I don't think crime can always be fought through democratic processes. What if the whole country lives on heroin exports (Afghanistan)? Any "processes" are doomed to fail, as populace would vote to feed their families.
I don't think crime can always be fought through democratic processes. What if the whole country lives on heroin exports (Afghanistan)? Any "processes" are doomed to fail, as populace would vote to feed their families.
I meant mass surveillance. I realize I phrased that badly.
Wait are we discussing crime as in what a country defines as crime within its own borders, or crime as in “I’m a bigger nation than you and will make you comply with my rules”
> What if the whole country lives on heroin exports (Afghanistan)?
Invade and, this time, provide a way for the population to earn a honest living. "Let them eat cake" just doesn't work out.
"Provide a way" -- what if it's way too expensive, even for a huge country? And populace just doesn't want it (e. g. it goes against sacred texts). And there are no infrastructure nor institutions to build upon. It's close to impossible. And the populace would see us only as a provider of goods.
And morally, why should we provide some other country? Are we the world government? Shouldn't we stop messing with others and keep to our business, as long as they don't mess with us (bomb and export heroin). Why are we suddenly responsible for them?
PS: nevertheless, one country (USA) tried to build democracy in Afghanistan, but failed. And only got scoldings for that.