Florida Governor Ron Desantis said on Wednesday night that he would send the military into Mexico to fight drug cartels on “day one” of his presidency if he wins the 2024 presidential election.
At the Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee, DeSantis was asked if he would support sending in US special forces to take out fentanyl labs and other drug cartel operations. “Yes, and I will do it on day one,” he replied.
“We have to reestablish the rule of law and we have to defend our people. The president of the United States has got to use all available powers as commander in chief to protect our country,” DeSantis said.
DeSantis claimed cartels are “killing tens of thousands of our fellow citizens” and said he would treat them as “foreign terrorist organizations.”
Taking military action across the border would dramatically expand the decades-old failed war on drugs, but the idea of invading or bombing Mexico in response to the large number of overdoses in the US is becoming increasingly popular among Republicans. Other 2024 hopefuls have called for military action against cartels, including the frontrunner, former President Trump.
Earlier this year, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill to designate Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, which has a total of six cosponsors. Graham said the purpose of the legislation was to “set the stage” for military intervention in Mexico.
Another bill introduced by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) would authorize the president to use military force against “those responsible for trafficking fentanyl or a fentanyl-related substance into the United States or carrying out other related activities that cause regional destabilization in the Western Hemisphere.” The Crenshaw legislation has received 21 cosponsors.
We smashed Panama with the stated purpose of combating drugs, the amount of drugs coming through Panama increased after our invasion.
That’s a lot of dead people to increase drug sales, of course the drugs were just an excuse, but it doesn’t change the fact that it didn’t stop anything, not there or here.
A nation full of addicts doesn’t stop being a nation full of addicts, just because the supply is cut off. Even if you could do it, it wouldn’t help save lives. When the USSR fell they didn’t have the money to import drugs, they made them instead and it was far worse than when the heroin and coke were coming in. In fact it was one of the worst things you can imagine happening to people, worse than the flesh eating crap going around Philly (caused by another intervention). Ever seen pictures of people who got hit by blister agent or other biological weapons, that’s what it looked like. Like a bioweapon hit Moscow.
Sadly, DeSatin isn’t’ the only one talking about this moronic idea.
Well … Americans have a lust for drugs to escape reality. The drugs will flow as long as there is a demand.
People have been getting high off substances for thousands of years; it has nothing to do with Americans. Getting high is a natural urge, even some non-humans do it, like birds eating fermented berries to get drunk. Read The Natural Mind by Dr. Martin Weil for details.
Andrew Weill, but yes.
Sorry, read it about 50 years ago.
Afghanistan is the craziest example. After coming to power, the Taliban is once again eliminating opium.
DeSantis number one lie. He won’t be sending anybody to Mexico. The only thing we can do is to send trainers/advisors and equipment and intel sharing.
De santis belongs in germany circa 1933. He’d fit right in…
Your is a truly dumb comment.
Desantis speaks nothing but of hate, racism, violence, war, etc. So he’d be a perfect fit there and then. So jr, you know not of what you spout but i’m sure that is your MO and has been for a very long time. If stupidity and ignorance were bliss you must be a very very happy fellow..
LOL Your comments are filled with rage and hate. Look inward child ….
I agree. However, DeSantis is potentially a dangerous demagogue who should never become our President.
My test for “Germany 1933” is always: “where is his or her SA?”, because Hitler would not have become Germany’s Chancellor without the SA.
I’m neither a Trump fan nor a Biden fan, but I am a Floridian, and I’d rather have either of them in the White House than DeSantis. He’s just an opportunistic careerist thug who always looks for an authoritarian card to play. Basically Biden with an “R” next to his name, and at least Biden’s the senile devil we know.
Not that I’d vote FOR any of the three of them.
They’re all evil and it wouldn’t matter much which is president. But you don’t have to worry, DeSantis doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Trump. Now if the establishment can prevent Trump from running by charging him with bogus crap like they’ve done, it might create an opening for DeSantis, but that would be his only chance.
Unfortunately, he rather fits in the USA, circa 2020s … a blowhard in an ill-fitting suit is pretty much what we can hope for.
i would rather presume that the best america can produce is more substantional than outhouse refuse but it seems that is the time we live in as we handle our ‘perfect storm ‘ edification as a species. Butttt.
Just secure the border would be a good start for President de Santis.
Yes, doing the impossible would be a “good start,” in an East Germany kind of way.
Seriously? You think Ron de Santis wants to create a Communist Security State? Are you stoned already this morning Knapp?
DeSantis wants to stop the smuggling of deadly medications from Mexico into our country. He completely ignores the lessons from Prohibition.
During Prohibition the beer-magnate Bush dabbled with importing hard liquor beverages from England via Canada into the US. He was never caught.
After Prohibition ended he met the press. The journalists asked him “Mr. Bush, why did you do that”? Bush gave the classic answer: “You wanted it. I provided it”.
That, in this pungent sentence, tells us why DeSantis’ idea will fail.
Fentanyl is a synthetic drug. If China and Mexico really are responsible for bringing most of it into the US, I suspect that cutting them off would only prevent them from competing with domestic producers.
I just had hernia surgery 5 weeks ago. The surgical staff was giving that horrendous s#it to me. From where did they get it ? 😉
Fentanyl was invented for extreme pain that other opiates couldn’t control, mainly for end-of-life cancer patients. But in our money-dominated society, drug companies soon got doctors to push this on everyone. Have a headache? Take fentanyl! The concept wasn’t bad, it’s how it’s being grossly overused.
F-ing idiot.. Thank God Guantanamo Ron doesn’t stand a chance.
Hopefully, none of your friends or family members dies a painful and prolonged death from an overdose of illegal drugs. If a nation’s borders are not secure, soon enough, there is no nation.
You mean like the 330 native nations that were here when your illegal ancestors showed up here and stole it fair and square?
LOL Of course you are a lunatic Leftist raging at the moon about things you cannot understand. You are filled with hate. Grow up or go away ….
Let’s talk about aboriginal Americans child. Where would you like to start?
Hey: NO FIGHTING HERE.
This guy is a vile troll. I hope he gets banned.
You must be new here. Learn some manners.
I’ve been here longer than I’ve seen your posts. I don’t tolerate trolls. If you don’t support what a site stands for and just make disruptive comments, you’re a troll and have no business there.
On top of that, look at HIS insulting comments.
What is a troll if not someone who cannot tolerate the contrary opinions of others and whose comments encourage anger, discord, and enmity?
The natives stole their land also. It’s not like they were all one group.
They also worked with the colonists. Amerindians were not united.
And secure borders aren’t going to stop drug use or drug availability. You said yourself that the demand is there. It’s not Mexico’s fault.
Well if they or I were to die from an overdose of illegal drugs, it would be our own fault. If we were to drink ourselves to death, it wouldn’t be the fault of the liquor store, it would be our own fault too.
Fentanyl is very dangerous in small amounts. I disagree with you.
Yes, and if drugs were legal, they’d be regulated and sold in stores, and people buying heroin wouldn’t be dosed with fentanyl.
Well, yea, but fentanyl shouldn’t be legal. Heroin causes problems, but I was just making the argument against fentanyl here.
It’s too dangerous. You could use it as a poison.
Fentanyl was approved for medical use in the US in 1968. It’s on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.
It’s only since 2011 that fentanyl became a huge overdose problem.
QED, it’s not that fentanyl itself is particularly dangerous, or we’d have people dropping like flies for more than 50 years now.
The cartels finally got onto it as a way of making their product EASIER TO SMUGGLE because it’s so powerful.
But, being so powerful, it’s also easier to mis-measure or to accidentally contaminate other stuff with at deadly levels.
People aren’t dying from fentanyl. They’re dying from other people’s obsessions with violently controlling what they may ingest.
Fentanyl has legitimate uses, it’s just been way overused. Now, because of prohibition, it’s also used to cut heroin, which is the reason for the massive increase in heroin overdoses.
But how does it get into one’s system ?
From people cutting heroin with it. Watch the Netflix documentary on the U.S. opioid crisis from 5-10 years ago, it explains all this very clearly.
Well, then I would advise against using heroin.
That’s good advice, but thousands of years of the history of drugs, including opiates, says that many people are going to ignore it.
The choices are:
1) To legalize it; or
2) To encourage people to lie, cheat, steal, and kill over it on the idiotic premise that it’s possible to change human nature by commanding human nature to change.
Unfortunately, there’s lots of money to be made on both sides of option #2. The DEA and the cartels go together like peas and carrots, and if one disappeared the other would shortly follow. And none of those guys want to lose their jobs.
But.. I’m all about secure borders. I totally agree with you on that.
Making drugs illegal is both immoral and idiotic. It’s clear that people like you can’t learn anything. In this instance, you didn’t learn anything from all the awful problems that Prohibition caused. People who have substance abuse problems should be able to get treatment, but it’s not the government’s place to be a nanny state and tell adults what they can or can’t put into their own bodies.
China stops drugs.
How is that relevant to anything I wrote? We don’t live, vote, or pay taxes in China, so what does China have to do with this discussion?
Furthermore, how do you know that people in China don’t do drugs? Because the Chinese government says so? They have as much credibility as the U.S. government. It’s like Putin saying that there are no gay people in Russia.
Why the heck are you anarchists here so adept at debating drugs?
I trust China’s government on this topic, yes. Maybe I shouldn’t.
The US isn’t really a nation, today. But illegal drugs are a plague.
What would China do? China would stop the illegal drugs.
They’re only a plague because they’re illegal. Wake up and get with reality. Humans have been using substances to get high for thousands of years. Even some nonhumans do this.
Well, humans might have banned them for thousands of years also. We’ve had many societies, religions.
I can’t wait for the future invasion of Canada. /s
Me either! We’ve got to have the Canadiens winning Stanley Cups again.
So, let’s see … we invade our peaceful and friendly neighbor because we can’t control our border and because our people lamentably have a strong desire for narcotics. Is that the gist of it?
I’d rather see the military go after the Sacklers.
🙂
That’s against their religion … as the muscled arm of Wallstreet, they’d only fight for the Sacklers …
Your brain is warped pal. And how would you feel if Mexico started sending it’s forces into the United States? War? That’s that I thought.
May be the wrong approach.
As long as there is demand there will be supply.
There are camps for illegals. Why not camps for druggies?
Better yet, camps for people who think they’re entitled to stick other people in camps.
Ever hear of jail/prison? They’re filled with people who didn’t infringe on any other people’s rights.
Plenty of drug offenses there.
Yeah, proportionally against POC.
The US isn’t 89% white… There’s just not discrimination like before.
It exists, but it exists in all different ways, now. It’s not like before.
Why not actual help?
If some states ban drugs, druggies could just all move to California.
LOL the CIA , DEA , FBI , MI5/6 ect ect have been helping the cartels from day one , i have read at least 5 books on how they where helped by the us agencies / Brits .
Yes! See the movie Sicario if they haven’t censored it.
“DeSantis Pledges to Send Military Into Mexico to Fight Cartels on ‘Day One’ – The idea of bombing or invading Mexico is becoming increasingly popular among Republicans”
Can’t win against Afghanistan, Can’t win in Ukraine, but maybe against drug cartels America can win. Unfortunately, civilian deaths would be too high.
Pretty soon they’ll convince brain-dead Amerikkkans that it’s OK to bomb places in the U.S. How anyone could go along with this crap is beyond me, and it gets worse every day. As to Mexico, how about just legalizing drugs like former president Vincente Fox said to do?
It serms that a prospect of ANY war is popular with Republicans. This is beyond childish. Nobody is forcibg our people at gun point to pay for and use drugs, Cartels are the priliduct ofbour war on drugs., Can w sort it out? Republicsans are just very unlucky. Eith so many issues crying to be addresses by a mature. conservative republicans we have a field of candidates itching to start a war. Any war, anywhere.
With Republicans? Republicans are the only ones in Congress voting against sending more money to Ukraine for the U.S. proxy war there. Both parties are equally part of the military/intelligence/industrial complex, and the Republicans are no worse than the Democrats on this issue, depends which war you’re talking about.
You make the common mistake of thinking Leftists use rationality, logic or just plain common sense to reason through things ….. well …. they don’t. The first rule of every Collectivist is NEVER TAKE RESPONSIBILITY NOR BE ACCOUNTABLE for things you think, say or do! It’s why the far-Left are stuck in perpetual adolescence.
There are very, very few Constitutional Conservatives who support Liberty via Natural Rights in these United States. Most of our fellow citizens are Collectivists, Populists or they support America’s Corporate Oligarchy (think Neo-Liberals mistakenly called “Neo-cons”).
As you correctly point out in your response, the monstrosity we call the Federal Government functions as a UniParty of corruption and malfeasance. Joe Biden – the worst President in American history – is the poster boy …. the geriatric nut-case of America’s failed Republic.
I don’t support colonizers. The only legitimate nations on Turtle Island are the Native ones.
You also make the common mistake of thinking that Democrats are leftists, or the far left as you put it. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no substantial left in the U.S. Republicans are far right, and Democrats are center/right.
You’re also wrong about collectivists. If you live collectively, you absolutely have to take responsibility for your actions, because you all depend on each other, far more so than in our individualist society. I agree that many on the so-called left think that only the big bad corporations and their rich owners are the problem (they are the biggest problem, but far from the only one), and I’ve argued with these people whenever they claim that. The vast majority of Americans are not collectivists, and the people you think are in fact are not.
Finally, Ronald Reagan was by far the worst president in my lifetime. They’ve all been bad and I can’t stand Biden, but to say he’s worse than Reagan is ridiculous.
Fair or not, the moment you use the term “collectivist” all Randian hell breaks loose.
The Democratic misleaders in our government are for the proxy war in Ukraine, some of the Republicans in our government are for that war and some of them are against it. Trump and DeSantis may be against the war in Ukraine but want a war with Mexico. Biden is against a war with Mexico but is for the proxy war he helped start in Ukraine.
I don’t know where Chris Christie stands on the wars.
Republicans want a war with China. This could end up being more dangerous than the current proxy war with Russia. But either way, both the Democrats and the Republicans are very dangerous psychopaths who could easily cause WWIII and end life on Earth, or at least the vast majority of it, while poisoning the Earth with radioactivity forever.
This sounds awfully eerie because it brings back thoughts of how the Japanese people were treated in the US during WW2.
It’s not obvious to me that DeSantis could win the nomination for President, that he could beat Biden, or that he could win reelection as Governor in Florida. So, hopefully, he won’t have many chances to start a war with Mexico.
He has absolutely no chance of beating Trump. If the establishment continues its BS and keeps Trump from running, that would be his only chance.
But that said, who cares? These people are all horrible, doesn’t really matter which one wins. RFK, Jr. is the only mainstream politician running for president who isn’t totally awful, and he has some terrible positions, like his support of Israel. Dr. Cornell West (Green Party) is the only one worth voting for, and he stands about as much chance as DeSantis does against Trump.
Ramaswamy would crush DeSantis.
Doesn’t matter, Trump will win the Republican nomination quite easily. The only chance that the establishment has to keep Trump from being nominated is to have use felony charges against him so that he’s prevented from running, which is why they’re charging him with all this BS. (What he should be charged for is the corrupt crap he pulled with his son, but then they’d have to charge Biden with the same thing, so they don’t charge him with that.)
Felony charges (or even convictions) don’t prevent anyone from running for president.
That’s not my understanding. I read that if one is convicted of a felony, one is precluded from running for president. What is the basis for your comment?
The US Constitution states the qualifications for US president. You have to be 35 years old, a natural-born citizen, and 14 years resident in the United States. And, of course, you have to get elected.
There MAY be a case under the 14th Amendment that if Trump is convicted of a crime involving “insurrection,” he would be ineligible to serve as president. But that wouldn’t preclude him from running for president.
At least two convicted felons have appeared on US ballots for election to the office of president (Eugene Debs in 1920; Roger Calro in 2004 and 2008). In addition to being a convicted felon, Calero was constitutionally ineligible to serve if elected (he’s from Nicaragua).
A felony conviction is not a disqualifier for the Presidency, Jeff.
He can also attack the gun manufacturers in America. Here is where they get the guns.
Now that would be fun! I’d pay to see a video of that.
It seems to me that DeSantis, Crenshaw, Graham and others that are advocating for another war, a miitary war on Drug Cartels, have not figured out what the root cause of the drug problem is in America. Why are American youth and adults turning to drugs in the first place? We’ve had decades of drug education in our schoools and in the media. If there was no demand for drugs, the Cartels would be put out of business.
Good comment. I suspect the tap root problem lies within America’s highly-urbanized, emasculated / de-feminized and non-productive culture. Drugs and suicide offer an escape to the banality, boredom and pointlessness of industrialized society. Have you ever met a stoner who did not think they were the smartest and most misunderstood person in the country? No … of course not, no one has.
But, why?
The civilized social structure fragments, divides and alienates its many members. Human beings simply did not evolve to be surrounded by hordes of strangers in a filthy, noisy, non-productive habitat dwelling mostly indoors! Worse, all urbanized societies – past and present – create a hierarchy of wealth, influence, privilege and power while living far beyond their means. It’s why EVERY civilized society (as a whole) is / will be deeply in debt ecologically, financially and spiritually. Its not for nothing the most highly civilized members of Western culture are also the least spiritual people (spiritual meaning an acknowledgement to the mystery of being). The spiritless have reduced life to the the workings of a machine. which is laughable if you think it.
Actually, drug and alcohol related deaths (per capita) are highest in rural areas in the US. It’s the 21st century. Family farms and manufacturing (2 of the former pillars of rural/small town life in the US) largely no longer exist. Rural Americans, generally, have very few educational, employment, or cultural opportunities. That’s why small towns keep shrinking while getting older and angrier. Your comment about stoners is funny and betrays your naivete. I can only assume you don’t know very many.
Whether what you wrote is true or false, Henry’s points are quite correct. Civilization is a major problem on the planet, and the vast majority of the harms it causes are not suffered by humans. Humans focus on all the wrong things and disregard the right ones, hence the situation we’re in.
Well, Jeff, while I agree civilization is a conundrum, to say “humans focus on all the wrong things and disregard the right ones” is a tad arrogant. You can’t make lemonade without lemons.
Lemonade and lemons are irrelevant here. There’s nothing arrogant about my comment; instead, your reaction is human supremacist, aka anthropocentric.
Read the outline by clicking on the link below, and tell me where you disagree. I’m not going to get into a detailed argument on this site, far too much for here.
https://rewilding.org/fixing-humans-by-expanding-our-consciousness/
Jeff, if you believe you can pass judgement on humanity without arrogance, I’ll leave it to you. Nonetheless, you and I are humans (or, perhaps I presume too much). Trying to set the clock to a point where humans are other than human is ambitious but more than I can imagine possible in my mortal lifetime.
It’s not about passing judgment, you’re projecting. It’s about humans fulfilling our only legitimate role here and refraining from killing and destroying. If that’s what you mean by “arrogant,” then yeah, I’m the most arrogant MFer on the planet.
And BTW, this is a long term goal. I never said it could be accomplished in our lifetimes or even 1,000 years from now. Nevertheless, it’s what needs to be done.
Aristotle, and others, wrote that there’s an ideal size of polity. A polity can become overlarge. He’d see our cities as overlarge.
I’m pretty sure Aristotle’s concept of scale is irrelevant in the 21st century.
Oh, no. It’s one of the most relevant things in political science. Thomas Jefferson wrote something similar, if you prefer an American. I like Aristotle.
If you say so. Quoting some dizzy whore from the 19th century doesn’t legitimate the thesis.
My point is just that many have noticed the same thing. If I post quotes, you’ll probably appreciate the insights.
The important concept isn’t so much Aristotle’s ideal but that there is a scale concern. If you go too far in one direction or another, you have something less than ideal. And he describes the problem.
Similarly, Aristotle praised a large middle class. He didn’t write, as libertarians here do, that the rich should be motivated by pursuit of wealth. I would argue that we wouldn’t have war if not for the extremes of wealth in the US. So, I blame war on the libertarians.
I never recall reading a libertarian saying that the rich SHOULD be motivated by pursuit of wealth.
But from proto-libertarians forward, it’s a commonplace observation that pretty much everyone IS motivated by pursuit of wealth. Adam Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”
It’d be better that they just took the day off instead. Wealth divides lead to corruption. Where that line is drawn isn’t easy, is perhaps nearly impossible, to determine.
But as Aristotle notes: there is an ideal of the middle.
Adam Smith couldn’t even grasp trade and the importance of attracting investment capital. He didn’t understand national economics, is just a mass ideologue and a cosmopolitan interested in the “wealth of nations,” plural.
True, Smith didn’t really seem to buy into nationalist death-cultism.
Overpopulation is never irrelevant. In fact, it’s the biggest and worst problem on the planet. What Luchorpan was referring to was how human overpopulation makes democracy impossible, which is true and correct, but my main concern is how human overpopulation is destroying our planet and killing so much of the life here.
I suspected contrarian POVs. OF course, they are welcome. Where did I write that contemporary rural society is faring better than contemporary urban society? It’s just the problems are far more intense within large cities. And, nearly all of the problems in rural / frontier America today spilled out of the cities … “agri-business” paid from urban-based corporations; most synthesized illegal drugs flow in from urban areas; the dregs of urban society move to country towns to live on welfare, etc. etc.
Clearly, you are an urbanite. Yes? We own two cattle ranches, one in southeastern Wyoming and another in Colorado. Both of our properties are surrounded by family farms in every direction. While it’s true the countryside emptied out following WWII and many small towns died, those that survived are vibrant by rural town standards. Perhaps, get out of your concrete canyon and come see for yourself.
Henry, where did I write that you wrote that “contemporary rural society is faring better than contemporary urban society?” Lol. I was born and raised on a farm in Western Minnesota in the late 70s-early 80s. Both of my parents were 3rd generation farmers. However, like many others we lost our family farm to the bank in the mid-80s, so my folks packed us up and moved to the gleaming boomtown of Phoenix, AZ where I spent the 2nd half of my childhood. I get that “family farms” still exist. However, as a matter of scale, they’ve been replaced by corporate farms. I’ve spent most of my adult life in cities. But, more out of convenience/necessity than choice. I hate living in the city (and frankly, don’t like humans all that much). But, now that I’m at a point where I can live just about anywhere I want, I’m about ready to get out. I’d gladly accept an invitation to visit yer spread if you extend one. Ha! I think the problem is capitalism. For reference, if I had to name persons/people I consider fellow travelers, they’d be the likes of Edward Abbey, Karl Hess, and the Hopi.
I’ve lived in cities, but by preference I’m a rural guy. I grew up on a farm and then in a small town. I’ve lived in mid-sized cities (St. Louis being the largest) and visited bigger ones (New York, LA, etc.). Nothing against them, they’re just not really for me. Right now, I live “in the country” but a few miles from a city of 100k. I’d like to get another 20 miles out. Give me a trailer on a few wooded acres (with enough horizon exposure for solar panels somewhere on the property), and I’d only go to town when I absolutely had to.
I totally agree with your second paragraph and am also vehemently opposed to industrial society, civilization, and agriculture. Humans went down the wrong path thousands of years ago when they moved away from living naturally and started using agriculture. We should focus on expanding our consciousness, wisdom and empathy, not on unnaturally and very harmfully manipulating the physical/natural world. See my book outline here: https://rewilding.org/fixing-humans-by-expanding-our-consciousness/
Reject agriculture? How is that possible? Those who utilize it will be empowered over those don’t.
It’s like wanting to close Pandora’s Box or uneat the apple from the Garden of Eden. How is it done? A massive EMP? Even that wouldn’t be enough.
The only scenario I can envision is a nuclear war destroying most of mankind and most of the world with it. But even then… many things would be remembered.
If you took over the world, you could force the change, total power.
Yes, it would all happen again unless some outside factor (predator, disease) constrains population growth.
How about humans evolve mentally and spiritually so that we aren’t willing to live in ways that are harmful to the Earth and/or the life here? Did you click on the link I provided in my previous post? I never said that cessation of agriculture could be forced. Evolving mentally and spiritually is the only way to solve problems like this, because we’ll never be able to force people to stop living unnaturally or to prevent them from doing the great harms that they do.
And BTW, these are very long-term solutions. We didn’t get into this mess overnight, and we’re not getting out of it overnight either. We could return to living as hunter-gatherers in maybe 5,000 years; we could get rid of industrial society in 150-200 years. Changes would have to be incremental, just like lowering population with birth control and abortion.
I didn’t click on the link, because I might get hacked. I might click on it later.
The changes you describe aren’t possible as you describe them. Power doesn’t work like that.
You should seriously consider world conquest if you want the changes you describe.
No, that’s unevolved thinking, which is the problem here. Mentally and spiritually evolved people don’t lust after power, in fact they don’t want it at all. Siddhartha taught 2,500 years ago that we need to shed our desires, and it’s clear that hardly anyone has learned that lesson. I’m not at all predicting that people will evolve mentally and spiritually, I’m just saying that this is what’s needed above all else. If that doesn’t happen, humans will just continue destroying the Earth and all the life here, including each other.
According to Siddhartha et al., such a state of having shed desires takes place over a cycle of birth and rebirth. For almost all people, moksha occurs after many lives. It’s not like everyone is capable of just sitting under the bodhi tree and getting up enlightened (and who knows how many lives Siddhartha had lived before the one in which he did that)? Within a Buddhist context, all of us are just slaves of this cycle. That we may not all be at the same place IN that cycle isn’t really a moral judgment against us.
Really? Show me where Siddhartha talked about reincarnation or multiple lives. I’ve studied and I practice real Buddhism — as taught by Siddhartha, not the perverted crap that passes for Buddhism nowadays in most places — and I don’t remember any talk about multiple lives. See my response to Luchorpan above.
The last portion of your comment is just a cop-out. Mentally competent adults are responsible for their actions and inactions.
“Mentally competent adults are responsible for their actions and inactions.”
I never said otherwise.
“I practice real Buddhism”
So does every other Buddhist. Unless you were there under the bodhi tree talking directly with him, you don’t have the slightest idea what he actually had to say. You have what other people say he had to say.
That’s ridiculous. They had written language, and much of Siddhartha’s teachings were written down.
It won’t happen. You have to look at power struggles.
It would be better if those who don’t want power were given power. That is a sort of teaching in political science. I think Plato said it? I don’t remember. Many have said it. Machiavelli said those who seek power tend to obtain it, paraphrasing very loosely.
There’s another saying that freedom arises from a balance of power.
Saying something won’t happen either means that you’re a defeatist, or that you don’t want it to happen. I reject that unfounded prediction. I’ve learned from playing sports that if you keep trying, you never know what might happen, despite the chances being against you.
Totally agree about people & power. The only people who should be put into positions of power are those who don’t want power. Friends have tried to convince me to run for office, and I always respond, What did I ever do to you?
It’s not defeatist. Power struggles are like the law of gravity. You can accomplish something or achieve a goal, but it has to be within what’s possible.
You should run for office. If you’re driven to help, that’s the correct motive.
But power struggles are really so key. You need to read Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Burnham on the Machiavellians.
–
But there’s more to it. But I’m right wing; so, I don’t expect cosmopolitan solutions to work like leftists here want. If you’re Buddhist, you’re probably in some regards right wing also, but you seem to take a more global approach.
I tend to aim for a best-possible society within one polity, expecting that as possible and a global solution impossible. Nothing endures forever, and polities are always changing in small and in large ways. As a Buddhist, you should appreciate the constant change. So, what you can hope for is just a temporarily good society.
I dunno how interesting you’ll find this, but partly why bad men are in power is we have very cosmopolitan polities. There’s little sense of group to sacrifice for. That’s not the only thing people sacrifice for.
Buddha seems focused on the next life, ending rebirth. It seems empty to me but with deep wisdom. Merchants (bad) supported the religion early, I read somewhere. I prefer Hinduism. I expect East Asian native religions were better except for the human sacrifice, to whatever extent that existed.
The main reason that bad men always get into power is that they’re the most aggressive ones. In a more evolved, moral, and just society, these people would be expelled or at least sidelined, but in this one they’re rewarded.
It’s a common misconception that Siddhartha (there are multiple Buddhas, which is a title; Gautama Siddhartha was the name of the original one and the one most people refer to as the Buddha) preached or talked about literal reincarnation. In fact he did not. He was asked about it once and basically shrugged off the question, leading me to believe that he didn’t even believe in it, but didn’t want to offend the questioner, who likely had a Hindu background. Real Buddhism, at least as Siddhartha taught, has nothing to do with reincarnation, at least not literal reincarnation. What he preached and taught was becoming mindful, removing “veils” that prevent people from seeing reality, shutting off one’s inner voices (which are major distractions), living in the here & now, shedding desires in order to feel fulfilled & happy, and expanding one’s consciousness. Siddhartha was totally focused on this life, not at all on the next one. Not even clear whether he believed in a next life.
I suggest a book called What the Buddha Taught if you can still find it. The title accurately describes the book, and reading it will disabuse you of all the perversions that real Buddhism has gone through since Siddhartha founded it.
As to Hinduism, that’s exactly what Siddhartha revised, and in a very positive manner. Buddhism is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism. Siddhartha and Christ had much better ideas than the old, stale, and ossified religions they were born into, but unfortunately their ideas have become totally perverted. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!
Things will get worse with biotech. Biotech will make a system of ethics impossible. We’ll probably attempt a system around intelligence as having a soul, but I fear the mystery of Creation is the best justification of a soul and of individual human value.
The most important and biggest harm from that evil immoral crap is to the natural environment and the life there. Creating unnatural life also creates all sorts of dangers, whether humans recognize them or not. These a-holes should go live on Giedi Prime if they want to live that way.
Imagine swimming in a coral reef, and a fish swims by. You feel one with God, admire His creation. But then, a fish lights up, and a sign on the fish displays “Eat at Joe’s.”
They seem to want to apply economic pressure to force Mexico to work with them against the cartels and against illegals.
Uh huh. What could go wrong, right?
Right. Invade Mexico to fight drug smuggling gangs. Good news for our domestic biker gangs, who can bring fentanyl production home where it belongs. USA! USA!
From what I can see, the war on drugs, like the war on terror, are sophist excuses designed to give overreaching Presidents an excuse to do anything they wish in other countries. The post by “boxovvapor” illustrates this. We didn’t invade Panama to combat drugs. We did it to assure everyone in Panama that WE control the canal.
Reagan and maybe Bush even said publicly that it was about the Canal. I distinctly remember Reagan saying it on TV.
You are not suggesting the US government lies to its citizens are you? LOL
day late, dollar short, border’s open, they’re movin’ in, apparently already infiltrated USCIS/USBP/USMC, probably the Army, buying AZ and CA state govt. Lots of naked ambition and human energy to the south, legal or otherwise. Old fat out-of-touch ignorant white americans can’t hope to compete with that so lock up your stuff learn spanish keep eyes open, head down…things are gonna get interesting…
Americans have been speaking Spanish since before the Declaration of Independence (which was published in Spanish, as well as in English, French, German, and Dutch).
The border’s always been open, and the border will always be open. Thank God.
A day late and a dollar short to do something evil? Interesting comment, to put it very diplomatically.