Extrajudicial murder - good?

Extrajudicial killings are considered to be horrific in the west. Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte has gotten a lot of flak for his admitted extrajudicial killings.

The Mexican Drug war keeps millions enslaved, either conceptually or literally, because cartels have ties to sex traffickers. The cartels use fear and intimidation to keep people in line, and they buy off the police to help them. They war with each other for money, which mostly just gets absorbed back into the organization, or squandered upon by the drug lords. As the organizations grow, they establish new illegal enterprises, such as racketeering, pickpocketing, mugging, ect.

So with all the outrage towards the idea of extrajudicial murders, would people really care if the Mexican Army went on a campaign and unlawfully neutralized every individual associated with the cartels?

That is what I would want to do if the state were abolished.

Crow: I would. Because you don't solve the problem of lawlessness by legalizing more crimes.

admin: What? Are you even following?

Crow: Clearly you're not following me if you have to ask that question. Maybe try to think about what I'm saying before assuming I don't understand.

You give the problem of lawlessness ie Mexican drug cartels operating extra-judicially.
You propose the solution of allowing another group to act extra-judicially (ie legalizing a crime).
That solution is non-comparative to the original problem.

admin: Extrajudicial is going outside the law, not abolishing the law or legalizing the crime the law is restricting. Do you understand that? When Rodrigo Duterte goes on his campaign of promoting extrajudicial killings, he is not actually saying that the laws which make extrajudicial killings should be repealed.

Although your comment is unintentionally ignorant, it is verifiably false. There are thousands examples of crimes lowering when the crime committer gets killed.

Question: If I go out and kill 20 serial murderers and rapists in the city of Chicago, would the rate of murder and rape in Chicago go down?

Crow: The legal systems are way too slow, inefficient, and ineffective when it comes to a full-blown military campaign against drug dealers and sex traffickers.
However, I'd say that it's only worth it in certain situations. It's debatable if The Philippines really needs someone like Rodrigo Duterte, though Mexico definitely does.

Question: If I go out and kill 20 serial murderers and rapists in the city of Chicago, would the rate of murder and rape in Chicago go down?

Dassault Papillon: The legal systems are way too slow, inefficient, and ineffective when it comes to a full-blown military campaign against drug dealers and sex traffickers.

The whole point was that it would be outside the legal system.

I get the feeling neither of you know what extrajudicial means....

Crow: Yes, the city of Chicago would be made a more peaceful place because the people who you killed in this scenario would likely rape and kill many other people if they were allowed to live.

Crow: Yes, I know. Extrajudicial killings are when a military force kills people without allowing them to stand fair trial.

Dassault Papillon: It doesn't have to be a military force. It can be the police.

Vigilantes are considered extrajudicial too.

Extrajudicial is anything that goes outside the law.

Mexico is a good example, because only a couple of morons wouldn't see the value in squashing some of the vicious fear-mongering thugs that rule there, especially when the only solution seems to be going outside the law.

Crow: So with all the outrage towards the idea of extrajudicial murders, would people really care if the Mexican Army went on a campaign and unlawfully neutralized every individual associated with the cartels?

That is what I would want to do if the state were abolished.
Wouldn't that create some police state?

Bi0Hazard: I consider the cartels to be deep states, so waging a violent extrajudicial war against them would not create a police state.

As you already know, there wouldn't be any state from my beliefs.

Crow: I consider the cartels to be deep states, so waging a violent extrajudicial war against them would not create a police state.
They would be some private government, but that can exist under anarchy.
As you already know, there wouldn't be any state from my beliefs.
I know that, but using violence/force against cartels is like police(enforcer of the law), this is something only the state can do. If a group does this, this becomes like a state. If a group starts waging a war on others, it risks a police state being created.

Bi0Hazard: There would be no extrajudicial actions in anarchism.

Taking action against other groups does not produce a state.

A state is a political organization which claims control over people living in a set of abstract borders. Know the definition, because anything else is not a state.

Crow: If there was no central government, it may be anarchy by definition. But if a military and police existed to punish others who commit what they deem immoral acts and everyone pays to sustain it, that would be a government that isn't exactly established but has the same roles as the state. I wouldn't consider that to be anarchy anymore. I find it kinda strange that you want the state abolished but still want capitalism, a central military, and violence. You said one time that you would have a group to enforce private property rights, which I don't know if you currently advocate. This seems to be similar to a state, so if I am not misunderstanding what you believe, then you advocate a different form of a state.

Bi0Hazard: So I thought I made it clear that my sect of anarchists believe in non-established authority. That is literally how I describe my beliefs, as in no-established authority.

You are conflating governments and states. A state is sustained in establishment 100% of the time, whereas governments are not.

I am reexplaining something I already explained to you before.