3 ms·

There is a big difference though. The power of the Pope has been restricted over a period of centuries. The power of the Emperor of Japan has only been restrict

by geuis 10y ago

There is a big difference though. The power of the Pope has been restricted over a period of centuries. The power of the Emperor of Japan has only been restricted for about 70 years. At this point, neither party can really "make decisions with consequence", especially the Pope. They can mutually make declarations, and people may or may not respond to them. In that regard, they are as equally weak as all of the various monarchies of Europe and Southeast Asia. However, Japan is fairly unique in this set of players. They have a highly homogenized population and culture. The changes to their cultural leadership are only 70 years old. When I visited there in 2010, I left with a feeling that I visited a sleeping country/culture that was literally missing some polarizing goal to reignite it. That doesn't necessarily mean warlike, but it does mean ambitious. Don't be quick to think of Japan as some tamed tiger or lion. It definitely is not.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> When I visited there in 2010, I left with a feeling that I visited a sleeping country/culture that was literally missing some polarizing goal to reignite it. Isn't this similar to the whole Western world? I mean, my impression of modern democracies I know is they're similar to headless chickens - running around without a point or a goal, but oh how fast they run. EDIT: to be clear, I'm not criticizing democracy here per se, this is my observation about the Western societies. I understand it's not the role of a government to dictate a goal for people - it's to facilitate pursuing goals in a stable and orderly manner. But wouldn't it be nice if our societies had at least a little bit more of a sense of common purpose?
- kiba 10y ago
  It is the western democracies' various unelected professional bureaucracy that keep those democracies working, however imperfect those organizations are. Let not pretend that a democracy is a great way to choose people for office. It's a terrible way, but I am not sure how one would do better.
- gkya 10y ago
  Plato's Politicus has an interesting comparison of different political systems in 302b-303c, putting democracy as basically ineffective, saying a corrupt democracy is the least harmful among corrupt systems, and a good, working democracy is the worst among good, working systems. See the text, starting from: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Stat.+302b&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Stat.+302...
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    In my interpretation of Western democracies, it is the job of the private sector to make life better for people (if a bit unevenly), whereas it is the job of the state to keep lives from getting worse.

by geuis 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> When I visited there in 2010, I left with a feeling that I visited a sleeping country/culture that was literally missing some polarizing goal to reignite it. Isn't this similar to the whole Western world? I mean, my impression of modern democracies I know is they're similar to headless chickens - running around without a point or a goal, but oh how fast they run. EDIT: to be clear, I'm not criticizing democracy here per se, this is my observation about the Western societies. I understand it's not the role of a government to dictate a goal for people - it's to facilitate pursuing goals in a stable and orderly manner. But wouldn't it be nice if our societies had at least a little bit more of a sense of common purpose?

kiba 10y ago
It is the western democracies' various unelected professional bureaucracy that keep those democracies working, however imperfect those organizations are. Let not pretend that a democracy is a great way to choose people for office. It's a terrible way, but I am not sure how one would do better.
gkya 10y ago
Plato's Politicus has an interesting comparison of different political systems in 302b-303c, putting democracy as basically ineffective, saying a corrupt democracy is the least harmful among corrupt systems, and a good, working democracy is the worst among good, working systems. See the text, starting from: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Stat.+302b&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Stat.+302...
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  In my interpretation of Western democracies, it is the job of the private sector to make life better for people (if a bit unevenly), whereas it is the job of the state to keep lives from getting worse.