# If it works in the Phillipins should Mexico try the same? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748 "2016-08-23T18:10:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/281 "2016-09-15T05:51:00Z")
> [@Terminus\_Est](#): > > I am no fan of Duterte, but he’s only been in office for a couple of months while these inmates have in jail for years. Can’t pin this one on him; blame previous administrations. I do. And Duterte has not told anyone that he was going to make things different in the jail front. The point was that he is making the ramshackle of the system they have even worse. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/282 "2016-09-15T14:31:30Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yeah, one is Pew and the other is YouGov. And even the YouGov poll found support for not jailing first-time offenders, opposition to the war on drugs, etc. Like I said, the ball is rolling. Duterte might even hasten it along, with his crimes. These were legitimate polls run by legitimate pollsters. Its wasn’t an internet poll (the huffington article has an embedded internet poll that shows that huffington post readers are much more in line with you than 1000 random interviewees). Are you disputing the validity of the poll? > [@](#): > > Depends on what those promises were, doesn’t it? No, no it does not. I’ve asked GIGO to provide evidence that extrajudicial killings were a precursor or sign that someone was going to become a dictator. He could not. Instead he pointed to cases where dictators engaged in extrajudicial killing after they became dictators. None of them did it while they had 90%+ approval ratings. He may become a dictator but I don’t see how there is much more chance of him becoming a dictator than George W Bush. > [@](#): > > We all remember the corruption and violence in Hungary because VCRs were illegal in Romania, don’t we? Was there a large organized criminal presence in Hungary based on smuggling VCRs into Romania? No? Then what’s your point? > [@](#): > > No measurements or data of any kind, I see. You asked for a cite not a study. > [@](#): > > It’d motivate more violence and corruption from the gangs, sure. Possibly even a Pablo Escobar style campaign of terror. It certainly wouldn’t end alcohol consumption. I don’t think anything would END alcohol consumption. But its not like we didn’t know who Al Capone was. > [@](#): > > Since only death squads are being used, I guess we can only discuss how great death squads are? Death squads? They are responsible for all the killings in the Philippines? You sure about that? I thought it was people settling personal grievances or cops going cowboy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/283 "2016-09-15T14:37:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, I would still call him a dictator in training. Then Bush and to a lesser extent Obama are also dictators in training? > [@](#): > > “if this was a fair world Bush the lesser should had been taken to a tribunal in The Hague.” > > Dutarte deserves that and much more IMHO. > > And you do continue to use the fallacy of the argumentum ad populum. Argumentum ad populum? As far as I can tell, my position is really not that popular. Or do you think that using Dutarte’s popularity as part of my argument has something to do with argumentum ad populum? I thought it was pretty clear that I bring up his popularity to point out that a person with a 90% approval rating is REALLY hard to call a dictator, a lot of people might call that an expression of democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/284 "2016-09-15T15:03:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > These were legitimate polls run by legitimate pollsters. Its wasn’t an internet poll (the huffington article has an embedded internet poll that shows that huffington post readers are much more in line with you than 1000 random interviewees). > > Are you disputing the validity of the poll? It was an internet poll, that’s what YouGov is: The HuffPost/YouGov polls were conducted Feb. 13-14 and Jan. 29-30 this year and Nov. 23-24 last year, each among 1,000 U.S. adults using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. You join YouGov, give demographic info, then participate in polls. It’s a self-selected group. I doubt their poll is worthless, but you should know what it is before touting it. In any case, polls can always get different results based on the phrasing of questions and such. I merely demonstrated a growing movement, that’s all. It won’t happen tomorrow, nor do I think it’ll be during my grandchildren’s day. > [@](#): > > No, no it does not. Er, are you sure about that? If someone promised on the campaign trail to, say, abolish the legislature and end elections, and made good on those promises in office, they’d indeed be a dictator, just a popular one. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. > [@](#): > > I’ve asked GIGO to provide evidence that extrajudicial killings were a precursor or sign that someone was going to become a dictator. He could not. Instead he pointed to cases where dictators engaged in extrajudicial killing after they became dictators. > > None of them did it while they had 90%+ approval ratings. Isn’t extrajudicial _anything_ a precursor or a sign that a leader is becoming a dictator? Again, dictatorship is defined by absolute authority, not unpopularity. > [@](#): > > He may become a dictator but I don’t see how there is much more chance of him becoming a dictator than George W Bush. Bush was a war criminal; his crimes were directed at non-citizens of the US. Duterte is going after his own citizens and government. > [@](#): > > Was there a large organized criminal presence in Hungary based on smuggling VCRs into Romania? No? Then what’s your point? That drug-growing operations in Mexico wouldn’t be a “criminal presence” in Mexico, if the drugs were not illegal. Violence only and corruption accompanies the business of drugs because they are illegal. How would their being illegal elsewhere reverse-engineer violence in Mexico? > [@](#): > > You asked for a cite not a study. I don’t doubt that Mao _tried_ to end drug use, I doubt that he succeeded, and that whatever success there was could be attributed to executions. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anything would END alcohol consumption. But its not like we didn’t know who Al Capone was. How about ending violence and corruption linked to gangs of bootleggers? Decriminalization worked perfectly; would a terror campaign do so well? > [@](#): > > Death squads? They are responsible for all the killings in the Philippines? You sure about that? I thought it was people settling personal grievances or cops going cowboy. Cops “going cowboy” _are_ death squads, and it’s not unheard of for death squads to use their powers to deal with personal grudges along the way. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/285 "2016-09-15T15:17:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Then Bush and to a lesser extent Obama are also dictators in training? The point is grossly missed: While I do think Bush should had been but on trial Duterte should be too, but for even worse abuses. What you are doing repeatedly is another logical fallacy: the fallacy of relative privation, The “not as bad as” argument. > **[Not as bad as](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as)** > > The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation,\[2\] asserts that: > [@](#): > > Holocaust deniers and apologists use this quite frequently: “the Holocaust was bad, but Stalin killed more” is technically true, but this ignores the Axis’ willingness to encourage World War II and is irrelevant if discussing murders carried out under Hitler’s regime. Similarly “Internet censorship in the US isn’t as bad as internet censorship in China” is true, but not relevant to discussing the erosion of free speech in a country that holds free speech to be an important part of human rights. It is irrational to set the bar of what makes something wrong at the worst possible atrocity, as doing so would justify all other actions except the one that is judged to be the worst at any given moment. It doesn’t morally absolve Duterte of any wrongs to say "but Bush!, but Obama!. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Argumentum ad populum? > > As far as I can tell, my position is really not that popular. Or do you think that using Dutarte’s popularity as part of my argument has something to do with argumentum ad populum? This actually says that you have no clue about what an argumentum as populum is. The popularity of the argument or the one making the argument is not the issue. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I thought it was pretty clear that I bring up his popularity to point out that a person with a 90% approval rating is REALLY hard to call a dictator, a lot of people might call that an expression of democracy. As the history of the Philippines shows, Ferdinand Marcos got the approval of 88% of the voters in 1981, **years** after observers already qualified him as a dictator. The point again was that popular approval is very helpful for a dictator. But, as the people showed, most can indeed later see how a mistake was giving him that approval. (of course Marcos did put a sham opposition candidate in place, but still most voted for Marcos and the real opposition boycotted the election) Again, an error is an error even if millions think it is a good idea at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/286 "2016-09-15T16:26:55Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It was an internet poll, that’s what YouGov is: > The HuffPost/YouGov polls were conducted Feb. 13-14 and Jan. 29-30 this year and Nov. 23-24 last year, each among 1,000 U.S. adults using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. > > You join YouGov, give demographic info, then participate in polls. It’s a self-selected group. I doubt their poll is worthless, but you should know what it is before touting it. > > In any case, polls can always get different results based on the phrasing of questions and such. I merely demonstrated a growing movement, that’s all. It won’t happen tomorrow, nor do I think it’ll be during my grandchildren’s day. You’re right. But its not an internet poll in the same sense that the poll in the huffington post article was an internet poll. Anyways as you implied, there is no real reason to think that the people taking the poll are any less likely to support legalization of drugs than the general population. > [@](#): > > Er, are you sure about that? If someone promised on the campaign trail to, say, abolish the legislature and end elections, and made good on those promises in office, they’d indeed be a dictator, just a popular one. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Yes, I see that there are corner cases where this is true. > [@](#): > > Isn’t extrajudicial _anything_ a precursor or a sign that a leader is becoming a dictator? Again, dictatorship is defined by absolute authority, not unpopularity. I have trouble with the notion of a democratic dictator. A dictator (especially the way GIGO means it) is someone who is holding onto power by force and thwarting the democratic process. > [@](#): > > Bush was a war criminal; his crimes were directed at non-citizens of the US. Duterte is going after his own citizens and government. And neither are dictators. > [@](#): > > That drug-growing operations in Mexico wouldn’t be a “criminal presence” in Mexico, if the drugs were not illegal. Violence only and corruption accompanies the business of drugs because they are illegal. How would their being illegal elsewhere reverse-engineer violence in Mexico? Well, they would still have to be smugglers to get the product into the USA. Don’t you think that the same competition that exists now in that criminal enterprise would exist in a Mexico with legalized drugs? > [@](#): > > I don’t doubt that Mao _tried_ to end drug use, I doubt that he succeeded, and that whatever success there was could be attributed to executions. > > How about ending violence and corruption linked to gangs of bootleggers? Decriminalization worked perfectly; would a terror campaign do so well? I don’t know. I think decriminalization was the best solution for us. Prohibition was not poplar or very well enforced and this created an opportunity to make a shit ton of money for moderate levels of risk. > **[Prohibition in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Weak_enforcement)** > > The Prohibition era was the period from 1920 to 1933 when the United States prohibited the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. The alcohol industry was curtailed by a succession of state legislatures, and Prohibition was formally introduced nationwide under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on January 16, 1919. Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment o... The unpopularity of prohibition no doubt contributed to the weak enforcement but if your objective is to rid society of the ills associated with alcohol (rape, murder, accidental death, violence, alcoholism, ruined lives and families, etc), what other mechanism would you have proposed to achieve that goal or are you saying “fuck it, nothing you can do” > [@](#): > > Cops “going cowboy” _are_ death squads, and it’s not unheard of for death squads to use their powers to deal with personal grudges along the way. You think that the cops weren’t settling personal grudges before? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/287 "2016-09-15T16:31:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point is grossly missed: While I do think Bush should had been but on trial Duterte should be too, but for even worse abuses. > > What you are doing repeatedly is another logical fallacy: the fallacy of relative privation, The “not as bad as” argument. > > [Not as bad as - RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as) > It doesn’t morally absolve Duterte of any wrongs to say "but Bush!, but Obama!. No, you don’t understand. I’m not saying that Dutarte is OK because Bush and Obama are bad too. I’m saying that bush and Obama are doing bad things but they are not going down some road that inevitably leads to dictatorship. But somehow you seem to be able to predict with a high level of certainty that Dutarte will become a dictator. [quote] This actually says that you have no clue about what an argumentum as populum is. The popularity of the argument or the one making the argument is not the issue. [quote] WTF are you talking about? > **[Argumentum ad populum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)** > > In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so. > Other names for the fallacy include: > Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy, specifically a fallacy of relevance, and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, stating that be... “In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”” > [@](#): > > As the history of the Philippines shows, Ferdinand Marcos got the approval of 88% of the voters in 1981, **years** after observers already qualified him as a dictator. The point again was that popular approval is very helpful for a dictator. I am surprised he only got 88%, he could have gotten 188%. > [@](#): > > But, as the people showed, most can indeed later see how a mistake was giving him that approval. (of course Marcos did put a sham opposition candidate in place, but still most voted for Marcos and the real opposition boycotted the election) Again, an error is an error even if millions think it is a good idea at the time. You are not making sense. on the one hand, he was popular on the other hand the election was a sham. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/288 "2016-09-15T17:47:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As the history of the Philippines shows, Ferdinand Marcos got the approval of 88% of the voters in 1981, **years** after observers already qualified him as a dictator. The point again was that popular approval is very helpful for a dictator. Are you talking about the [1981 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_presidential_election_and_referendum,_1981) that was boycotted by most of the opposition parties? The one held after Marcos had been running the country in his iron grip for almost ten years? After anyone who dared speak out against Marcos was jailed, forced into exile, or simply shot? That election? Fun fact: After Marcos declared victory, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush attended his inauguration and toasted him saying, “We love your adherence to democratic principles and to the democratic process.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/289 "2016-09-15T18:08:28Z")
> [@Terminus\_Est](#): > > Are you talking about the [1981 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_presidential_election_and_referendum,_1981) that was boycotted by most of the opposition parties? The one held after Marcos had been running the country in his iron grip for almost ten years? After anyone who dared speak out against Marcos was jailed, forced into exile, or simply shot? That election? Yes, that election, the thing that you miss is that even with all that against it being a democratic thing, and everyone else seeing that that was a joke and people around the world noted the fraud… **the turnout was heavy**. The sad thing is that I have seen that with many dictatorships. While a lot can be put as the population being scared, the reality is that in the last election that Marcos did try to steal against Corazon Aquino, the election was **a close one** , even when looking at the numbers the opposition estimated were the correct ones. So the point stands, even if there is an element of terror on how a dictator keeps power there is still the issue that many in the Philippines are prone to accept authoritarianism and even to be ruled by a dictator that only offers lip service to democracy. For anyone that knows that democracy has issues, but that it beats the alternatives, it is clear that the ones that supported Marcos were still wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/290 "2016-09-15T18:33:53Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, you don’t understand. I’m not saying that Dutarte is OK because Bush and Obama are bad too. I’m saying that bush and Obama are doing bad things but they are not going down some road that inevitably leads to dictatorship. But somehow you seem to be able to predict with a high level of certainty that Dutarte will become a dictator. You seem to argue as if other things are not agreed upon, I do understand that the support of the people will not be there if Bush and Obama had skipped the constitution and the bill of rights just to avoid due process against drug traffickers. Indeed skipping human rights and due process is one big element of why one can be called a dictator by human rights organizations and other observers that take history into account. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@GIGObuster](#): > > > > This actually says that you have no clue about what an argumentum as populum is. The popularity of the argument or the one making the argument is not the issue. > > WTF are you talking about? > > [Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) > > “In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”” What you posted was: “As far as I can tell, my position is really not that popular.” Hence that reply. Then you said: “Or do you think that using Dutarte’s popularity as part of my argument has something to do with argumentum ad populum?” And that is clearly it is so, but you are trying to deny that. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am surprised he only got 88%, he could have gotten 188%. Again the point was made because even when they are not using democracy dictators still depend on the support of a good number of the population. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You are not making sense. on the one hand, he was popular on the other hand the election was a sham. You only think that is so by forgetting that many dictators do depend a lot from the support of a good number of the population. I also saw that in El Salvador. It also takes place when the news media is also owned by the reactionaries in the military government. The dictators only need to get close to a plurality, so the fraud can be plausibly explained away. And then the planned ballot stuffing and other shenanigans does the rest to get the impossible numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/291 "2016-09-15T20:28:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You seem to argue as if other things are not agreed upon, I do understand that the support of the people will not be there if Bush and Obama had skipped the constitution and the bill of rights just to avoid due process against drug traffickers. Indeed skipping human rights and due process is one big element of why one can be called a dictator by human rights organizations and other observers that take history into account. Wait. So now you are saying that the extrajudicial killings are not an indicator of his becoming a dictator in the future, you are saying that it is an indicator that he is a dictator right now? And you dismiss the fact that he was popularly elected by pointing to a rigged election in 1981? The guy has been in office for a matter of months and has enjoyed very high popularity ratings and he is already a dictator? If you want to call him a dick, that’s fine but I don’t see how he is a dictator. > [@](#): > > What you posted was: > > “As far as I can tell, my position is really not that popular.” > > Hence that reply. > > Then you said: > > “Or do you think that using Dutarte’s popularity as part of my argument has something to do with argumentum ad populum?” > > And that is clearly it is so, but you are trying to deny that. Just for shits and giggles, what do you think argumentum ad populum means? > [@](#): > > Again the point was made because even when they are not using democracy dictators still depend on the support of a good number of the population. So you think that 88% of the population supported Marcos in 1981?😕 > [@](#): > > You only think that is so by forgetting that many dictators do depend a lot from the support of a good number of the population. I am mostly familiar with military dictators and they mostly rely on support from the military. They rely on force, threat of the use of force and the acquiescence of the population. > [@](#): > > I also saw that in El Salvador. It also takes place when the news media is also owned by the reactionaries in the military government. The dictators only need to get close to a plurality, so the fraud can be plausibly explained away. And then the planned ballot stuffing and other shenanigans does the rest to get the impossible numbers. So STILL not democratically elected. But this democratically elected President is a dictator already because you just know deep down in your heart that he will not give up office when he is supposed to. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/292 "2016-09-15T20:50:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Wait. So now you are saying [full snip] Well, full stop there, it is not really good to continue when you are making a game of making endless straw men. For example you are trying to make me say that 88% did vote for Marcos, I clearly mentioned that fraud and shenanigans were there in the end too, as in addition to the high turnout of people that did go to the polls. So while there was a boycott of the election the bastard Marcos did anyhow point out to the turnout as clear support for him. The point I made is that dictators indeed just need to get close to a plurality to pull not only an electoral fraud, but to continue to be in power. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/293 "2016-09-15T21:26:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [full snip] > > Well, full stop there, it is not really good to continue when you are making a game of making endless straw men. > > For example you are trying to make me say that 88% did vote for Marcos, I clearly mentioned that fraud and shenanigans were there in the end too, as in addition to the high turnout of people that did go to the polls. So while there was a boycott of the election the bastard Marcos did anyhow point out to the turnout as clear support for him. The point I made is that dictators indeed just need to get close to a plurality to pull not only an electoral fraud, but to continue to be in power. I’m not strawmanning. I’m trying to read your posts in a way that makes them rational and relevant. What you are telling me is that your posts are not really relevant. What possible relevance could a fraudulent election in 1981 during the Marcos regime be to a free and fair election in the Philippines this year? You are just throwing shit against the wall in your effort to call this guy a dictator and waiting to see if anything sticks. Simply put, there is nothing you have presented that provides evidence that this policy of extrajudicial killing is a precursor to dictatorship. Simply put, there is no resemblance between the 1981 election during the Marcos regime and the election that Dutarte won this year. Simply put, you just don’t like the guy because he has a policy that you find offensive and want to frame him as a dictator a few months into his first term as president. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/294 "2016-09-15T21:52:54Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m not strawmanning. I’m trying to read your posts in a way that makes them rational and relevant. What you are telling me is that your posts are not really relevant. As others in this thread already mentioned, they do understand the posts, and they also cite them. What you claim here is very underwhelming. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2016, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/295 "2016-09-16T12:34:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You’re right. But its not an internet poll in the same sense that the poll in the huffington post article was an internet poll. Anyways as you implied, there is no real reason to think that the people taking the poll are any less likely to support legalization of drugs than the general population. I don’t know that this is true; we’re talking about a self-selected group vs. a random group. I can only speculate about whether people who sign up for YouGov are are disproportionally this or that, but it’s hardly unthinkable. > [@](#): > > I have trouble with the notion of a democratic dictator. A dictator (especially the way GIGO means it) is someone who is holding onto power by force and thwarting the democratic process. That doesn’t square with the dictionary definition. If they have absolute power, then they are a dictator, even if they are popular. Or don’t you think Hitler was a dictator? > [@](#): > > And neither are dictators. Sure. But starting one’s term by ignoring the rule of law, and going after the checks on one’s power (the legislature, judiciary, and press) is certainly a red flag. We’ll see what the future holds. > [@](#): > > Well, they would still have to be smugglers to get the product into the USA. Don’t you think that the same competition that exists now in that criminal enterprise would exist in a Mexico with legalized drugs? In the same sense that competition exists among Mexican factories, farmers, cell phone providers, and whatnot. Consider the case of “coyotes”, who smuggle people from Mexico to the US. It’s legal in Mexico - nothing illegal about getting into a car or truck - and illegal in the US. Where is the violence and corruption in Mexico from this activity? It doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > I don’t know. I think decriminalization was the best solution for us. Prohibition was not poplar or very well enforced and this created an opportunity to make a shit ton of money for moderate levels of risk. > > [Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Weak_enforcement) > > The unpopularity of prohibition no doubt contributed to the weak enforcement but if your objective is to rid society of the ills associated with alcohol (rape, murder, accidental death, violence, alcoholism, ruined lives and families, etc), what other mechanism would you have proposed to achieve that goal or are you saying “fuck it, nothing you can do” Harm reduction; the same thing the smarter-than-us nations of Europe are doing, or beginning to do. We’ll get there, eventually. > [@](#): > > You think that the cops weren’t settling personal grudges before? Possibly, but without legal sanction from the President. If Duterte hasn’t actually changed anything, then what are we debating? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/296 "2016-09-16T14:37:08Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I don’t know that this is true; we’re talking about a self-selected group vs. a random group. I can only speculate about whether people who sign up for YouGov are are disproportionally this or that, but it’s hardly unthinkable. I agree with you that this is not a Gallup poll. I don’t think that the polls would skew very much due to the self selection. Based on the relative popularity of legalizing marijuana in the poll, it looks like these are not a bunch of anti-drug people who are taking the poll. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t square with the dictionary definition. If they have absolute power, then they are a dictator, even if they are popular. Or don’t you think Hitler was a dictator? Oxford dictionary: dic·ta·tor. 1.a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. Sure, there are famous examples of popularly elected politicians that have become dictators but this is not the common template that “_history_” provides. Dutarte has been in politics a long time and has never attempted to take control by force. Hitler did, and failed. > [@](#): > > Sure. But starting one’s term by ignoring the rule of law, and going after the checks on one’s power (the legislature, judiciary, and press) is certainly a red flag. We’ll see what the future holds. Yeah, its not a great sign but for the fact that he ran on exactly this (still not a great sign but not as alarming when he telegraphed his intent for months before he got elected). Everyone goes after the checks on their power. Obama points fingers at the obstructionist Republicans and wags his finger at the Supreme Court for Citizens United. Dutarte has yet to jail or kill his political opponents (this would be a really good predictor of impending dictatorship). Just calling them names and accusing them of corruption is shit that we see here (heck this entire presidential election has been Republicans effectively accusing Hillary of corruption of one sort or another). The only real difference between this guy and a run of the mill politician here is that he has openly advocated extrajudicial killings. Does this make him a dictator? > [@](#): > > In the same sense that competition exists among Mexican factories, farmers, cell phone providers, and whatnot. Consider the case of “coyotes”, who smuggle people from Mexico to the US. It’s legal in Mexico - nothing illegal about getting into a car or truck - and illegal in the US. Where is the violence and corruption in Mexico from this activity? It doesn’t exist. Why is there so much violence right along the US Mexico border? Aren’t the drug traffickers engaging in violent competition to see who gets to move their drugs? I do not dispute that violence and criminal activity would decrease. After all there is domestic consumption and at the very least, the violence associated with that now legal activity would drop. There would probably be less violence associated with drug trafficking generally but the drugs are funding vast criminal enterprises and as long as you need criminals to make money on the stuff by smuggling it to the USA (legal recreational marijuana sales are not a profitable as the illegal kind for a variety of reasons), drugs trafficking will continue to fund those criminal enterprises and the violence associated with them. > [@](#): > > Harm reduction; the same thing the smarter-than-us nations of Europe are doing, or beginning to do. We’ll get there, eventually. And what of all the harm the prohibitionists were concerned about? What percentage of domestic abuse do you think occurs while the abuser is drunk? What percentage of rapes do you think are associated with alcohol? What percentage of automobile accidents and deaths do you think are associated with alcohol? The list goes on and on. The reason alcohol is legal is because it is popular and damn the consequences. When pot gets similarly popular, I think pot will become legal too and the social harms of pot are significantly lower than alcohol. But I don’t think that things like crystal meth and heroin are any less dangerous than alcohol. If the USA and Mexico legalizes all drugs, I suspect that drug related violence would drop significantly but we would see an increase in other social ills. What do you think the chances are that we will decriminalize crystal meth and heroin? > [@](#): > > Possibly, but without legal sanction from the President. If Duterte hasn’t actually changed anything, then what are we debating? Dutarte has absolutely changed things. There are thousands of dead drug dealers that were plying their trade a few months ago. Cops are killing drug dealers, not just settling personal grievances. We are debating whether a concerted effort to kill drug dealers can reduce drug related violence. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2016, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/297 "2016-09-16T14:58:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Oxford dictionary: dic·ta·tor. 1.a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. > > Sure, there are famous examples of popularly elected politicians that have become dictators but this is not the common template that “_history_” provides. > > Dutarte has been in politics a long time and has never attempted to take control by force. Hitler did, and failed. Huh, another failure to see the time line. The putch by Hitler was ignored by many Germans later as being disqualifying. He was in any case elected thanks to the system in place. > **[Was Hitler democratically elected?](http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2009/02/19/was-hitler-democratically-elected/)** > > In the comment section of a post in the Pharyngula science blog\[1\] I found an entry where a man rather emphatically stated "If you think that Hitler was democratically elected you should buy a good history book". I do have a good history book (in... > [@](#): > > In the comment section of a post in the Pharyngula science blog[1] I found an entry where a man rather emphatically stated “If you think that Hitler was democratically elected you should buy a good history book“. I do have a good history book (in fact, I have a lot of good history books), so I feel rather comfortable when I say that, yes, Hitler had been elected democratically. > > People who say that Hitler wasn’t really elected are usually germanophiles who search for excuses for crimes of the german people in the “Third Reich” (the argument is that a small undemocratic minority oppressed the good people of germany). But since Pharyngula is an american blog the case here might be a lot less sinister. The idea that Hitler wasn’t elected democratically is probably an allusion to the fact that he[2] never got more than 50% of the votes (th e best result was some 44%). Americans, with their “the winner takes it all”-system tend to forget that you can win a german election without winning a majority. > > The problem with this is that, without a majority, you have to form either a coalition with other parties, or form a minority goverment, or both, and in fact that was the problem that had plagued the Republic from the beginning. To put the results into perspective, the 43,9% for the NSDAP in the 1933 election was the best result any party had ever had in the Republic of Weimar from 1919 to 1933[3] (second best was 37,8% for the Social Democrats immediately after WWI)[4]. Governments were habitually formed without any democratic basis at all, so the result of the 1933 election might have looked like a step forward. > > It turned out that there is yet another way to govern without a majority – in March 1933 the german parliament passed what is known as „Ermächtigungsgesetz“ (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich), a law that allowed the Nazi/Deutschnationale Coalition to govern without the consent of the parliament. That this was in fact an unconstitutional law is a mere technicality – it was passed with a vast majority that would have allowed to change the constitution in any case, so the parliament skipped a step[5]. > > So,since Hitler and the NSDAP had more votes than any other party during the Republic of Weimar and governed on the basis of a law that had been passed by the absolute majority of the parliament is seems reasonable to conclude that he was indeed democratically elected. Now, Duterte BTW got less than 40% support in the election that got him to be president. Still democratic, but less than getting a mandate as many would say. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/298 "2016-09-16T16:27:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Huh, another failure to see the time line. The putch by Hitler was ignored by many Germans later as being disqualifying. He was in any case elected thanks to the system in place. > > [Was Hitler democratically elected? – Die Beste Aller Zeiten](http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2009/02/19/was-hitler-democratically-elected/) I don’t know why you feel like you have to premise our disagreements on my lack of knowledge of history or anything else like that. I try real hard to make sense of the nonsense you write sometimes. So if you could just assume that I have access to the internet and Wikipedia that would make this conversation a lot less tedious. My point is that the attempted coup by Hitler is something that might have indicated his despotic tendencies. There is no similar example of despotic tendencies by Dutarte. Human rights abuses, sure. Tyranny, not yet. > [@](#): > > Now, Duterte BTW got less than 40% support in the election that got him to be president. Still democratic, but less than getting a mandate as many would say. And now he has a 90%+ approval rating. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/299 "2016-09-16T16:42:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t know why you feel like you have to premise our disagreements on my lack of knowledge of history or anything else like that. I try real hard to make sense of the nonsense you write sometimes. So if you could just assume that I have access to the internet and Wikipedia that would make this conversation a lot less tedious. > > My point is that the attempted coup by Hitler is something that might have indicated his despotic tendencies. Actually what took place shows that you are making statements that are at odds with history. When an early reference to Hitler was made it was to make the point that actually getting to power using democracy does happen. So, just making sure others are aware of that because Hitler did indeed try with violence first, but he failed. Hanging only to the early failure can confuse many as the writer of the article makes a point about. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748/300 "2016-09-16T17:10:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I agree with you that this is not a Gallup poll. I don’t think that the polls would skew very much due to the self selection. Based on the relative popularity of legalizing marijuana in the poll, it looks like these are not a bunch of anti-drug people who are taking the poll. I don’t know how self-selection would skew things; I merely wanted to point it out, as it’s an additional x-factor. > [@](#): > > Oxford dictionary: dic·ta·tor. 1.a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. > > Sure, there are famous examples of popularly elected politicians that have become dictators but this is not the common template that “_history_” provides. > > Dutarte has been in politics a long time and has never attempted to take control by force. Hitler did, and failed. “Typically”, but not always. Plenty of dictators got into office without force, Hitler included. As I said, dictators can and often do have popular support, so Dutarte’s approval rating is irrelevant to whether or not he’s a dictator. I agree that he isn’t, but there’s certainly a danger. > [@](#): > > Yeah, its not a great sign but for the fact that he ran on exactly this (still not a great sign but not as alarming when he telegraphed his intent for months before he got elected). > > Everyone goes after the checks on their power. Obama points fingers at the obstructionist Republicans and wags his finger at the Supreme Court for Citizens United. Dutarte has yet to jail or kill his political opponents (this would be a really good predictor of impending dictatorship). Just calling them names and accusing them of corruption is shit that we see here (heck this entire presidential election has been Republicans effectively accusing Hillary of corruption of one sort or another). Obama didn’t threaten to kill judges that disagreed with him, though. [Duterte has](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37001916). A threat of violence is a use of force. Again, we’ll see how things play out. > [@](#): > > The only real difference between this guy and a run of the mill politician here is that he has openly advocated extrajudicial killings. Does this make him a dictator? By itself, no. > [@](#): > > Why is there so much violence right along the US Mexico border? Aren’t the drug traffickers engaging in violent competition to see who gets to move their drugs? This goes to why black markets have violence in the first place: lack of access to courts, incredibly high stakes for failure, and the need to corrupt law enforcement in order to operate. There’s a reason black markets (drugs, prostitution, etc) are far more violent than regular markets. > [@](#): > > I do not dispute that violence and criminal activity would decrease. After all there is domestic consumption and at the very least, the violence associated with that now legal activity would drop. There would probably be less violence associated with drug trafficking generally but the drugs are funding vast criminal enterprises and as long as you need criminals to make money on the stuff by smuggling it to the USA (legal recreational marijuana sales are not a profitable as the illegal kind for a variety of reasons), drugs trafficking will continue to fund those criminal enterprises and the violence associated with them. I’ll settle for a decrease, for the purpose of discussion. > [@](#): > > And what of all the harm the prohibitionists were concerned about? What percentage of domestic abuse do you think occurs while the abuser is drunk? What percentage of rapes do you think are associated with alcohol? What percentage of automobile accidents and deaths do you think are associated with alcohol? The list goes on and on. The reason alcohol is legal is because it is popular and damn the consequences. When pot gets similarly popular, I think pot will become legal too and the social harms of pot are significantly lower than alcohol. But I don’t think that things like crystal meth and heroin are any less dangerous than alcohol. That’s what harm reduction policies are aimed at fixing. Instead of putting resources into jailing drug/alcohol/whatever users and dealers, resources are put into mitigating the harmful effects, many of which stem from prohibition itself. Details of the Swiss and Portugese programs were linked to earlier, feel free to peruse. > [@](#): > > If the USA and Mexico legalizes all drugs, I suspect that drug related violence would drop significantly but we would see an increase in other social ills. That’s not what happened in Switzerland or Portugal, though, those social ills decreased, because prohibition makes them worse. > [@](#): > > What do you think the chances are that we will decriminalize crystal meth and heroin? In my lifetime (I’m 31)? 90%. There’s some grey area, of course; if you can’t go to prison for drug use, but you’re court-mandated to attend treatment, is that decriminalization? You can see these sorts of questions in the HuffPo/YouGov poll you linked to; people didn’t want to legalize harder drugs, but they also opposed jail time for drug use. > [@](#): > > Dutarte has absolutely changed things. There are thousands of dead drug dealers that were plying their trade a few months ago. Cops are killing drug dealers, not just settling personal grievances. We are debating whether a concerted effort to kill drug dealers can reduce drug related violence. The jury’s out on that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-works-in-the-phillipins-should-mexico-try-the-same/763748.md?page=16)