27 ms·

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

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...".
krageon 6y ago
> we had a long experience extricating other countries from such systems Imperialistically rolling into some country that you want to exploit for financial gain is not something to boast about.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  It's not really relevant, either. Much of US involvement with Europe following the revolution and particularly during the World Wars was involuntary, and it was one long process of helping them devolve strong, authoritarian states.
  - krageon 6y ago
    I don't understand why you say it's not relevant and then give examples for why it is.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      These are examples of what's relevant.

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...".

krageon 6y ago

> we had a long experience extricating other countries from such systems Imperialistically rolling into some country that you want to exploit for financial gain is not something to boast about.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
It's not really relevant, either. Much of US involvement with Europe following the revolution and particularly during the World Wars was involuntary, and it was one long process of helping them devolve strong, authoritarian states.
- krageon 6y ago
  I don't understand why you say it's not relevant and then give examples for why it is.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    These are examples of what's relevant.