Sunday, January 3, 2010

Secuirty after the Economic collapse in Argentina

Anonymous Don Williams said...
Ferfal 1) I had a question: Which areas in Argentina (and Buenos Aires) stayed reasonably safe after the crash and which ones became dangerous? Was it pretty much in accord with the income/wealth of the neighborhoods --i.e, rich neighborhoods were protected and safe whereas all poor areas became dangerous?   In most cases it was just like that, yes. Recoleta, Palermo, Barrio Norte, San Isidro, Belgrano, Martinez, these are some of the safest , and richest parts of Buenos Aires. Either the government itself placed momre police in those locations, or the neighbors themselves hired private security. Its still Argentina and NOTHING like a 1st world country. Right now I'm in Spain, and I can tell you, I had forgoten what a 1st world country looks like, how safe it is, etc. 2) Or did other factors have influence? For example, here in the USA law enforcement protection for most people is largely handled at the state and county level. Within some counties, especially in rural areas, there is another local government for defined towns and/or townships. Those small towns have their own police force.   The thing is, ad times get worse, that wont be enough. A dedicated sheriff can ame a difference, but it will eventually become a matter of money. Let me explain: Eventually that sheriff will need more resources, more manpower, more technology, and so on, so it will be clear that the poorest the neighborhood is, good intentions arent enough, you'll need more budget to keep the levels of security. 3) Does Argentina have a similar government structure? Is so, did the compact, independent towns provide better protection to their people compared to the larger areas/political units policed by more remote officals? Similar to the way fortified hill towns in the Middle Ages were more secure than farm houses and manors in the outlying countryside.   Yes, when they had the taxpayers that could afford it, like in zona norte in Martinez, Acasuso, and Nunez.  ;-) Of course, the isolated places are much more exposed. Like in the middle ages, like the farmers in South Africa, like the conquistador settlers. 4) Also, did any local police departments authorize their local citizens to use violence -- as part time police deputies or as militia?   No, didn't happen and dont expect cops to ever say so. In 99% it will be terrible press, adimiting they cant keep things safe themselves, or even worse, authorize more random violence an vigilante activity. 5) Were neighborhoods close to police headquarters and major infrastructure facilities (Hospitals, water treatment plants, electrical generation/transmission facilities,etc ) safer and more secure?   SUprisingly, in some cases, no. Of course it does help to be close to a PD. But we've seen stores here in La Plata, 20 meters away from a police station, get robbed over 30 times. Yes, pretty embarassing. But overal yes, it does help to have a police station or security firm across the street. 6) Was the differences fairly obvious or would one need to examine crime statistics to be sure of conclusions?
January 2, 2010 1:21 PM
No, the difference is pretty clear. Poor=more crime in most cases, even in spite of the efforts that help a little bit. Money= safer.


BulgarWheat said...

This world is not the type of place you want to depend on other people for your security. That is the responsibility of the individual.

Ferfal has made this point again and again from a very practical perspective I might add.

If you are unfamiliar with firearms, other weapons, and self-defense, there's no time like the present to get started.

Good luck!

Anonymous said...

Could you change your background plese i cannot read anything

Don Williams said...

Ferfal, an alert:

Something has happened to your blog page. It has brown wallpaper with dark blue text that fades into the brown background and can Not be seen.

Don't know if it is your blog web site or possibly something wrong with my Firefox browser.

Anonymous said...

How am I supposed to read blue type on a brown background?

Maldek said...

FerFal your site is great and I did learn a lot reading it.

Recently I saw your video where you start at your home and drive around B.A. - for me the impression was your home is in a very nice area. You yourself say that the average home is U$ 200,000. Guards everywhere so you couldnt even leave the car without beeing questioned.
To me this makes the impression of very high security standards.

Most countries in south america are a lot poorer than argentina is. These people go to argentina for work (Paraguayans for example) just like the people from mexico come to the US.

Now the bottom line: You live in rich peoples neighborhood in the richest country of south me - please apologize my ignorance - it seems you live in one of the richest and savest places of all of south america, or am I missing something?

Don Williams said...

Re Bulgar's comment at 9:39 AM
"This world is not the type of place you want to depend on other people for your security. That is the responsibility of the individual."

1) Sorry, Bulgar --that is wrong in several respects. Look at the US Army's Field Manual on Squad and
Platoon tactics. Give me 5 guys armed solely with 100 year old Mauser bolt action rifles plus 3 days in which to train them and I will put them up against a single individual armed with a machine gun any day.

2) There is no reason why individual communities could not form paramilitary militias and maintain the law, order and security that is necessary for commerce to survive.

3) In the USA, We have a long tradition of that --from the 19th century in which isolated rural communities in the West could only afford to hire a single sheriff -- who called upon the local male citizens to form a posse under his leadership when faced with outlaw gangs. A tradition that actually goes back to the Germanic war bands that overran the Roman Empire.

4) The Primary Obstacle to that is the US Government itself -- which is the Mother of All Motorcycle Gangs. 100,000 times more powerful than the Hells Angels.
A Gang which claims and enforces a monopoly on force.

Unstandably so on many occasions -- you don't want to allow local vigilante gangs like the racist Ku Klux Klan to terrorize citizens of different ethnic groups.

5) So It would be essential that any paramilitary militia act under the color of law -- under the direction and control of law enforcement.

Otherwise, the militia would be a gang of criminals , each member of which is subject to execution unless he deserts/flees or snitches on his fellow members. Good luck with maintaining unit cohesion, discipline and military effectiveness in that condition -- there are strong reasons why "thieves fall out".

6) US Survivalists have a "Long Wolf" anti-social mentality that would actually be a major handicap if SHTF.

Good look surviving in a chaotic situation if you have contempt for politics, the processes that form and control social organization, legal protocols, and leadership.

7) Survivalists need to realize that their SHTF assumptions are fantasy. You can NEVER return to the freedom of the 18th century North American wilderness so long as you have 300 million people around you.

Even in the 18th century, Civilization eventually caught up with pioneer Daniel Boone --and screwed him out of the land he claimed. The remaining Shawnee Indians probably grinned in amusement to see the Great White Father screwing a white person for a change.

8) The closest things we have had to major SHTF in recent memory have been the fall of the Weimar government in Germany in the 1930s and the overthrow of the Russian government by the Bolshevik revolutionaries in 1917. Both cases driven by conditions of severe hardship for the common citizens and economic collapse.

The regimes which emerged triumphant from those conditions of chaos were not known for individual freedom.

Similarly, The US Government has detailed plans to ensure its survival in the worse catastrophes -- and those plans do not call for tolerance of individual freedom. To the contrary, in fact.