> whose income also finances violence and corruption
I find this concept problematic. Does violence or corruption require funding? What sort of violence or corruption? Isn't the point of violence or corruption often to make money, rather than the other way around?
This argument is often made about drug sales but I'm not sure it holds up. It seems to me that making money is often the end-goal of such an operation.
> But if you buy these illicitly you should know that you’ve likely financially contributed to despicable acts abroad.
Even if this is true, is that the moral responsibility of the buyer? If the government decided to ban carrots tomorrow and a black market sprung up around vegetables, whose fault would any collateral social damage be?
What do I mean by financing violence and corruption?
I mean that the money these organizations make is then used to strengthen the power and reach of these organizations through violence and corruption, the means of coercion. Mexico is a perfect example of how criminal organizations destabilize a country through both.
About moral responsibility...
If carrots were the only food around and the choice were between starvation and buying them, then of course it wouldnt be the consumers fault.
But were not talking about foodstuffs or basic needs here, I’m mainly concerned with recreational drugs whose consumption is not a prerequisite for survival. In this case I think that consumers have some kind of responsibility here to exercise discretion. I just find it deeply ironic that people in 1st world countries are paying for fun times, while their money goes on to destabilize other countries. I’m not sure what it is, but it just feels wrong to me.
I find this concept problematic. Does violence or corruption require funding? What sort of violence or corruption? Isn't the point of violence or corruption often to make money, rather than the other way around?
This argument is often made about drug sales but I'm not sure it holds up. It seems to me that making money is often the end-goal of such an operation.
> But if you buy these illicitly you should know that you’ve likely financially contributed to despicable acts abroad.
Even if this is true, is that the moral responsibility of the buyer? If the government decided to ban carrots tomorrow and a black market sprung up around vegetables, whose fault would any collateral social damage be?