Your third paragraph doesn't follow from the first two paragraphs. The first two paragraphs make the interesting conjecture that increased police corruption in Mexico lowers drug prices in the US. This is something potentially worth discussing.

The third paragraph asserts that legalizing drugs won't stop the violence, and that Mexican police aren't "doing their job." The first point contradicts the original article, and thus requires supporting evidence (e.g. quotations from the original article, followed by references to contradictory studies). The second point is simply unnecessarily accusatory, and is ignorant of the reality expressed by burgerbrain (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3228850).

Meta: you've commented (and I've responded) in this pattern before. You start with something that will be perceived as inflammatory by the typical HN crowd (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3172594), then follow up with a complaint about the votes you receive or the changing HN culture (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3172744). Maybe you're not trolling on purpose, but it sure looks like it.

As I said before (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3173159), you'd do a better job of conveying your message and be less likely to start a flame war if you restructured your arguments to be more appropriate to the audience -- present evidence, apply logical analysis, and draw a logical conclusion. State your assumptions (e.g. in this case if you believe that absolute societal order is more important than individual freedom, state up front that your argument depends on that). Most importantly, if you want others to change their minds, be willing to change yours if the argument goes the other way.

FWIW, I don't think you're right, but that your point presents a reasonable argument, and thus shouldn't be downvoted.

As to the police doing their jobs, you have to keep in mind that the drug organizations in Mexico columbia are heavily armed, more so than the local police. The Zetas for example, rose to power after being founded by Mexican special forces, a group analagous to our Green Berets. When you combine this strong knowledge of tactical warfare with a callous ruthlessness, they're not so easy to just shut down.

They are also very well financed. The drug gangs in the U.S are a joke compared to Mexico. They can't even be put in the same league. Drug gangs in the U.S. are like retail corner shops. Drug organizations in Mexico are like Walmarts, supplying these corner shops.

So in effect you have drug organizations which are more powerful than in the U.S. and a law enforcement system which is weaker than the U.S. Law enforcement couldn't easily stamp out these organizations (without HEAVY loss of life) even if corruption weren't an issue.

Troll or not, I think your post is being downvoted, at least in part, because of the gaping logical chasm you constructed. It may help if you explain exactly how falling cocaine prices would increase corruption in Mexico.

> I'm shocked at the number of closed-minded members of the HN community. ... I get down voted.

> I thought this was a community of intelligent people, yet I'm beginning to realize that this just isn't the case anymore.

Yes, it could be that we're close-minded and not smart enough to appreciate your brilliance.

Or, it could be that "we" thought that you were an annoying self-important git and/or point-whore and are downvoting you for that.

For the record, I didn't read your brilliance or down-vote you. That said, it's never the audience's fault.

"If the Mexican police were actually doing their job, the criminals wouldn't be running the show."

This suggests a very simplistic understanding of the issues surrounding Mexican police. You're just mindlessly finger-pointing and didn't even hint at ways the Mexican police could counter some of the obstacles they face.

I hate the downmod system here as well - entirely anonymous and trivially easy to reduce someone else's comment - but I can see why your comment might have been downmodded.