The next fundamental deficiency of liberalism is its fundamental inability to deal with a menace which, however, does not represent an existential threat. I am talking about the organized crime (including street gangs such as MS-13).
At least not to Western Civilization, although it does for the Russian one (years earlier the latter got transformed into a genuine “Mafia State” which would inevitably destroy it – and rather sooner than later).
It is also an enormous problem for the whole (mostly minority) communities in Europe, North America and elsewhere as these communities are controlled, terrorized and extorted by criminal gangs. Murderous criminal gangs.
I fully understand the origins of the (in)famous Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement as, indeed, systemic racism is a serious problem in the “good old USA”. However, I have two major issues with this controversial (to put it mildly) organization.
The first one is its name because it implicitly it claims that only blacks are victims of systemic racism in the USA. Which is simply not true – Hispanics (especially illegal immigrants) are victims as well.
In fact, up until recently many police departments and sheriff’s departments almost openly used (some apparently still do) acronym NHI (No Humans Involved) which referred to crimes (homicide, grievous bodily harm, rape, etc.) committed against non-white individuals.
Hence a far better name (that would adequately reflect the systemic racism in the USA) would be All Lives Matter. All, not just white that is.
The second major issue is that BLM simply does not its priorities straight. Radically decreasing the number of black murder victims is a highly noble undertaking, no doubt about that.
The problem is that over 90% (in some cases, 99%) of such murders are black-on-black; first and foremost, gang-related murders. In other words, just about all victims have been killed by street gangs… who are one hundred percent black.
Hence, BLM would have been far more efficient at saving black lives (if they sincerely want to it, of course) not by fighting the police of all colors (believe it or not, but blacks are killed by black police officers as well – and by Hispanic, too). But by creating a strategic partnership with the police and radically reducing activities of street gangs?
Why doesn’t BLM do it? Ulterior motives are present, of course (black-on-black violence does not generate nearly as much publicity – and donations – these days as white-on-black).
However, there is more “natural” reason – in a liberal democracy it is (theoretically) possible to overcome “systematic police racism” (after all, a lot has already been done in the last half a century or so) while annihilating street gangs (or any organized crime for that matter) is not.
Only a decidedly non-liberal regime (i.e., the reincarnation of the Third Reich) could do the job. The tool is very simple – a reincarnation of the (in)famous Reichstag Fire Decree – only limited in scope to organized crime.
This decree will allow to arrest without warrant anyone on “reasonable suspicion” of being involved in street gang (or any other organized crime activity) – any experienced in this area police detective will confirm that the chances of arresting someone who is innocent are next to nil.
And detain (intern) indefinitely in a concentration camp (a reincarnation of Dachau or a similar institution). A week in such conditions will be sufficient for just about any gang (or organize crime) member to confess all his or her crimes (in the latter case it would be a reincarnation of Ravensbrück) and – what is much more important – produce all necessary tangible evidence and information on other members of the gang in question.
Street gangs and other organized crime are so widespread in Western nations for but one reason – the risk/return profile of these activities is sufficiently favorable to a sufficient number of individuals.
The “neo-Reichstag-Fire-Decree” (especially the indefinite internment in neo-Dachau) will change this profile so radically that the street gangs and other organize crime… no, it will not disappear completely, of course. But it activities will go down by an order of magnitude at least. It already happened in Nazi Germany, so it will happen in any Western nation. And very quickly.
The fundamental (and insurmountable) problem of liberalism is that it views organized crime (including the street gangs) as a law enforcement issue. It isn’t. It is war – cut and dry, plain and simple, loud and clear. And you do not fight a war with prosecutors – you fight it with paramilitary units (at least).
The same is true for drug production and distribution. Only a decidedly non-liberal regime can declare drug manufacturers and distributors (including those that transport them) as enemies identical to, say, Islamic terrorists such as late Osama bin Laden. Which is actually true and correct as the death toll from drug abuse far exceeds the one from terrorist acts.
Hence the military and paramilitary units should receive the right to attack and destroy crops of the corresponding plants, drug manufacturing factories – as well as planes, cars and boats that transform them without warning. And shoot to kill. Anywhere on this planet.
This will again radically change the risk-return profile for “drug entrepreneurs” – when the meth cook knows for sure that if discovered, he or she would be instantly wiped out by a precision attack munition from the drone (or shot at sight by a special forces unit)… the number of individuals who would like to get involved in drug trade will go down drastically.
Especially if mansions, yachts and private aircraft of known druglords would be added to the list of approved targets (as they should be – it is long overdue). And domestic intelligence agencies get the tools currently used only by the military, CIA, NSA and similar agencies (long overdue as well).