If you answer my question about decriminalization, I’ll happily address these concerns, in a non-insulting fashion.
No, Marcos has NOT been buried in Libingan ng mga Bayani. There’s still a case pending before the Supreme Court whether Marcos can indeed be buried there.
Missed that bit. However it is clear that Duterte is not shy on telegraphing what are his intensions. What Duterte is attempting to do then is still very insulting to the ones that toppled Marcos and a love letter to the many that want to see a return to authoritarian rule.
Yes, hence the street protests and court case. He’s gotten very quiet about the matter of late, especially considering the putative date of internment is in less than a week. Perhaps he’s just busy with the ASEAN conference, insulting Obama, and cozying up to China. Or perhaps he realizes this isn’t an issue he wants to hang his political future on. There are, after all, a lot more drug users to kill.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. You seemed to originally be saying that the extrajudicial killings was an indicator that he would one day become a dictator despite the fact that he currently enjoys overwhelming popularity. I thought you were saying the extrajudicial killings were a pretty sure sign that he would one day become a dictator because history has shown this to be true. So I asked for a cite and you provided examples where extrajudicial killings came AFTER the politician became a dictator.
Now it seems like you are saying that just being popularly elected means that you might one day become a dictator. By that reasoning Eisenhower, Grant and Washington were all likely candidates to become dictators as popularly elected presidents with military backing (does Dutarte have the sort of military backing that military dictators usually have?).
Timing is the events is important if you are claiming that one event is predictive of another. Extrajudicial killings are a poor predictor of tyranny if they always occur after the tyranny is already in place.
IOW, you can have your suspicions and wild ass guesses but there is not proven predictive value to these extrajudicial killings because its kind of unique for a popular politician to be actively encouraging murder and remaining popular. You cannot call on history as support for your theory that Dutarte is likely to become a dictator. It just doesn’t rhyme.
I don’t think you could get decriminalization in the Philippines regardless of whether or not YOU think it would work. There is just no political pathway to that option. The options you have are the status quo or what Dutarte is doing (t least for the forseeable future).
There are a shitload of drug plagued countries in the world and none of them have seen fit to try decriminalization. It might work here in the USA but it is not a panacea to drug violence. NOTHING is a panacea to drug violence.
So let me ask you, do you think that decriminalization of dugs would work to reduce violence in El Salvador to Swiss levels of violence?
Do you think a Swiss style policy would reduce El Salvador’s crime and murder levels to a level comparable to Switzerland? El Salvador has the second highest murder rate in the world after Honduras (in prior years it had the highest murder rate). Like worse than Iraq and Syria.
Do you still claim you know how dictators gain power? Because you seem to have a lot of that wrong so far. You seem to have a good idea what dictators do AFTER they have gained power and are trying to keep it. Not something you have to do when you are popularly elected and have a 90% approval rating like Dutarte.
Do you still contend that Dutarte is a crime boss trying to consolidate his power?
Do you still contend that the vigilantes in Mexico are worse than the Knights Templar cartel? You say they are no better so then is it all just a push? No better, no worse?
So other than the fact that this guy does shit you don’t like, What evidence do you have that he intends to become a dictator?
So despite your failure to give an example of a popular politician becoming a dictator because he engaged in extrajudicial killings you still think that a popular politician who engages in extrajudicial killings is proven by history to likely become a dictator?
You’re real good at asking questions and making vague statements and not as good at answering questions that expose flaws in your reasoning.
What are you hoping to get from this thread?
I’m okay with it.
I don’t know that this is true. Even if it was, you’re asking about applying the Filipino approach in Mexico, and decriminalization is gaining steam in Mexico. With that far superior tool available, Mexico should not resort to death squads.
Depends on your definition of “drug plagued”, I guess. It remains a good idea even if some countries fail to implement it.
It’s a panacea to cartels corrupting the government, and wars between drug cartels.
It would greatly reduce drug-related violence and corruption, so it’d be a huge step in that direction. There are other things besides drugs that contribute to violence, of course.
As promised:
As we saw here in the current thread about letting meth addicts die, in this sort of situation, you can either be in favorable of the “bad people” dying/being punished, or in favor of alleviating the drug problem, but not both, because they require different approaches. You’ve used a lot of eliminationist rhetoric, so the question was raised: is this about making things better in the Philippines, or killing “bad people”?
[snip]
Yes, so that is why other questions that follow that misunderstanding are very underwhelming.
And so it is with your claim now that I’m “saying that just being popularly elected means that you might one day become a dictator.”. Wrong again.
This is the second time that you try to deal with what I said with a straw man. I did not make a point of putting the death squads before of “AFTER” Marcos became a dictator. Only that the elements are there to aid in the making of a dictator, the order of the ingredients was not important to the point I was making there. And now, I’m not making a point about all popularly elected people becoming dictators. As anyone can see, an argument never made is a very easy to dismiss argument.
The real point that stands is that Marcos became a dictator after being democratically elected, and he did use death squads before and after he was declared by most observers to be a dictator. And then he consolidated power with a lot of support from the population back then. The predictable outcome of what happens when people that ignore the rule of law and are autocrats win the presidency is bound to take place. Eventually the most likely result is that the “hero” does not target just the guilty, but the innocent and political opponents as well.
All other questions you made were already replied too, so you are only dealing with the points I made and the evidence presented with the fallacy of Just Asking Questions and just replying to the never made arguments that you wanted to get.
I don’t know. A debate?
So you think that the majority of the violence is being driven by domestic consumption of drugs in Mexico? I thought it was mostly driven by the demand from the US.
It is not a good idea if countries CANNOT implement it. If the political will does not exist for your method then aren’t you just engaging in wishful thinking?
Not if the cartels are interested in moving the drugs out of Mexico to the USA.
Once again, drug violence in Mexico is not really the result of domestic Mexican drug consumption. Sure some of it is but much of it is not.
Wait, you think that killing bad people and alleviating the problem are mutually exclusive?!?!?!
I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt because this is great debates. I don’t think I misunderstood you at all. I’m just trying to be polite rather than call you out.
So then what is the commonality between Dutarte right now and Marcos BEFORE he became a dictator? Pointing to shit that Marcos did After he became a dictator CANNOT be used as a predictor of his becoming a dictator. I don’ see how y can’t understand that.
You made the argument that Dutarte was likely to become a dictator and you pointed to his extrajudicial killings and claimed that HISTORY showed that Dutarte was likely to become a dictator. That CLEARLY implies that you think that these extrajudicial killings will lead to tyranny and that HISTORY shows that extrajudicial killings lead to tyranny. And as proof you show me people that are ALREADY tyrants engaging in extra judicial killings.
So nothing you have shown me in HISTORY proves that there is any PREDICTIVE value that you can rely on to make the statement that Dutarte is going to be a dictator.
So how was Marcos similar to Dutarte but different than any other democratically elected president to justify you making the statement that history shows that someone like Dutarte is going to be come a dictator? Dutarte has 90% approval ratings and he can’t even get them to move a corpse to a different graveyard.
So do you think that the Swiss method would work to reduce violence in El Salvador to Swiss levels? I don’t recall you ever answering that question?
This is nonsense as even you admitted already that **most **did take place after he became a dictator, IOW, some still took place before he was noted as being a dictator by international observers; he had acquired the taste already. Anyhow, as it has become a tradition: that was not the point I was making.
That was also pointed out by me, I do know that even with support like that missteps like trying to set Marcos as a hero is were he shows to all** what he aspires to be** can change opinion quickly. Remember: that something is likely in history is something what it should not be ignored. Thanks to the lesson of what took place in the past the hope is that Duterte will indeed see that very quickly his designs will be cut short.
What I did say was that the basis of supporting the methods of Duterte come from the misguided war on drugs. The problem you have is to think that we can not walk and chew gum at the same time. The Swiss method can work in El Salvador too, but at the same time a lot of violence has to also be taken care with due process. Not vigilantism.
The result in the long run is that demand drops and there are no turf wars as the traffickers are no longer gaining monetary power. Power that allows then to get arms and to allow them to corrupt government institutions.
Duterte’s solution only has the stick, no mechanism to stop the reasons why there is a drug problem in the first place. And the wealthy are not being bothered. That means that a lot more money is there to yet again make the traffickers more powerful, just less visible.
The violence is driven by the legal prohibition of drugs. If you’re asking if the US should also decriminalize, the answer is yes.
It’s hard to imagine a leader as popular as Duterte - who’s already threatening the legislature, judicial branch, and press if they don’t back his plans - having the clout to push through death squads, but not decriminalization. The solution’s there, if he wants it…but he clearly doesn’t. That should raise questions as to what his real goals are.
If Mexico legalized drugs, why would cartels need to kill and bribe? How would they cope with the crash in prices? There’d be political fallout from the US, but that’s distinct from drug violence.
See above.
Yes. You can’t kill or imprison your way out of a drug problem; it simply doesn’t work. Killing just makes the other side kill right back, by raising the stakes, and banning the drugs makes them profitable enough to finance massive corruption.
This isn’t some radical idea. Are you at all familiar with Prohibition here in the US?
Can you restate your point. Because it was pretty clear to me that you were saying Dutarte is condoning extrajudicial killings, therefore he is going to become a dictator. And there is some historical precedent that proves that really popular politicians that engage in extrajudicial killings inevitably become dictators because history rhymes.
Can you restate, this is gibberish.
Yeah and how’s that working out for El Salvador, a perennial contender for murder capital of the world.
Oh, so now you’re going to get rid of the problems underlying drug abuse? Good fucking luck, I mean that.
I don’t know El Salvador as well as you do but do you think El Salvador’s problems are the result of domestic drug use?
We will not decriminalize anything harder than pot anytime soon. If your plan revolves around decriminalization then you are going to have to pass your plan on to your children and grandchildren.
Or he thinks that decriminalization is a stupid idea and he thinks he would lose all credibility with the electorate if he proposed something so stupid.
Killing drug dealers OTOH is making him very very popular. Why would he change the thing that is making him immensely popular?
Why would prices fall if most of the drugs are being sold in the US?
See above
See China during the cultural revolution. They killed their way from high addict population to very low addict population.
Sure and if there was a death penalty associated with alcohol and a government willing to enforce it, I don’t think there would have been a lot of speak easy’s and bootleggers.
Since there is no effort in place to do harm reduction, or laws that decriminalize drugs in EL Salvador this point makes no sense. There is a lot of talk now growing about decriminalizing drugs, and the hope is that it will force many to finally accept that the war on drugs is a failure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/world/americas/latin-america-and-us-split-in-drug-fight.html?_r=1
A lot of what is happening right now is due to a double whammy: the drug war in the USA + anti immigration.
Mind you, even I did agree with the deporting of guys that decide to not work and to become criminals in a new country.
However, I have to say that I do know how the ground is set because the war on drugs, it creates opportunities for crime that should not exist in the first place. I have to also realize a lot of the ones that lost their way did so because there was and there is still a lot of money in drug trafficking and running.
And then I do have to complain that while the criminals should still be deported, a lot of aid to El Salvador for jails and tight control of those repatriated guys would had prevented a lot of the harm that now is making many families from El Salvador to run to America. Just like in the days of the civil war.
Penny wise, Pound foolish. We should not forget that the war on drugs is a big factor that is making the gang violence and corruption to grow, in El Salvador and other countries, even in the USA.
We need to end the war on drugs.
:dubious:
Actually the Chinese did had a few items in their favor that did not require them to kill drug users. Only a few drug traffickers suffered that fate.
The following is from China’s Drug Practices and Policies by Hong Lu, an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada
In essence, cutting the flow of the movement of people. One factor on preventing then the movement of drugs too.
Kinda like finding later that cultivating or developing in some areas of the USA eliminated the locust plagues as their nesting places were inadvertently destroyed.
That is when there were indeed executions, but of smugglers and they were called counterrevolutionaries, what I do think is that the Chinese also stumbled then on what the other drug video I linked was about: that pressure from families, your peers and a new support system and treatment of addicts demonstrated that most of the addiction was the result of not having a good social environment. Yes, that environment was a forced one then, after all these are the communist of Mao we are talking about. But that was better for many addicts than what it was in the past colonialist world. They could then join a big cause and that facilitated the dropping of the old habits.
Other factors the writer told were related to how the propaganda was geared towards not falling for drugs as it was just “a tool of the decadent west”, again the peer pressure then was extraordinary. And the killing of users was not the idea. Another factor was that thanks to the Cold War the borders of china were effectively closed to the outside world.
It all looks like even Duterte would not had liked the closing of the ports, to do massive treatment and family and public pressure plans aided by the government; and to do even more massive land reforms. So Duterte resorts just the killing of smugglers and even users. The reality is that a lot of other efforts that are needed are missing, but today there are better ways to do it than total repression. Duterte shows indeed that he is only capable of chewing gum, but not walking. 