[1] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11/03/mexican-cartels-exto...
[2] http://www.newsweek.com/cartels-kidnap-avocado-farmers-69630...
[3] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/12/1546610/-Avocados...
An anarchocapitalist would note that this is straight out of the statist playbook. What distinguishes cartels from roving bandits that pivot to stationary? It's hard to lay the blame for this on capitalism per se.
You're asking the wrong question, I think. The 64 trillion dollar question, IMO: "what allows market incumbents to remain stationary"
The 'blame', as ever, lies in human frailty. Avarice and greed. Alternatively, you could look at avarice and greed as malformed extensions of self-preservation instinct.
Bad actors are omnipresent and relying on market forces to expel them from markets is like trying to pray cancer away.
You only say that because you don't like the answer, as it demonstrates that statist barriers on the market are the true causes of this problem, and a free market economy would render this issue entirely moot.
As the history of all communist states demonstrate, state-impose barriers to market creates all sortes of economical,social and criminal problems. Drug trafficking is one of them.
How does his answer demonstrate that?
If their markets were eliminated through legalization they might turn to violence for a little while, but eventually the organizations would starve. You can't run a 8.6 billion dollar kidnapping business.
That’s how cartels get power in the first place, but once they’re there, they’re in the business of preserving revenue streams and territory and thus power.
Once they’re large enough, their raison d’être is no longer simply fulfilling a market need but maintaining and expanding revenue and power, creating market need as required to keep the machine running (e.g. protection rackets)