5 ms·

There is a fundamental discord between property rights and democracy. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC0ZB2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 htt

There is a fundamental discord between property rights and democracy. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC0ZB2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC0ZB2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?.... It speaks a lot about market dominant ethnic minorities. The Chinese and the Jews are the target of a lot of these attacks. If you're filipino, and ethnic filipino, it's easy for a populist government to incite economic confiscation and persecution of the ethnic group that tends to hold all the money, which happens to be the Chinese in the Phillipines. Same thing happened in Venezuela. "All the rich people have the money! Let's go take it back! They must have cheated us somehow! Nationalize the factories."

tptacek 10y ago
There's also an even clearer historical tension between property rights and right-wing authoritarian dictatorships, so I'm not sure how much we can learn from your observation.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > There's also an even clearer historical tension between property rights and right-wing authoritarian dictatorships This is true. However right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven, and don't pretend that what they're doing is just "for the good of the people". Most left wing ideological governments usually go down the bitter road to the end, and do things for political rather than financial purposes. They usually end in either a referendum or revolt when all the money goes away and there are no other exits. That's what Venezuela is doing right now. And it's also quite interesting that your response is "Oh yeah? Well the right wing does it too." What's your point? Maybe it does, and they should be strung up by the thumbs as well. We're talking about left-wing governments who believe in central control of methods of production.
  - eternalban 10y ago
    > However right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven, don't pretend that what they're doing is just "for the good of the people". I'm curious. Do you have a specimen in mind? [p.s.] > right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven And I question this as well. The ideological basis of right-wing is precisely that the natural order of things is a rigid & hierarchical and that such hierarchies are by nature more stable. And anywho, minus the superficial comrade this and people's soviet that, what was the difference between Stalinist Soviet Union and some right wing system with a generalisimo on top?
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      Check out South Korea and Taiwan. The power went fairly smoothly from a military dictatorship to a democratically elected government. Sure the parallel isn't perfect - Taiwan and South Korea were on a war footing against communist rump states. However, the generals never claimed any particular moral high ground or rights.
      - eternalban 10y ago
        Surely they both justified their military dictatorship as a bulwark from the menace of communism and for liberation/unification of homeland, which sounds to me like "good of the Chinese/Korean people." I patiently await for you to point me to a cite that documents that the South Korean/Taiwanese military justified their rule because they asserted the right to dress up in military uniforms and lord it over the rest of the population.
      - resfirestar 10y ago
        That last bit isn't true at all for South Korea. Park Chung-hee, the general who ruled for nearly 20 years, was president under 3 constitutions, each further consolidating his power, importantly with the appearance of a democratic mandate. Despite the appearance of a democracy and the Reagan-like legacy he holds, Park was definitely a dictator: under the Yusin constitution, the president (only Park was eligible to run for president per carefully designed requirements) appointed the parliament, could suspend any freedom, and even legislate without his parliament's rubber stamp in emergencies. Most enterprise was limited to Park's inner circle (which became the chaebol), allowing him to have a planned economy that finally surpassed North Korea's. Labor rights were nonexistent, journalists and other writers frequently became political prisoners, and travel outside the country was not allowed. The only thing that can be convincingly said to be better (holding Western liberal democracy as best) than in North Korea is the GDP, whether that meant much to the average citizen is up for debate since North Korea remains opaque. And it surely would have carried on if not for Park's assassination, which left no obvious successor. The new constitution (remember, Yusin made sure that only Park Chung-hee could be president) had a term limit on the new president, Chun Doo-hwan, to appease democratization activists who had been incensed by the Gwangju (5/18) massacre, the murder of hundreds or thousands of people for the crime of living in a restive province. When Chun's term ended, violent protests, this time in Seoul, forced his successor to make the 6/29 Declaration, a complete capitulation to the democratization activists. That was long...point is, South Korea's military dictators did claim a democratic mandate, justifying oppression as the only way to economic prosperity (sound familiar?). After Park Chung-hee, they sought to appease democratization activists. Despite that effort, the transition was quite messy, not "fairly smooth": between 200 and 2000 protestors were killed in one week in 1980, and democracy was finally won through violent protests in the streets of Seoul in 1987.
  - i7i 10y ago
    >However right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven How is that even a logically coherent sentence...
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      The quote from here should help http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33029.html http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33029.html. Basically authoritarian governments want something, and don't really care what else happens as long as they get what they want. Fanatics want to run everything.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        That is also not an accurate statement. Authoritarians can be motivated by greed (Manuel Noriega), or by a desired outcome (Queen Elizabeth), or by ideology (Pol Pot). There isn't a meaningful spectrum that has "authoritarian" on one side and "communitarian" on the other. One is a "how" and the other a "why".
      - narag 10y ago
        I would express it other way. Right wing dictatorships get support in middle class, while left wing dictatorships get support in working class. Middle class is better educated and more loving of order, so it's easier to structure society and even transitioning to a democracy. We did it in Spain forty years ago. Working class dictatorships need more propaganda, distrust elites (except the very people in politic power) and change, so the paranoia is much bigger.
    - tnzn 10y ago
      Man this guy is so full of shit, he throws strong words everywhere without knowing their meanings...
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven, don't pretend that what they're doing is just "for the good of the people WTF? Hitler definitely said he did what he did for the good of the German people (okay. not the Jewish people or handicapped people, but the people that mattered)
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      Also, Hitler was a national socialist.
      - paulddraper 10y ago
        In name, sure. But in substance, fascist. Had Hitler been far left, he might have liked Russia more. https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitlers-Nazi-party-left-wing-or-right-wing https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitlers-Nazi-party-left-wing-or-ri... Of course this probably just shows that left vs right is really one dimensional, and politics is bigger then one dimension.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Again with "trying to reason from the word socialist is not making you more credible".
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        Is socialist a word devoid of all meaning now, and you can negate any argument that uses it? Again with "trying to use the word socialist without a clear definition is not making your argument any more credible."
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        It was certainly devoid of meaning when it came to its use in the name "National Socialist Worker's Party". In other contexts, it's oftsn used with substantial meaning, and even often with a consistent enough meaning that uses are comparable. But that doesn't suddenly render the atypical uses examples of the usual meaning.

tptacek 10y ago

There's also an even clearer historical tension between property rights and right-wing authoritarian dictatorships, so I'm not sure how much we can learn from your observation.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> There's also an even clearer historical tension between property rights and right-wing authoritarian dictatorships This is true. However right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven, and don't pretend that what they're doing is just "for the good of the people". Most left wing ideological governments usually go down the bitter road to the end, and do things for political rather than financial purposes. They usually end in either a referendum or revolt when all the money goes away and there are no other exits. That's what Venezuela is doing right now. And it's also quite interesting that your response is "Oh yeah? Well the right wing does it too." What's your point? Maybe it does, and they should be strung up by the thumbs as well. We're talking about left-wing governments who believe in central control of methods of production.
- eternalban 10y ago
  > However right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven, don't pretend that what they're doing is just "for the good of the people". I'm curious. Do you have a specimen in mind? [p.s.] > right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven And I question this as well. The ideological basis of right-wing is precisely that the natural order of things is a rigid & hierarchical and that such hierarchies are by nature more stable. And anywho, minus the superficial comrade this and people's soviet that, what was the difference between Stalinist Soviet Union and some right wing system with a generalisimo on top?
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    Check out South Korea and Taiwan. The power went fairly smoothly from a military dictatorship to a democratically elected government. Sure the parallel isn't perfect - Taiwan and South Korea were on a war footing against communist rump states. However, the generals never claimed any particular moral high ground or rights.
    - eternalban 10y ago
      Surely they both justified their military dictatorship as a bulwark from the menace of communism and for liberation/unification of homeland, which sounds to me like "good of the Chinese/Korean people." I patiently await for you to point me to a cite that documents that the South Korean/Taiwanese military justified their rule because they asserted the right to dress up in military uniforms and lord it over the rest of the population.
    - resfirestar 10y ago
      That last bit isn't true at all for South Korea. Park Chung-hee, the general who ruled for nearly 20 years, was president under 3 constitutions, each further consolidating his power, importantly with the appearance of a democratic mandate. Despite the appearance of a democracy and the Reagan-like legacy he holds, Park was definitely a dictator: under the Yusin constitution, the president (only Park was eligible to run for president per carefully designed requirements) appointed the parliament, could suspend any freedom, and even legislate without his parliament's rubber stamp in emergencies. Most enterprise was limited to Park's inner circle (which became the chaebol), allowing him to have a planned economy that finally surpassed North Korea's. Labor rights were nonexistent, journalists and other writers frequently became political prisoners, and travel outside the country was not allowed. The only thing that can be convincingly said to be better (holding Western liberal democracy as best) than in North Korea is the GDP, whether that meant much to the average citizen is up for debate since North Korea remains opaque. And it surely would have carried on if not for Park's assassination, which left no obvious successor. The new constitution (remember, Yusin made sure that only Park Chung-hee could be president) had a term limit on the new president, Chun Doo-hwan, to appease democratization activists who had been incensed by the Gwangju (5/18) massacre, the murder of hundreds or thousands of people for the crime of living in a restive province. When Chun's term ended, violent protests, this time in Seoul, forced his successor to make the 6/29 Declaration, a complete capitulation to the democratization activists. That was long...point is, South Korea's military dictators did claim a democratic mandate, justifying oppression as the only way to economic prosperity (sound familiar?). After Park Chung-hee, they sought to appease democratization activists. Despite that effort, the transition was quite messy, not "fairly smooth": between 200 and 2000 protestors were killed in one week in 1980, and democracy was finally won through violent protests in the streets of Seoul in 1987.
- i7i 10y ago
  >However right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven How is that even a logically coherent sentence...
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    The quote from here should help http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33029.html http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33029.html. Basically authoritarian governments want something, and don't really care what else happens as long as they get what they want. Fanatics want to run everything.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      That is also not an accurate statement. Authoritarians can be motivated by greed (Manuel Noriega), or by a desired outcome (Queen Elizabeth), or by ideology (Pol Pot). There isn't a meaningful spectrum that has "authoritarian" on one side and "communitarian" on the other. One is a "how" and the other a "why".
    - narag 10y ago
      I would express it other way. Right wing dictatorships get support in middle class, while left wing dictatorships get support in working class. Middle class is better educated and more loving of order, so it's easier to structure society and even transitioning to a democracy. We did it in Spain forty years ago. Working class dictatorships need more propaganda, distrust elites (except the very people in politic power) and change, so the paranoia is much bigger.
  - tnzn 10y ago
    Man this guy is so full of shit, he throws strong words everywhere without knowing their meanings...
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > right-wing authoritarian dictatorships aren't usually ideologically driven, don't pretend that what they're doing is just "for the good of the people WTF? Hitler definitely said he did what he did for the good of the German people (okay. not the Jewish people or handicapped people, but the people that mattered)
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    Also, Hitler was a national socialist.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      In name, sure. But in substance, fascist. Had Hitler been far left, he might have liked Russia more. https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitlers-Nazi-party-left-wing-or-right-wing https://www.quora.com/Was-Hitlers-Nazi-party-left-wing-or-ri... Of course this probably just shows that left vs right is really one dimensional, and politics is bigger then one dimension.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Again with "trying to reason from the word socialist is not making you more credible".
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        Is socialist a word devoid of all meaning now, and you can negate any argument that uses it? Again with "trying to use the word socialist without a clear definition is not making your argument any more credible."
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        It was certainly devoid of meaning when it came to its use in the name "National Socialist Worker's Party". In other contexts, it's oftsn used with substantial meaning, and even often with a consistent enough meaning that uses are comparable. But that doesn't suddenly render the atypical uses examples of the usual meaning.