying government is overrated and we should all revolt and be our own small town?

I like it. No more taxes. We keep what we earn. The point of a government was to protect it's citizens. But in today's world, there's no more war. We no longer need a government. Let's revert back to the good ole days of tribes and villages.

Oh after we nuke the shit out of middle east that is.

They still have a government.

 

[Arkain2K]

Last November, in a court appeal, Cherán acquired a degree of autonomy from the Mexican government; the town still receives federal and state money, and its people must pay taxes, but they are allowed to govern themselves under a legal framework called “uses and customs” that has been granted to some indigenous communities.

Instead of the traditional mayor and city council, each of the town’s four barrios is governed by its own local assembly, whose members are chosen by consensus from 172 block committees known as fogatas — after the campfires that came to symbolize the 2011 rebellion.

Each assembly also sends three representatives — including at least one woman — to serve on a 12-member town council.

The town receives all the funds — the equivalent of about $2.6 million per year, officials say — that are its due from the state and federal governments. Salaries of 200 or so town employees max out at the equivalent of roughly $450 a month, leaving money to help fund the municipal water system and other services, including a trash recycling program that is a rarity in Mexico.

So you're saying government is overrated and we should all revolt and be our own small town?

I like it. No more taxes. We keep what we earn. The point of a government was to protect it's citizens. But in today's world, there's no more war. We no longer need a government.

Serious question: Can you even fucking read?

 

[TSO]

Unfortunately, this only works for a monolithic community where everyone put the town's well-being over selfish gains, by equating the community to their own personal well-being.

Try this revolt in a larger and more diverse municipality and the local militia would be bought out within the week.

You mean like the American revolution?

 

[Arkain2K]

You mean like the American revolution?

In a way.

The main thing that unites all the factions in the American Revolution is their fight to be Americans, and that common goal triumphs over all. Those who are loyal to the British were literally tarred and feathered and chased out of town.

People in Cheran wants what's best for Cheran, everything else must take the backseat. Those who works for the cartels were, too, chased out of town.

Other towns have tried to emulate Cheran, but they've all failed because cartel money turns out to be a much higher calling than communal solidarity for them.

 

[Vitor CroCop]

Not even close to being a "miracle". This writer is delusional and the town is not a strategic geographical asset. Simple as that. If it was positioned a few clicks to the east near Morelia this feel good story wouldn't be a story. And just lol @ folks trying to frame the success or failure of vigilante uprisings in Mexico around single partisan ideological narratives like "see gun control blah blah blah" all the meanwhile ignoring the trillion dollar elephant in the room. This is Mexico. The largest narco economy in the world with the prolteriat elbows deep in the sauce. Look no further than the results of the autodefensa movement to see what happens when shit gets real.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It wasn't meant as an argument. It's a hyperbole laced opinion meant to convey a general impression, not to persuade.

He's just repeating a catch phrase from his idol (who he's quoted and linked to before but more recently pretended to have never heard of):

 

[Vitor CroCop]

So you're saying government is overrated and we should all revolt and be our own small town?

I like it. No more taxes. We keep what we earn. The point of a government was to protect it's citizens. But in today's world, there's no more war. We no longer need a government. Let's revert back to the good ole days of tribes and villages.

Oh after we nuke the shit out of middle east that is.

Lol this. Next up...zomg American Amish town of dumbledorf has 7000% less murders than Chicago in 2017!

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not really. They still set up a government, they just ousted the old corrupt system.

There will always be a goverment.

Sure they set up a government and something like a government usually exists when you have any large number of people living together as this town does with its population of 20,000. But this form of government is clearly far different from the previous one and anarchists and libertarians could argue its closer to their ideas about self rule than it is to the old system.

I think Rod has a point, this model could be informative for anarchists, minarchists, libertarians and anyone else who prefer decentralized, local self rule over centralized states. I've always said something like this style of self rule could be a solution for parts of the Middle East which is also plagued by corruption from the bottom up. Early modern Cairo(which was far larger than this town) used to have a tradition of quasi-self rule in its city quarters. The quarters had gates which were closed at sunset and the guards' salaries were sometimes paid for by the residents who were often themselves a sort of clan made up of a few extended families.So this sort of model is not entirely alien to that region.

 

[Rational Poster]

When you self govern you can also self bury your bodies where no one can find them.

 

[Islam Imamate]

and there are women on their town's ruling council, so at least we know there's no shitty stuff like forced child brides or genital mutilations there.

That's not as safe an assumption as you might think. In the Islamic world its hardly uncommon for older women to be complicit in things like child marriage and genital mutilation. In fact in late 19th and early 20th century Arab feminist literature it was often the mother who played the part of oppressive traditionalist and the father who played the role of supportive progressive parent which makes perfect sense since it was often men who had access to Western education. This fantasy of female solidarity should really be put to bed, they're quite capable of creating and sustaining social orders that oppress other women.

 

[panamaican]

Sure they set up a government and something like a government usually exists when you have any large number of people living together as this town does with its population of 20,000. But this form of government is clearly far different from the previous one and anarchists and libertarians could argue its closer to their ideas about self rule than it is to the old system.

I think Rod has a point, this model could be informative for anarchists, minarchists, libertarians and anyone else who prefer decentralized, local self rule over centralized states. I've always said something like this style of self rule could be a solution for parts of the Middle East which is also plagued by corruption from the bottom up. Early modern Cairo(which was far larger than this town) used to have a tradition of quasi-self rule in its city quarters. The quarters had gates which were closed at sunset and the guards' salaries were sometimes paid for by the residents who were often themselves a sort of clan made up of a few extended families.So this sort of model is not entirely alien to that region.

What these people have set up is a minimal government and I don't see that as particularly unique when it comes to a new government and a small population.

My general position regarding anarchists and libertarians is that they look at this very basic level of government and say that even this is not actual government. And then they fail to understand how this very basic, limited government must evolve as the population grows and new situations arise.

Instead they rarely get past the point where the population throws off the existing government and then they assume that the pre-new government state lasts in perpetuity. But even this simple example shows that formal government when ousted does not lead to a government free state. It leads to a new centralized government that is smaller, less corrupt than it's predecessor.

If these people would acknowledge the cycle of governments then I'd be more inclined to agree with their other positions.

 

[Islam Imamate]

What these people have set up is a minimal government and I don't see that as particularly unique when it comes to a new government and a small population.

My general position regarding anarchists and libertarians is that they look at this very basic level of government and say that even this is not actual government. And then they fail to understand how this very basic, limited government must evolve as the population grows and new situations arise.

Instead they rarely get past the point where the population throws off the existing government and then they assume that the pre-new government state lasts in perpetuity. But even this simple example shows that formal government when ousted does not lead to a government free state. It leads to a new centralized government that is smaller, less corrupt than it's predecessor.

If these people would acknowledge the cycle of governments then I'd be more inclined to agree with their other positions.

Let me start off by distinguishing, for the purpose of this conversation, between "state" and "government" even though colloquially they're used interchangeably. Government would be any governing body that has any authority over a given community, which Cheran certainly seems to have. If you and I lived on a deserted island with 48 other people and we all elected a 5 person council to make certain decisions that would be a government.

However, I think what libertarians like @Greoric are really skeptical of are centralized states that possess certain traits like professional standing armies and bureaucracies and the authority to use those to raise taxes or enforce laws. That 5 person government on the deserted island doesn't have a coercive apparatus that it can use to enforce its decisions, the other 45 just have to accept their rulings but if they don't there's no reason they can't just tell the council to fuck off. A state with a coercive apparatus like a standing army can enforce its will against that of its subjects/citizens though.

I suspect what libertarians from both the left and right would prefer local, temporary militias made up of volunteers over the creation of a sustained, centralized coercive apparatus. As far as a bureaucracy goes, there's less need for a large one if society is organized along autonomous communes where government is close enough to the citizenry that there is less need for an expansive organization of middle men.

Cheran might not be the utopia libertarians like Greoric imagine but I would be surprised if he didn't see it as a step in the right direction.

 

[Rod1]

That's not as safe an assumption as you might think. In the Islamic world its hardly uncommon for older women to be complicit in things like child marriage and genital mutilation. In fact in late 19th and early 20th century Arab feminist literature it was often the mother who played the part of oppressive traditionalist and the father who played the role of supportive progressive parent which makes perfect sense since it was often men who had access to Western education. This fantasy of female solidarity should really be put to bed, they're quite capable of creating and sustaining social orders that oppress other women.

Pretty much, in the case of the pastor who raped an 8 years old in Oaxaca, the pastor's wife said that the 8 years old seduced his husband.

Talk about fucked up.

 

[Rod1]

Let me start off by distinguishing, for the purpose of this conversation, between "state" and "government" even though colloquially they're used interchangeably. Government would be any governing body that has any authority over a given community, which Cheran certainly seems to have. If you and I lived on a deserted island with 48 other people and we all elected a 5 person council to make certain decisions that would be a government.

However, I think what libertarians like @Greoric are really skeptical of are centralized states that possess certain traits like professional standing armies and bureaucracies and the authority to use those to raise taxes or enforce laws. That 5 person government on the deserted island doesn't have a coercive apparatus that it can use to enforce its decisions, the other 45 just have to accept their rulings but if they don't there's no reason they can't just tell the council to fuck off. A state with a coercive apparatus like a standing army can enforce its will against that of its subjects/citizens though.

I suspect what libertarians from both the left and right would prefer local, temporary militias made up of volunteers over the creation of a sustained, centralized coercive apparatus. As far as a bureaucracy goes, there's less need for a large one if society is organized along autonomous communes where government is close enough to the citizenry that there is less need for an expansive organization of middle men.

Cheran might not be the utopia libertarians like Greoric imagine but I would be surprised if he didn't see it as a step in the right direction.

These 5 individuals would certainly have power otherwise it wouldnt reall be a government, im pretty sure the small council of Cheran enforces its laws through the community militia.

What Panamaican says and he is totally 100% correct is that the more complex and convoluted society becomes the more faceless and coercive the government appears to be.

 

[panamaican]

Let me start off by distinguishing, for the purpose of this conversation, between "state" and "government" even though colloquially they're used interchangeably. Government would be any governing body that has any authority over a given community, which Cheran certainly seems to have. If you and I lived on a deserted island with 48 other people and we all elected a 5 person council to make certain decisions that would be a government.

However, I think what libertarians like @Greoric are really skeptical of are centralized states that possess certain traits like professional standing armies and bureaucracies and the authority to use those to raise taxes or enforce laws. That 5 person government on the deserted island doesn't have a coercive apparatus that it can use to enforce its decisions, the other 45 just have to accept their rulings but if they don't there's no reason they can't just tell the council to fuck off. A state with a coercive apparatus like a standing army can enforce its will against that of its subjects/citizens though.

I suspect what libertarians from both the left and right would prefer local, temporary militias made up of volunteers over the creation of a sustained, centralized coercive apparatus. As far as a bureaucracy goes, there's less need for a large one if society is organized along autonomous communes where government is close enough to the citizenry that there is less need for an expansive organization of middle men.

Cheran might not be the utopia libertarians like Greoric imagine but I would be surprised if he didn't see it as a step in the right direction.

I disagree with the central point that the 5 person government lacks a coercive apparatus. A 5 person government that elects to create an enforcement branch will subsequently have a coercive apparatus. An enforcement arm isn't required for a government to be a government or a state but neither does it's existence transform the enforcement into something it wasn't before.

Even the libertarians argue for coercive apparatus, they simply draw a false distinction that a small, volunteer militia enforcing the law is different from small paid militia enforcing the law. But the laws being enforced are created by centralized government and the people enforcing them are doing it at the bequest and furtherance of the centralized government.

As for size, there's less need for a large government when the regions and populace being governed are small themselves. But you cannot govern 100,000 people with a government the same size as what you'd use to govern 100 people. You might be able to restrict the existence of unnecessary government but it's going to be relatively large.

And my final point on enforcement is that these non-coercive arguments frequently (not in this exchange but elsewhere) grant that the non-government entities will spend coin to create an enforcement branch of their own which will be used to compel others to abide by rules that they might not agree with.

Compulsion is compulsion no matter how you do it. Rules are rules whether you call them laws, edicts, codes of conduct, etc. And whenever a group of people grant a small percentage of those people the ability to create rules that affect other people and they have the tools to compel compliance then they have a government...no matter what they might choose to call it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

These 5 individuals would certainly have power otherwise it wouldnt reall be a government, im pretty sure the small council of Cheran enforces its laws through the community militia.

Those five people have authority that rests completely on the acquiescence of the other 45, there is no dedicated group that is paid to enforce the decisions of that council.

Cheran has its militias which would enforce its laws but how are those militias formed and sustained? That's important and here's what the article in the OP has to say about it

The armed guards at the town entrances are part of a locally selected police force of 120 or so, known as la ronda comunitaria.

Its not clear to me what this selection process is and what the compensation for their service is and those details are relevant here. I tried doing a Google search on them but all the hits other than general articles on Cheran like the one in the OP are in Spanish so maybe you could tell me more about them.

What Panamaican says and he is totally 100% correct is that the more complex and convoluted society becomes the more faceless and coercive the government appears to be.

That's true since we've seen it happen throughout history up until today but does it necessarily have to be the only path a society must take? What libertarians and anarchists argue is no and they might point to places like Cheran where there is more localized self rule as a step in that direction.

I disagree with the central point that the 5 person government lacks a coercive apparatus. A 5 person government that elects to create an enforcement branch will subsequently have a coercive apparatus. An enforcement arm isn't required for a government to be a government or a state but neither does it's existence transform the enforcement into something it wasn't before.

I suppose they could elect to create a coercive apparatus but I used the 50 people on a desert island example because its virtually impossible to establish the kind of power differential that exists between a modern head of state and a citizen in the absence of some sort of moral legitimacy in the eyes of the general population.

So the desert island would always require a much higher critical mass of acquiescence to the authority of the 5 person council than a modern state. A modern head of state in a corrupt authoritarian country doesn't really need to have a ruling coalition that includes much of anyone beyond the coercive apparatus.

Even the libertarians argue for coercive apparatus, they simply draw a false distinction that a small, volunteer militia enforcing the law is different from small paid militia enforcing the law. But the laws being enforced are created by centralized government and the people enforcing them are doing it at the bequest and furtherance of the centralized government.

I think there is a distinction to be made here though. A paid militia is likely easier to wield against the interests of the people than a volunteer one because they they're self interest is now tied to institution paying them. I would suspect a volunteer militia would be more likely to disobey an immoral order since it doesn't cost them the salary they don't have.

Also another distinction is the government creating the laws. With a model like Cheran the emphasis is on local structures which is why they separated the city into four jurisdictions that have their own councils. I would imagine in practice there's a qualitative difference, whether for better or worse, between the governance of a local council and the governance of a national assembly.

As for size, there's less need for a large government when the regions and populace being governed are small themselves. But you cannot govern 100,000 people with a government the same size as what you'd use to govern 100 people. You might be able to restrict the existence of unnecessary government but it's going to be relatively large.

I agree and I'm not arguing that this kind of communal rule is objectively better for all peoples everywhere. I do think that this form of governance might be better suited for certain peoples in certain places. Places like Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East have struggled to create sustainable and legitimate governance with the standard nation-state model with only a few exceptions. What I'm saying is this style of governance may be better suited for those places where the existence of a strong centralized national government has reliably produced a predatory, authoritarian state.

And my final point on enforcement is that these non-coercive arguments frequently (not in this exchange but elsewhere) grant that the non-government entities will spend coin to create an enforcement branch of their own which will be used to compel others to abide by rules that they might not agree with.

Compulsion is compulsion no matter how you do it. Rules are rules whether you call them laws, edicts, codes of conduct, etc. And whenever a group of people grant a small percentage of those people the ability to create rules that affect other people and they have the tools to compel compliance then they have a government...no matter what they might choose to call it.

Sure I agree with that, I'm just saying there's a qualitative difference between the kind of quasi-anarchic governance seen in Cheran and Rojova and the kind of governance seen in a standard nation-state and that in some contexts the latter might be more prone to corruption and authoritarian tendencies than the former.