4 ms·

I think you are inferring too much from too short a period of history. Rhee's semi-monarchial military government ended only in 1960. East Asians have long ope

I think you are inferring too much from too short a period of history. Rhee's semi-monarchial military government ended only in 1960. East Asians have long operated a comparatively strong state apparatus, a system borrowed from the Qin that goes back about 2200 years, which many scholars will argue is the first truly bureaucratic state. This is one of the central components of a developed country, and certainly of big government, but is no protection against dictators. It certainly never was for China or Japan (or Korea under Japanese rule). Even the recent history of Korea puts your point about what happens when "...the government abandons its duty to protect people." in doubt, because Rhee was the government. What has tended to balance out the power of the state historically is (a) a sense of law as something independent of the government and binding on it and (b) mechanisms of accountability, like elections, that require large portions of the state apparatus to consider what they are doing in light of public approval.

yongjik 6y ago
I think we might be talking past each other, so let me elaborate a bit: That Rhee's dictatorship ended only in 1960 is precisely my point - he was soon followed by Park Chung-Hee (killed by his own aide on 1979), who was followed by Chun Doo-Hwan (stepped down on 1988). In other words, the memory of dictatorship is still fresh in many South Koreans alive now - unlike America's revolutionary war, this is too recent (and, not too mention, too inglorious) to be painted over by some kind of PG-13 foundational myth. So the suggestion that the size of the government has something to do with dictatorship would make many Koreans politely roll their eyes. Right or wrong, our world view is shaped by our experience - and my Korean experience says having a weak government has nothing to do with avoiding tyranny, and in fact is a pretty good predictor for an incoming shitstorm (be it a foreign aggression or a domestic coup). What we need is a reasonably strong government, led by the right people. (Well of course it's not foolproof - but then again, nothing is.)
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  How did the size of the government contribute to the problematic transitions you mention; or how did a strong government contribute to their solution? The idea that a strong government, led by the right people, is a concept that actually leads to a robust system of government would make many Americans politely roll their eyes. We had a long experience with such a system. After we extricated ourselves from it, we had a long experience extricating other countries from such systems. I hope you'll excuse me for saying so, but there is something profoundly solipsistic and unreasonable about asking me to accept your Korean experience as a basis for a claim as broad as you are making. If that is really the end and the beginning of your chain of reasoning, I urge you to reconsider your approach: we can't, unfortunately, base our understanding of political development on our experience: it's a topic with a long history and a long, long cycle time. A comparative approach, and a willingness to consider like problems and like situations in other countries, nets greater understanding in this area.
  - yongjik 6y ago
    > We had a long experience with such a system. No, your ancestors had experience with such a system. They are long dead, and the struggles they faced and lessons they learned have been abstracted and bowdlerized until all we're left with is a parable against the abstract idea of a dictator. George Washington wasn't fighting an abstract dictator. He was fighting the British Empire, an actual existing enemy with an actual ruler, with millions of people on every sides who either supported or fought against it for their own reasons. I can't even pretend to understand the issues they faced, but I do know that you cannot summarize them into a single factor. Consider a much simpler event, like 9/11. If anyone says, "There's one reason why 9/11 happened, which is X - this is why we must never do X ever again," how much would you trust such an analysis? That's all I'm saying. My Korean experience tells me that anyone who says it can be reduced to a single factor, or even a major factor (the size of the government), is selling snake oil. Of course, that doesn't mean I know a universal solution to avoid tyranny. If there was such a solution, mankind didn't discover it yet.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      But to come back to the points you made about Korea, what does government size have to do with any of the transitions that you mentioned? It is not reasonable to draw only on recent, lived experience when discussing political development. There is continuity of institutions from generation to generation. In the USA we have the benefit of long experience with democratic institutions, though of course this is no substitute for offering justification for our ideas. We do, however, have to look at history fairly broadly to see how these principles come into play. To consider this all in light of your original comment and subsequent ones, you seem very confident about the application of Korean experience to American and Americans but seem to have little interest or understanding of the application of the American experience to America or Americans. It doesn't make much sense, unless the subtext is that you do not believe in the worth of applying history or the comparative method in this area at all, and rather regard Korea as a kind of model or blueprint, applicable to any nation at any time. The way you are referencing your Korean experience, as a source for statements about the most general topics, it's just a roundabout way of saying "My opinion is...".

yongjik 6y ago

I think we might be talking past each other, so let me elaborate a bit: That Rhee's dictatorship ended only in 1960 is precisely my point - he was soon followed by Park Chung-Hee (killed by his own aide on 1979), who was followed by Chun Doo-Hwan (stepped down on 1988). In other words, the memory of dictatorship is still fresh in many South Koreans alive now - unlike America's revolutionary war, this is too recent (and, not too mention, too inglorious) to be painted over by some kind of PG-13 foundational myth. So the suggestion that the size of the government has something to do with dictatorship would make many Koreans politely roll their eyes. Right or wrong, our world view is shaped by our experience - and my Korean experience says having a weak government has nothing to do with avoiding tyranny, and in fact is a pretty good predictor for an incoming shitstorm (be it a foreign aggression or a domestic coup). What we need is a reasonably strong government, led by the right people. (Well of course it's not foolproof - but then again, nothing is.)

solidsnack9000 6y ago
How did the size of the government contribute to the problematic transitions you mention; or how did a strong government contribute to their solution? The idea that a strong government, led by the right people, is a concept that actually leads to a robust system of government would make many Americans politely roll their eyes. We had a long experience with such a system. After we extricated ourselves from it, we had a long experience extricating other countries from such systems. I hope you'll excuse me for saying so, but there is something profoundly solipsistic and unreasonable about asking me to accept your Korean experience as a basis for a claim as broad as you are making. If that is really the end and the beginning of your chain of reasoning, I urge you to reconsider your approach: we can't, unfortunately, base our understanding of political development on our experience: it's a topic with a long history and a long, long cycle time. A comparative approach, and a willingness to consider like problems and like situations in other countries, nets greater understanding in this area.
- yongjik 6y ago
  > We had a long experience with such a system. No, your ancestors had experience with such a system. They are long dead, and the struggles they faced and lessons they learned have been abstracted and bowdlerized until all we're left with is a parable against the abstract idea of a dictator. George Washington wasn't fighting an abstract dictator. He was fighting the British Empire, an actual existing enemy with an actual ruler, with millions of people on every sides who either supported or fought against it for their own reasons. I can't even pretend to understand the issues they faced, but I do know that you cannot summarize them into a single factor. Consider a much simpler event, like 9/11. If anyone says, "There's one reason why 9/11 happened, which is X - this is why we must never do X ever again," how much would you trust such an analysis? That's all I'm saying. My Korean experience tells me that anyone who says it can be reduced to a single factor, or even a major factor (the size of the government), is selling snake oil. Of course, that doesn't mean I know a universal solution to avoid tyranny. If there was such a solution, mankind didn't discover it yet.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    But to come back to the points you made about Korea, what does government size have to do with any of the transitions that you mentioned? It is not reasonable to draw only on recent, lived experience when discussing political development. There is continuity of institutions from generation to generation. In the USA we have the benefit of long experience with democratic institutions, though of course this is no substitute for offering justification for our ideas. We do, however, have to look at history fairly broadly to see how these principles come into play. To consider this all in light of your original comment and subsequent ones, you seem very confident about the application of Korean experience to American and Americans but seem to have little interest or understanding of the application of the American experience to America or Americans. It doesn't make much sense, unless the subtext is that you do not believe in the worth of applying history or the comparative method in this area at all, and rather regard Korea as a kind of model or blueprint, applicable to any nation at any time. The way you are referencing your Korean experience, as a source for statements about the most general topics, it's just a roundabout way of saying "My opinion is...".