I have to apologize to Professor Reynolds. He wrote a well-reasoned, well-researched post for us in the substack, and the most-liked post is “Great image”.
When I read the post, I had absolutely nothing to add, but I still wanted to participate in the community. It was intended to be an admission of ignorance on the subject as much as a praise for the image.
I'm a Horatio Hornblower fan. Privateering and prize money were time-honored traditions in his day (the Royal Navy last paid out prize money in WWII). But I see a lot of potential pitfalls in our modern age (although I do love the idea of it).
By shutting down the border, Trump has hit the cartels where they hurt the most, their bank accounts. If we want better cooperation from the Mexican government in dealing with them, hit it where it will hurt the most, remittances. Remittances to Mexico reached a record high of $63.3 billion in 2023. Slap a 50% government surcharge on all such transfers and watch President Sheinbaum come around.
I was delighted that you gave a shout out to Matt Taibbi on Instapundit.
I’ve been a day one paid subscriber to your SubStack.
Several podcasts I’ve ponied up the money for are Matt’s and Walter Kirn’s “America This Week” (since 2022), and also Stephen Miller’s “Versus Media” since 2019. Great listening!
I suspect the issue of Mexico's sovereignty would be an issue, at least with the diplomats. Is there such as thing as Congress being able to declare that the Mexican government is not in effective control of its territory (which it really isn't)? Northern Mexico could be regarded as "territory claimed by no nation" (I don't know what the term is), which would provide cover for letters of marque, to go after the cartels.
I agree with your concept at least as to Northern Mexico. We could then move the border an additional 100 miles south, declare it under martial law and start shooting.
From what I recall in NAM Roger’s history of the Royal Navy, privateering was more of an (expensive) lottery ticket for the holder of a letter of marque. I.e., many were issued, but comparatively few privateers captured enough in prize money to recoup their expenses.
A less swashbuckling but perhaps more doable form of privateering would be to unleash our army of underutilized lawyers. Many states already have schemes that deputized private lawyers to collect taxes and sometimes other debts owed to state and local governments based on percentage of collection contingency fees. Why not apply the same scheme to going after all of the employees of government agencies and NGO’s that DOGE is exposing as cons, grifters and faithless fiduciaries. The DOJ will never have enough resources to go after the petty crooks in the federal government and NGO’s and proving criminal fraud in these cases will be a heavy lift, particularly in the bright blue cities and states where most of these grifters plied their trade. Tort fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil tax fraud etc are much easier cases to make, with lesser burdens of proof and often non-unanimous juries. The main objective need not be recovering the billions stolen - much of that has probably already been spent on the high life. However, it could represent a self-financing form of punishment (and thus deterrence). As satisfying as it may be to imagine putting the likes of Fauci in an orange jumpsuit, that is a dream that is always likely to be out of reach. However, a private army of merciless lawyers could imprison them in courtrooms.
What an interesting column! I feel like I am in your classroom. This, dare I say, seems the perfect American style solution to a vexing problem. How would this work as a non navy situation? If privateers went across the border and basically took the cartel’s drugs, money and weapons—would that be the same thing?
Thank you for once again showing the possibility of creatively solving problems. The positivity you provide is very important. I appreciate your enthusiastic leadership.
Careful what we wish for here: yes, you could use a 'contract of marque' to seize Iranian tankers schlepping oil out of the Gulf. How would the Iranians respond? They're not the most rational folks around, even in that part of the world, and taking their oil would be seen by the mad ayatollahs as an existential threat.
We don't like the cartels -- they don't like us. Rachet up the war against them by using privateers with slack rules of engagement, and the cartels may return the favor.
The concept of using private militia to engage/enrage a foreign enemy and get them to retaliate/escalate has been utilized by CIA and other nations as a means to provide justification for larger action by the state. I’m hoping for less of that kind of political subterfuge from this administration.
There are always fears of ratcheting up the violence and second order responses from bad actors like Iran. But on the other hand we have suffered with airplane and boat hijackers this would increase their incentives. But the nations that harbour them would also be subjected to reprisals. I’m not sure how it would shake out be we need to be careful.
I think of grounds forces going after cartels or other designated terrorist organizations and personnel would be something more akin to an international bounty system. Many of the terrorists are already listed as "wanted dead or alive"; how difficult would it be to argue that cartel members (already designated as terrorist organizations) warrant the same designation? Josh Randall, we need you again!
Great Image!
I have to apologize to Professor Reynolds. He wrote a well-reasoned, well-researched post for us in the substack, and the most-liked post is “Great image”.
When I read the post, I had absolutely nothing to add, but I still wanted to participate in the community. It was intended to be an admission of ignorance on the subject as much as a praise for the image.
I'm a Horatio Hornblower fan. Privateering and prize money were time-honored traditions in his day (the Royal Navy last paid out prize money in WWII). But I see a lot of potential pitfalls in our modern age (although I do love the idea of it).
By shutting down the border, Trump has hit the cartels where they hurt the most, their bank accounts. If we want better cooperation from the Mexican government in dealing with them, hit it where it will hurt the most, remittances. Remittances to Mexico reached a record high of $63.3 billion in 2023. Slap a 50% government surcharge on all such transfers and watch President Sheinbaum come around.
I love the idea to use privateers to go after computer hackers. How much money would they find?
Ah, to be young enough to go a'privateering!
I was delighted that you gave a shout out to Matt Taibbi on Instapundit.
I’ve been a day one paid subscriber to your SubStack.
Several podcasts I’ve ponied up the money for are Matt’s and Walter Kirn’s “America This Week” (since 2022), and also Stephen Miller’s “Versus Media” since 2019. Great listening!
I suspect the issue of Mexico's sovereignty would be an issue, at least with the diplomats. Is there such as thing as Congress being able to declare that the Mexican government is not in effective control of its territory (which it really isn't)? Northern Mexico could be regarded as "territory claimed by no nation" (I don't know what the term is), which would provide cover for letters of marque, to go after the cartels.
I agree with your concept at least as to Northern Mexico. We could then move the border an additional 100 miles south, declare it under martial law and start shooting.
Doesn't the CIA and USAID do this now?
I love the bow gun sticking out like a mosquito's sucker.
From what I recall in NAM Roger’s history of the Royal Navy, privateering was more of an (expensive) lottery ticket for the holder of a letter of marque. I.e., many were issued, but comparatively few privateers captured enough in prize money to recoup their expenses.
A less swashbuckling but perhaps more doable form of privateering would be to unleash our army of underutilized lawyers. Many states already have schemes that deputized private lawyers to collect taxes and sometimes other debts owed to state and local governments based on percentage of collection contingency fees. Why not apply the same scheme to going after all of the employees of government agencies and NGO’s that DOGE is exposing as cons, grifters and faithless fiduciaries. The DOJ will never have enough resources to go after the petty crooks in the federal government and NGO’s and proving criminal fraud in these cases will be a heavy lift, particularly in the bright blue cities and states where most of these grifters plied their trade. Tort fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil tax fraud etc are much easier cases to make, with lesser burdens of proof and often non-unanimous juries. The main objective need not be recovering the billions stolen - much of that has probably already been spent on the high life. However, it could represent a self-financing form of punishment (and thus deterrence). As satisfying as it may be to imagine putting the likes of Fauci in an orange jumpsuit, that is a dream that is always likely to be out of reach. However, a private army of merciless lawyers could imprison them in courtrooms.
Do we get government provided peg legs and arm and hand hooks - only one per privateer of course - your choice.
What an interesting column! I feel like I am in your classroom. This, dare I say, seems the perfect American style solution to a vexing problem. How would this work as a non navy situation? If privateers went across the border and basically took the cartel’s drugs, money and weapons—would that be the same thing?
Didn't the RN have a Head money system when they were hunting Slave ships in the 1800's?
Perhaps apply it to seaborn coyotes
Thank you for once again showing the possibility of creatively solving problems. The positivity you provide is very important. I appreciate your enthusiastic leadership.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/g69QDi2256drqErMYmAMISAjn
Careful what we wish for here: yes, you could use a 'contract of marque' to seize Iranian tankers schlepping oil out of the Gulf. How would the Iranians respond? They're not the most rational folks around, even in that part of the world, and taking their oil would be seen by the mad ayatollahs as an existential threat.
We don't like the cartels -- they don't like us. Rachet up the war against them by using privateers with slack rules of engagement, and the cartels may return the favor.
Just a thought.
The concept of using private militia to engage/enrage a foreign enemy and get them to retaliate/escalate has been utilized by CIA and other nations as a means to provide justification for larger action by the state. I’m hoping for less of that kind of political subterfuge from this administration.
There are always fears of ratcheting up the violence and second order responses from bad actors like Iran. But on the other hand we have suffered with airplane and boat hijackers this would increase their incentives. But the nations that harbour them would also be subjected to reprisals. I’m not sure how it would shake out be we need to be careful.
I think of grounds forces going after cartels or other designated terrorist organizations and personnel would be something more akin to an international bounty system. Many of the terrorists are already listed as "wanted dead or alive"; how difficult would it be to argue that cartel members (already designated as terrorist organizations) warrant the same designation? Josh Randall, we need you again!