Is this a case of ideology going too far?

[15357]

That doesn't mean you are actively working against the interests of the country.

But you are depriving of it of manpower, which would be passively working against the interests of the nation.

What if you're weedy and would be better off helping the economy, since you would only weaken the army?

What if the army are shock horror not doing the best thing for the country as a hole?

What if the last two pages are a perfect example of Mecha's post about you?

Then you go to public service under military or Combat Police. You have a choice.

 

[Absinthe]

Before that, why does that make it immoral?

No, you can answer my ****ing question instead of throwing more back at me.

If what you're trying to get at is that morality is subjective or that there is no clear definition of what "moral" constitutes, then good job. You've just undermined yourself as well.

In the meantime, we're going to accept the almost universally held notion that imposing yourself on others in an unwarranted fashion - particularly in any violent and/or invasive manner - is not morally correct. That's at least if we're going off of modern relevance.

 

[Tr0n]

Every time I think I smell that sweet southern Rain
It takes me to a station on a long black train
I want to hear the wind blow feel the earth move below me
In spite of all the good times I gotta to rest my soul

I’m gone Yes I’m gone
Gone to Carolina where I know that I belong
Yes I’m gone Yes I’m gone
Gone to Carolina where I know I have a home

Every time I think I see your face in a crowd
It’s like a bell inside of me and it’s ringin out loud
I’ve been so high for so long there’s nothing tried nor true
I’m thinking about coming down to lay a little on you

And I’m gone Yes I’m gone
Gone to Carolina where I know that I belong
Yes I’m gone Yes I’m gone
Gone to Carolina where I know I have a home
(Take me home)

Yes I’m gone Yes I’m gone
Gone to Carolina where I know that I belong
Yes I’m gone Yes I’m gone
Gone to Carolina where I know I have a home


Sorry your location reminded me of this song. Shooter Jennings rawks.

 

[repiV]

But you are depriving of it of manpower, which would be passively working against the interests of the nation.

That doesn't count.

Then you go to public service under military or Combat Police. You have a choice.

 

[15357]

No, you can answer my ****ing question instead of throwing more back at me.

If what you're trying to get at is that morality is subjective or that there is no clear definition of what "moral" constitutes, then good job. You've just undermined yourself as well.

In the meantime, we're going to accept the almost universally held notion that imposing yourself on others in an unwarranted fashion - particularly in any violent and/or invasive manner - is not morally correct. That's at least if we're going off of modern relevance.

Indeed I have.

I'll agree with that.

I could write an entire paragraph about the nation and the people's interests, but since morality is comepletely subjective, it wouldn't matter anyway.

That doesn't count.

Yes, it does. You aren't Lady Justice.

 

[repiV]

Indeed I have.

I'll agree with that.

I could write an entire paragraph about the nation and the people's interests, but since morality is comepletely subjective, it wouldn't matter anyway.




Yes, it does. You aren't Lady Justice.

traitor

1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Don't argue semantics with me. English isn't even your first language, and I'm a qualified EFL teacher.

 

[15357]

Criminal Code 93: Anyone who fights against the Republic of Korea will be put to death

Criminal Code 97: Anyone who aids the enemy, or in wartime, fails to give needed aid to the nation is defined as a traitor.

97b: 1. sentece will be blah blah blah.

 

[repiV]

Criminal Code 93: Anyone who fights against the Republic of Korea will be put to death

Criminal Code 97: Anyone who aids the enemy, or in wartime, fails to give needed aid to the nation is defined as a traitor.

97b: 1. sentece will be blah blah blah.

How is one extra conscript "needed aid" at this moment in time? You might as well say that women who don't have a baby every year to supply the war machine are traitors.

 

[15357]

Technically, we are at war, and have been for 56 years. Imagine if everyone thought: Its only me!

 

[repiV]

Technically, we are at war, and have been for 56 years. Imagine if everyone thought: Its only me!

Technically. But so what?

 

[15357]

Technically. But so what?

Theres mr psycho to the north of us who wants to kill us all with nukes?


//

The problem is, I have never really had this argument before.....

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Let's check the retardometer.

"I tend to dislike and even hate communism, obviously because of Mr. Psychopath in the north."

No-one is going to give you a trophy for being (vaguely) better than Kim Jong Il.

"Perhaps it's because I've read and heard about in countlesss numbers of blah blah blah blah blah... teh progress. "

Anyone with half a brain knows communism is a flawed system. Now here's where you explain why that gives you the right to be almost exactly as retarded.

"Let me tell you, that there are no ideal things in this world."

No shit. Thanks for that revelation, given that ideal things are by definition not real.

"Even democracy and freedom we all hold dear to in times of unrest and just normal times is not ideal. Achieving something overtly utopian is impossible."

That being said, this is bullshit. Perfection is impossible, but that's no excuse to slum in your ass-backwards version of morality.
Life can be improved to a near-maximum through simply having a framework that minimizes the inevitable flaws.
Utopia is thus as easy as tossing idealism out the window and working towards a best worst-case in reality.

Your personal utopia in this model is simply "not communism", and anything that isn't communism is probably "acceptable". In another thread you're calling for the destruction of "subhuman" north koreans.
If your standards get any lower, you might as well just shoot yourself now because you're already in heaven.

It's reasonable to understand that life can be improved to a maximum point.
So let's look at your reasons for being unreasonable:


"As for my support of the goverment and a centrallized establishment, I will first point out that most of you don't explain your support for a liberal State but somehow that works, because others agree with it. Goverment centrallization can bring massive amounts of effectivness to the system, and everything from crime prevention to healthcare could be done easily with effectivness. That is what you want, is it not? A goverment that actually works."

Way to put forward the most superficial point possible.
You aren't just calling for centralized government. Only anarchists, who are idiots, support fully decentralized government. Everyone else in the world approves of at least some degree of centralization.

The question is accountability.
You're calling for an authoritarian government.
The more sensible folk of the world understand that people need a good degree of influence over their government.
Effectively, the only thing that is needed is a system which prevents the inevitable stupid descisions a majority vote can make. In your utopia, that involves the government controlling essentially as much as possible - and the rest of us just hoping that they'll be benevolent dictators instead of otherwise.
Of course, that's the mindset that gave us communism in the first place.

Instead of a system of control, the solution is simple balance. America has it pretty close to the correct way of setting things up with their checks and balances, but the system is far from airtight thanks to the extreme influence of the ignorant.

Speaking of ignorant, this is where the batshit hits the fan:

"In order to protect our freedoms and Democracy itself, we must be able to sacrifice something for it. There are no gains, without giving something. Equal exchange is needed for everything in this world. A good goverment, an effective goverment, will be able to destroy and neutralize our enemies, and take what is rightfully ours, with the payment of minor civil liberties."

What the hell kind of logic is this based on? The Rock, Paper, Scissors school of political science?

Simply accepting a dearth of freedom as an inevitable given is horrendously stupid.
In a real utopia, freedoms are inalienable so long as they do not conflict with greater freedoms.
In your utopia, the loss of freedom isn't necessary so much as it is arbitrary. If the government is mildly inconvenienced by something, even for no reason, you drop the freedom as if you never wanted it in the first place.

Again, that's a hallmark of communism and the source mindset of the many horrible communist injustices that you allege turned you into a fascist cocksucker in the first place:

"Also, I have seen the so-called liberal organizations, which are simply mobs of retards who hit cops with iron pipes, and sometimes even use flamethrowers at police. My hatred of those leftist liberal unions and the communists of the north as well as inside, combined, and turned me into an economically-right person, perhaps even fascist."

That pretty much sums up your argument.
Two groups fight, one police the other not.
You don't really care who is more violent, or who is actually fighting for a just cause. You'll just side with whoever's in the uniform.
You're a badgefucker.

So there's the circular logic:
Control is good because control is good.
That's your actual argument, and it's utterly pathetic.

"As for my authoritarianism, it can be traced back to the days of Confucious. Loyalty and piety is an extremely important virtue of our society, and I ve learned it to be a moral thing. Respect of elders, the authority, was what my parents taught me, and loyalty to the fatherland, was what my teachers and ethics textbooks taught me, since the age of 5."

That's your morality?
That everything you're taught as a child is therefore moral? And you see absolutely no flaws in this train of thought?
Like, for example, that you're showing strong moral support for brainwashing toddlers?
That's mao's little red book all over again.
You're conflating morality with tradition, when tradition is basically never moral.

Reasonable people describe morality as that which provides maximum benefit while causing minimum harm.
You are not a reasonable person, so you'll accept any harm that doesn't exceed your extremely loose comfort zone.
How moral is that?
Confucious says that it's good to follow law when the leader leads with excellence.
For you, you'll just settle for whatever he gives you, which destroys everything Confucious stood for.
The entire system breaks down when the leader isn't virtuous.
So either you're ignorant of Confucian teachings, or you're exploiting them to act like a latter-day stalinist.

Accepting a corrupt government because you're taught to as a child is, again, a common communist flaw dating back to well before stalin, and you've swallowed it whole.

"I suspect that many of my fellow Koreans are like this. This certainly explains why Pres. Park Chung Hee, who is described as a military dictator in the BBC, is widely thought to be the greatest president in Korea."

Many of your fellow koreans are like that. Most of your fellow koreans like that, however, live in north korea.

So in this entire post, you've said absolutely nothing different from what a north korean communist would.

Seriously, what does make you different from a communist? Is there anything?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Exactly. Brainwashing is bad. From what little you said, I gather that the teachers were trying to spread different ideas among students.

Were no fools here. If it was a nuetral point that those teachers wanted noticed then they would've not put so much focus on personifying Kim Jung Il is a liberator or hero.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Originally posted by Mechagodzilla
"Also, I have seen the so-called liberal organizations, which are simply mobs of retards who hit cops with iron pipes, and sometimes even use flamethrowers at police. My hatred of those leftist liberal unions and the communists of the north as well as inside, combined, and turned me into an economically-right person, perhaps even fascist."

That pretty much sums up your argument.
Two groups fight, one police the other not.
You don't really care who is more violent, or who is actually fighting for a just cause. You'll just side with whoever's in the uniform.

Peh. Nethire do you? It would seem you support the person attacking the law enforcement members with a flamethrower more so then the Police who were just there to make sure those people with the flamethrowers did'nt take it upon themselves to destroy the property of business owners?

Perhaps even the lives of the people not involved in the riot? If you're that mad with South Korean law enforcement just go punch a pillow, Mechagodzilla. Ignoring what was done to them does not escalate you to any figure of morality.

Your a badge****er.

I can't really say that what you wrote struck me as to the point, with any point for that matter about numbers. Just seemed like you wanted to come uncorked at someone and preceeded to attempt at tid-for-tad summary owning them ... which, you did not.

 

[JNightshade]

That's not at all what he said :|

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Originally posted by JNightshade
That's not at all what he said

Oh, really?

I printed and saved the whole arguement of his. You want to debate this, or shall we wait until somebody out there hits the edit selection?

Or maybe you happened to not see because you never actually read it.

 

[JNightshade]

Well, you edited your post, but originally criticized him for claiming that the people attacking policemen were fighting for a just cause. He NEVER said that. All he said was that Numbers was only supporting the police because they were in uniform.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Peh. Nethire do you? It would seem you support the person attacking the law enforcement members with a flamethrower more so then the Police who were just there to make sure those people with the flamethrowers did'nt take it upon themselves to destroy the property of business owners?"

I've just spent this post, and countless others, making it clear that communism is a political religion no more valid as a framework for a stable society than christianity and whatever the hell kind of dictatorship numbers supports.

I don't really remember if you're the anti-gay guy or pro-iraq war guy (or both), but the simple fact that I base my opinions on reality instead of elaborate delusions does not make me inferior to you, and certainly not inferior to the jackass who recently called for a genocide against his neighbouring country.

Why on this pale blue Earth I would I support violent "leftists" without any idea what their cause is?
Why would you assume I'm a person who would do so?
And, for that matter, why would you antagonize them without any basis, especially when the alternative consists of the footmen of a military dictatorship?
What happens when those police are the KGB?

Left and right wing refer primarily to economics, the two systems not being terribly different from eachother.
They're not some new type of race, so don't hate as though they were.
Try to get past the stereotypes that would have me tossing molotovs at Corporate Jesus's abstinent teens in the shadowy theatre of your mind.

"Perhaps even the lives of the people not involved in the riot? If you're that mad with South Korean law enforcement just go punch a pillow, Mechagodzilla. Ignoring what was done to them does not escalate you to any figure of morality."

What?

It's because I care for human lives and human freedoms that I support neither side in the conflict between these increasingly interchangeable koreas.
I support intelligence - and how it may one day bring an end to people thinking they can summarize a man into a single word on a two-word chart.

If you want me to support jesus, south korea, north korea, stalin, hitler, whatever. I can and will. All you need to do is simply prove to me that they aren't absolutely and irredeemably retarded.
Why is this so hard to accomplish?

However, asking me to feel bad for what-if casualties in this ill-defined riot isn't the way to prove to me that you've actually thought this through.
Especially if you are that anti-gay pro-iraq war guy.

"I can't really say that what you wrote struck me as to the point, with any point for that matter about numbers. Just seemed like you wanted to come uncorked at someone and preceeded to attempt at tid-for-tad summary owning them ... which, you did not."

Oh shit, my plan of impressing whoever you are, on the internet, must have failed completely!

If you were a sensible person, you would actually address my points intelligently instead of creating a makeshift punching bag in your head.

When you aren't talking to me, who are you talking to?


This thread is about discussing the merits (or the utter ideological bankruptcy) of an authoritarian dictatorship.
Do you have what it takes to make a point?

 

[15357]

Let's check the retardometer.

"I tend to dislike and even hate communism, obviously because of Mr. Psychopath in the north."

No-one is going to give you a trophy for being (vaguely) better than Kim Jong Il.

Unless I kill him.

"Perhaps it's because I've read and heard about in countlesss numbers of blah blah blah blah blah... teh progress. "

Anyone with half a brain knows communism is a flawed system. Now here's where you explain why that gives you the right to be almost exactly as retarded.

"Let me tell you, that there are no ideal things in this world."

No shit. Thanks for that revelation, given that ideal things are by definition not real.




"Even democracy and freedom we all hold dear to in times of unrest and just normal times is not ideal. Achieving something overtly utopian is impossible."

That being said, this is bullshit. Perfection is impossible, but that's no excuse to slum in your ass-backwards version of morality.
Life can be improved to a near-maximum through simply having a framework that minimizes the inevitable flaws.
Utopia is thus as easy as tossing idealism out the window and working towards a best worst-case in reality.

Your personal utopia in this model is simply "not communism", and anything that isn't communism is probably "acceptable". In another thread you're calling for the destruction of "subhuman" north koreans.
If your standards get any lower, you might as well just shoot yourself now because you're already in heaven.

My personal utopia would envolve being a world military and economic power.

Besides, I was calling for the destruction of Kim and his cronies, not the northerners in general.

It's reasonable to understand that life can be improved to a maximum point.
So let's look at your reasons for being unreasonable:

"As for my support of the goverment and a centrallized establishment, I will first point out that most of you don't explain your support for a liberal State but somehow that works, because others agree with it. Goverment centrallization can bring massive amounts of effectivness to the system, and everything from crime prevention to healthcare could be done easily with effectivness. That is what you want, is it not? A goverment that actually works."

Way to put forward the most superficial point possible.
You aren't just calling for centralized government. Only anarchists, who are idiots, support fully decentralized government. Everyone else in the world approves of at least some degree of centralization.

The question is accountability.
You're calling for an authoritarian government.
The more sensible folk of the world understand that people need a good degree of influence over their government.
Effectively, the only thing that is needed is a system which prevents the inevitable stupid descisions a majority vote can make. In your utopia, that involves the government controlling essentially as much as possible - and the rest of us just hoping that they'll be benevolent dictators instead of otherwise.
Of course, that's the mindset that gave us communism in the first place.

I'm calling for an authoritarian goverment that actually helps its people, which I think preferable than a liberal one that can't do shit.

Instead of a system of control, the solution is simple balance. America has it pretty close to the correct way of setting things up with their checks and balances, but the system is far from airtight thanks to the extreme influence of the ignorant.

Balance is an extremely hard thing to maintain.

Speaking of ignorant, this is where the batshit hits the fan:

"In order to protect our freedoms and Democracy itself, we must be able to sacrifice something for it. There are no gains, without giving something. Equal exchange is needed for everything in this world. A good goverment, an effective goverment, will be able to destroy and neutralize our enemies, and take what is rightfully ours, with the payment of minor civil liberties."

What the hell kind of logic is this based on? The Rock, Paper, Scissors school of political science?

Simply accepting a dearth of freedom as an inevitable given is horrendously stupid.
In a real utopia, freedoms are inalienable so long as they do not conflict with greater freedoms.
In your utopia, the loss of freedom isn't necessary so much as it is arbitrary. If the government is mildly inconvenienced by something, even for no reason, you drop the freedom as if you never wanted it in the first place.

Nononono, give up 'civil liberties', not freedom.

Again, that's a hallmark of communism and the source mindset of the many horrible communist injustices that you allege turned you into a fascist cocksucker in the first place:

"Also, I have seen the so-called liberal organizations, which are simply mobs of retards who hit cops with iron pipes, and sometimes even use flamethrowers at police. My hatred of those leftist liberal unions and the communists of the north as well as inside, combined, and turned me into an economically-right person, perhaps even fascist."

That pretty much sums up your argument.
Two groups fight, one police the other not.
You don't really care who is more violent, or who is actually fighting for a just cause. You'll just side with whoever's in the uniform.
You're a badgefucker.

Did I say that? No? Then it isn't.

So there's the circular logic:
Control is good because control is good.
That's your actual argument, and it's utterly pathetic.

Again, no.

"As for my authoritarianism, it can be traced back to the days of Confucious. Loyalty and piety is an extremely important virtue of our society, and I ve learned it to be a moral thing. Respect of elders, the authority, was what my parents taught me, and loyalty to the fatherland, was what my teachers and ethics textbooks taught me, since the age of 5."

That's your morality?
That everything you're taught as a child is therefore moral? And you see absolutely no flaws in this train of thought?
Like, for example, that you're showing strong moral support for brainwashing toddlers?
That's mao's little red book all over again.
You're conflating morality with tradition, when tradition is basically never moral.


Piety is tradition, and its moral.

Reasonable people describe morality as that which provides maximum benefit while causing minimum harm.
You are not a reasonable person, so you'll accept any harm that doesn't exceed your extremely loose comfort zone.
How moral is that?
Confucious says that it's good to follow law when the leader leads with excellence.
For you, you'll just settle for whatever he gives you, which destroys everything Confucious stood for.
The entire system breaks down when the leader isn't virtuous.
So either you're ignorant of Confucian teachings, or you're exploiting them to act like a latter-day stalinist.

I agree with Mr. C there.

Accepting a corrupt government because you're taught to as a child is, again, a common communist flaw dating back to well before stalin, and you've swallowed it whole.

NEVER accept a corrupt goverment. Accept one that actually helps the people.

a liberal goverment that is corrupt, and an authoritarian goverment that feeds its people. Which is the true democratic one?

"I suspect that many of my fellow Koreans are like this. This certainly explains why Pres. Park Chung Hee, who is described as a military dictator in the BBC, is widely thought to be the greatest president in Korea."

Many of your fellow koreans are like that. Most of your fellow koreans like that, however, live in north korea.

Not really, Gen. Park said after the Military Revolution of 5.16, "Anti communism is the first and foremost."

So in this entire post, you've said absolutely nothing different from what a north korean communist would.

Again, no.

Seriously, what does make you different from a communist? Is there anything?


Economic issues? The want for freedom? The want to be able to own my own property? Ect?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well, you edited your post, but originally criticized him for claiming that the people attacking policemen were fighting for a just cause. He NEVER said that. All he said was that Numbers was only supporting the police because they were in uniform.

Exactly, and that's what Numbers actively admitted was his reasoning.

He is using Confucianism (the teaching that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit) to excuse or even promote government corruption. Effectively, Numbers honestly believes that morality means being actively ignorant of the amorality of your actions.

In other words, in Numberland, stabbing a baby is alright as long as you're loyal and your leader told you to.

What about this did we not understand?

Oh, really?
I printed and saved the whole arguement of his. You want to debate this, or shall we wait until somebody out there hits the edit selection?
Or maybe you happened to not see because you never actually read it.

Why are you assuming I would edit my post? I stand by what I said.
Dictatorships of any sort are stupid, supporting them is stupid, and I'm getting the impression that you're not much of a Hiesenberg yourself.

Stupidity transcends race, class, border, faith. It's the enemy of us all.

So, please. Would you lay off long enough to make a sensible point?

 

[15357]

Exactly, and that's what Numbers actively admitted was his reasoning.

He is using Confucianism (the teaching that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit) to excuse or even promote government corruption. Effectively, Numbers honestly believes that morality means being actively ignorant of the amorality of your actions.

What about this did we not understand?

Where di I say that? Corruption is one of the most worst things in this world, in engenders goverment inefficiency and injustice of society.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Unless I kill him.

No, that would just make you an assassin who happens to be ill-versed in political philosophy instead of just an internet user who happens to be ill-versed in political philosophy.

I know that's a joke (it's got the smiley), but your "real" arguments aren't much stronger than that.
Observe:

"My personal utopia would envolve being a world military and economic power.

Besides, I was calling for the destruction of Kim and his cronies, not the northerners in general."

Right, right. Only communist (AKA basically all) North Koreans are inhuman and slaughterable, according to that thread.

See, and there's your problem.
In your backwards world, morality means whatever you say it does.
So you're just assuming, based on absolutely nothing but hubris, that peace can only be obtained under your terms, and under your fist. Even though you have absolutely no proven logical guidelines for creating peace without needlessly infringing freedoms.

That's, frankly, infantile. Here's why:

"I'm calling for an authoritarian goverment that actually helps its people, which I think preferable than a liberal one that can't do shit. Balance is an extremely hard thing to maintain."

Let's look into this:

You're not an authoritarian government that actually helps people. How can I tell? Because your entire system of maintaining freedoms is based explicitly on your ability to violate them at random when it suits you. There is no logical framework for maximizing and preserving freedoms.
There is no freedom because no-one is safe from having it needlessly taken away.

You support authoritarianism "because it works", yet you have absolutely no reason to believe that it would work.
There is no logical precedent or valid theorhetical model that shows your system would work.
What you have here is a political religion. Faith.

Just like communism has faith that the population can lose its powers while remaining vigilant, you have faith that the authority in your authoritarian government can be granted unlimited powers without becoming corrupted.
Without reasonable checks and balances, you have no safety net for when your flawed system inevitably implodes.

In both cases, the will of the government inevitably overrides the will of the people or you end up with yet another cult of personality.

"Nononono, give up 'civil liberties', not freedom."

If you can't understand that those are synonyms, you shouldn't be preaching the merits of government.

"Did I say that?"

You did say that. That's you confucianism argument and the entire basis of your authoritarian paradise.

Your plan for the perfect government involves finding one man, giving him all power, and then having faith that he has your your best interests at heart. So when he starts taking freedoms away, you can cling to the hope that he won't take yours.

"Again, no."

Not in this case. In your mindset, the government needs the ability to take away freedoms for freedom to exist. You already said up there: "give up civil liberties".
Government control over the personal lives of the subject citizens, unchecked, is your solution to preserving freedoms. Because "it helps people". But what does it help do? It helps get put under control.
Control is good because control is good.

You haven't quite explained WHY control, by an unchecked individual over an entire populace, is a good thing.
It all comes down to the basic assumption, based on your flawed interpretation of confucianism, that a master, no matter how evil, cannot be questioned by his servants.

Piety is tradition, and its moral.

No, tradition means having low standards. Like you said, the system has never been perfect. So tradition means wallowing in the muck of past failures.
Tradition is the opposite of progress.
It's the act of repeating the same act over and over and over, expecting a dramatically different result each time - which is a succinct definition of insanity.
Real progress comes from discarding failure and keeping only what genuinely works.
The notion of tradition as an arbiter of morality was debunked nearly 500 years ago.

"I agree with Mr. C there."

No you don't. You support a flawed government, even to this day. You have already agreed: there is no such thing as an ideal. Yet your entire deck of cards relies on finding an ideal, incorruptible leader who is simultaneously ruthless in his control over the populace.

NEVER accept a corrupt goverment. Accept one that actually helps the people. a liberal goverment that is corrupt, and an authoritarian goverment that feeds its people. Which is the true democratic one?

That's a false dichotomy.

A corrupt government can succeed, and an honest one can fail.

However, your authoritarian government has no system to prevent corruption in all but the loosest terms. You already support a corrupt authoritarian government right now, and you also want to remove the civil liberties that would allow people to oppose it. How can you NEVER accept what's already there?

Your entire concept of corruption is based on economics. Everything is justified so long as it increases the GDP and puts food on the table?
That's servitude, not freedom.

As for "liberal" governments, I can guarantee that Canada has better quality of life than your country does.
Probably more food on the table too. I'm betting I buy more shit and own more land than you.
We kick ass at capitalism.

"Not really, Gen. Park said after the Military Revolution of 5.16, "Anti communism is the first and foremost.""

And I'm sure Kim Jong Il said "communism is the first and foremost."
The point that I find extremely amusing, and that you obviously can't understand, is that your capitalist authoritarian government uses the exact same evil tactics as the Kim Jong's communist authoritarian government.
You don't care about evil tactics as long as you get money.

"Economic issues? The want for freedom? The want to be able to own my own property? Ect?"

You don't want freedom because you've decided to give up your people's civil liberties.

That leaves absolutely nothing except finances to set you apart from Kim Jong. You're identical in terms of morality.
At least you're capitalist!
But "liberal" countries like the US are far more successful at being capitalist.
So what do you have left but faith in a political religion?


I'm willing to bet you've never left SK, and probably never will. You have no idea of the freedoms you're missing.

 

[15357]

No, that would just make you an assassin who happens to be ill-versed in political philosophy instead of just an internet user who happens to be ill-versed in political philosophy.

Meh, I'd still get the medal.

Right, right. Only communist (AKA basically all) North Koreans are inhuman and slaughterable, according to that thread.

We can still save them. If we make them see that we're actually living way better, they'll know hat they had been lied to by Kim. Which would need the borders opened, perhaps with military force.

See, and there's your problem.
In your backwards world, morality means whatever you say it does.
So you're just assuming, based on absolutely nothing but hubris, that peace can only be obtained under your terms, and under your fist. Even though you have absolutely no proven logical guidelines for creating peace without needlessly infringing freedoms.

This is the basic idea:

NK attacked SK.
War has been going on for 56 years.
War =/= Peace
NK = attacker = violator of peace
Therefore NK needs to be surgically striked and removed of its leadership.

You support authoritarianism "because it works", yet you have absolutely no reason to believe that it would work.
There is no logical precedent or valid theorhetical model that shows your system would work.
What you have here is a political religion. Faith.

The 3rd (1961 ~ 1970), 4th(1970 ~ 1979), and the 5th Republic (1979 ~ 1988) worked. Massive economic developments as well as lowest unemployment in history, with protection. And they were, according to the BBC, authoritarian military rule.

Just like communism has faith that the population can lose its powers while remaining vigilant, you have faith that the authority in your authoritarian government can be granted unlimited powers without becoming corrupted.
Without reasonable checks and balances, you have no safety net for when your flawed system inevitably implodes.

In both cases, the will of the government inevitably overrides the will of the people or you end up with yet another cult of personality.

So, we come to the solution of giving political powers to the people, while making sure that undemocratic ideas (communism, for instance) do not set foot in homeland politics.

If you can't understand that those are synonyms, you shouldn't be preaching the merits of government.

I.. uh... seem to have a rather different idea of freedom... :/

You haven't quite explained WHY control, by an unchecked individual over an entire populace, is a good thing.
It all comes down to the basic assumption, based on your flawed interpretation of confucianism, that a master, no matter how evil, cannot be questioned by his servants.

So, we come to the solution of giving political powers to the people, while making sure that undemocratic ideas (communism, for instance) do not set foot in homeland politics. Besides, I have said evil leaders need to be gotten rid of, preferabbly with a vote, but if not, a military uprising.

No you don't. You support a flawed government, even to this day. You have already agreed: there is no such thing as an ideal. Yet your entire deck of cards relies on finding an ideal, incorruptible leader who is simultaneously ruthless in his control over the populace.

I guess.....

No, tradition means having low standards. Like you said, the system has never been perfect. So tradition means wallowing in the muck of past failures.
Tradition is the opposite of progress.
It's the act of repeating the same act over and over and over, expecting a dramatically different result each time - which is a succinct definition of insanity.
Real progress comes from discarding failure and keeping only what genuinely works.
The notion of tradition as an arbiter of morality was debunked nearly 500 years ago.

Piety works, Loyalty works. Why not?

That's a false dichotomy.

A corrupt government can succeed, and an honest one can fail.

However, your authoritarian government has no system to prevent corruption in all but the loosest terms. You already support a corrupt authoritarian government right now, and you also want to remove the civil liberties that would allow people to oppose it. How can you NEVER accept what's already there?

By destroying it.

Your entire concept of corruption is based on economics. Everything is justified so long as it increases the GDP and puts food on the table?
That's servitude, not freedom.

Is it? The freedom to live, the freedom to be safe.

As for "liberal" governments, I can guarantee that Canada has better quality of life than your country does.
Probably more food on the table too. I'm betting I buy more shit and own more land than you.
We kick ass at capitalism.

To be fair here, our GDP is the 10th largest in the world, almost as big as canada. Just forty five years ago, our GDP per capita was 60 dollars. You acheived your economic development in about 2 centuries, we achieved ours in 2 decades. Of authoritarian rule. Of course, the current retard administration is messing that up now. I can't wait for the 2007 elections. We once had the 8th, but the retard civillian govs took that down.

Also, we have about 10 times your regular miltary, as well as 200 times your reserve forces, which does take a hit on the economy, but its inevitable regarding our current status; we have more than a billion hostile populations surrounding us, with China, NK, Japan, ect.

And I'm sure Kim Jong Il said "communism is the first and foremost."
The point that I find extremely amusing, and that you obviously can't understand, is that your capitalist authoritarian government uses the exact same evil tactics as the Kim Jong's communist authoritarian government.
You don't care about evil tactics as long as you get money.

What is evil here, making the populace suffer and starve, or getting the money markets working?

You don't want freedom because you've decided to give up your people's civil liberties.

That leaves absolutely nothing except finances to set you apart from Kim Jong. You're identical in terms of morality.
At least you're capitalist!
But "liberal" countries like the US are far more successful at being capitalist.
So what do you have left but faith in a political religion?

Again, we did it 3 decades. The US had 2 centuries, like other european nations.

I'm willing to bet you've never left SK, and probably never will. You have no idea of the freedoms you're missing.

Went to the US for 2 years. Nice place, kind of. Police there are effing scary compared to with ours.


I want to go to Canada and Austrailia in the future though.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"We can still save them. If we make them see that we're actually living way better, they'll know hat they had been lied to by Kim. Which would need the borders opened, perhaps with military force."

Yeah, I'm sure they'll just greet you as liberators.

As I've already pointed out, the only major difference between your societies is that one is capitalist. So, essentially, your plan is to bribe people who have long since given up money.

"This is the basic idea:

NK attacked SK.
War has been going on for 56 years.
War =/= Peace
NK = attacker = violator of peace
Therefore NK needs to be surgically striked and removed of its leadership."


Again, your societies are identical.
You only dislike communism because it's "not me".
If the south had been the initial agressor, you would be saluting them.
You've reduced the conflict to a football game where everything is identical save for the colour of the uniforms.

"The 3rd (1961 ~ 1970), 4th(1970 ~ 1979), and the 5th Republic (1979 ~ 1988) worked. Massive economic developments as well as lowest unemployment in history, with protection. And they were, according to the BBC, authoritarian military rule. So, we come to the solution of giving political powers to the people, while making sure that undemocratic ideas (communism, for instance) do not set foot in homeland politics."

Again, you are only concerned with the ecomomy and not freedom.

AUTHORITARIAN MILITARY RULE ISN'T DEMOCRATIC EITHER.

"I.. uh... seem to have a rather different idea of freedom... :/"

There is no other definition of freedom. Either you have more or you have less.
You have less.

"So, we come to the solution of giving political powers to the people, while making sure that undemocratic ideas (communism, for instance) do not set foot in homeland politics. Besides, I have said evil leaders need to be gotten rid of, preferabbly with a vote, but if not, a military uprising."

But you have signed away your populace's ability to stage a vote or an uprising by arbitrarily declaring some ideas undemocratic, and enforcing their removal with an all-powerful military. Thus, any vote or uprising deemed objectionable can be terminated at will by the leadership.
That's not freedom, and it's not democratic.

So far, you have used the terms "freedom", "democracy" and "capitalism" interchangeably, but democracy and capitalism are only small aspects of an truly free society.

"I guess....."

So you know that your government is logically unsound, yet you support it anyways with loyalty and piety out of faith?
So do communists.

"Piety works, Loyalty works. Why not?"

You're just saying that, but you have nothing but faith to back that up.
So far, all tradition has done is get you to support a government that you acknowledge is inherently flawed.
Explain WHY tradition works.

Otherwise you're using tradition as an excuse to avoid social development in the exact same way communists us the good of the fatherland as an excuse.

"'How can you NEVER accept [a corrupt government that is] already there?'

By destroying it."

I was refering to your corrupt government.

"Is it [servitude]? The freedom to live, the freedom to be safe."

You don't need an authoritarian government to stay alive or be safe. In fact, your gleeful abandonment of civil liberties shows that you enjoy being less safe from your own government.
One which is practically identical to North Korea except capitalist.

"To be fair here, our GDP is the 10th largest in the world, almost as big as canada. [... Under] authoritarian rule. Of course, the current retard administration is messing that up now."

I asked for quality of life and you gave me the GDP.
I loled.
You honestly think wealth and freedom are synonymous.
That's so sad.
Note that RED CHINA is at #4 on the GDP chart.
If all you care about is financial success, you had best start saluting Mao.

Oh, but you've confused your nominal GDP with your per capita. Your per capita GDP is closer to around 40th on the list of nations. Ahead of China, but still much lower than some of the most free societies on Earth.

Also, note that the government that you trust with unquestionable power is also "currently retarded".

"we have more than a billion hostile populations surrounding us, with China, NK, Japan, ect."

Wait, Japan? Sure you have a rocky history, but they certainly don't pose an military threat to you.
That's three.
What are the other 1999999997?

"What is evil here, making the populace suffer and starve, or getting the money markets working?"

The evil is in pretending that those are the the only two options.
You can have liberty and have a strong economy.

"'That leaves absolutely nothing except finances to set you apart from Kim Jong. You're identical in terms of morality.'
Again, we did it 3 decades. The US had 2 centuries, like other european nations."

Who gives a damn if you can become rich quick when you're corrupt as Kim Jong?
A corrupt capitalist government is still corrupt, just like a corrupt communist one is.
You've bribed yourself into complacency.

 

[15357]

Yeah, I'm sure they'll just greet you as liberators.

As I've already pointed out, the only major difference between your societies is that one is capitalist. So, essentially, your plan is to bribe people who have long since given up money.

Uh, ours is free and we know that there exists other countries outside of our country, and that this is not a heaven on earth? But they don't.

Again, your societies are identical.
You only dislike communism because it's "not me".
If the south had been the initial agressor, you would be saluting them.
You've reduced the conflict to a football game where everything is identical save for the colour of the uniforms.

No they aren't..... -_-;;

The problem is, it is impossible that we would have been the initial aggressor because we had massive social turmoil, with communist riots and so on at that time. Our military (if you can call it that, it was actually a police force at the time) used ancient type 99 bolt action rifles, while the North received machine guns and tanks from the soviet union.

Again, you are only concerned with the ecomomy and not freedom.

AUTHORITARIAN MILITARY RULE ISN'T DEMOCRATIC EITHER.

I'm concerned about people not starving to death.

But you have signed away your populace's ability to stage a vote or an uprising by arbitrarily declaring some ideas undemocratic, and enforcing their removal with an all-powerful military. Thus, any vote or uprising deemed objectionable can be terminated at will by the leadership.
That's not freedom, and it's not democratic.

So far, you have used the terms "freedom", "democracy" and "capitalism" interchangeably, but democracy and capitalism are only small aspects of an truly free society.

We can vote -_-;;

Our military isn't all powerful, and the president doesn't have autocratic control of it. Our military is almost independant of the administration, as it is the supporter of the State and the Goverment.

Therfore the leadership does not have any power to veto a vote, but rather the established laws and our constitution can.

You don't need an authoritarian government to stay alive or be safe. In fact, your gleeful abandonment of civil liberties shows that you enjoy being less safe from your own government.
One which is practically identical to North Korea except capitalist.

I'm not for a totalitarian state, just a state with authoritive tendencies that can effectively block threats to the safety of the nation and the people.

I asked for quality of life and you gave me the GDP.
I loled.
You honestly think wealth and freedom are synonymous.
That's so sad.
Note that RED CHINA is at #4 on the GDP chart.
If all you care about is financial success, you had best start saluting Mao.

Mao destroyed Communist China.

Oh, but you've confused your nominal GDP with your per capita. Your per capita GDP is closer to around 40th on the list of nations. Ahead of China, but still much lower than some of the most free societies on Earth.

You have to understand. 45 years ago, GDP per capita = $60
We had nothing. We had no natural resources to speak of. We had no infrastructure that remained after the war. Very unlike America, China or Canada, with your massive reserves of natural gas and forests with mineral deposits.

We achieved GDP per capita of 40 times than what it was 20 years ago. All thanks to Gen. Park Chung Hee.

He achieved what no ruler of Korea achieved since the founding of our country in 4338BC. He got rid of starvation. Have you ever starved for weeks living on almost nothing, waiting for the harvest? I haven't. But from what my grandmothers and grandfathers tell me, it is horrible.

Really, to be honest, I wouldn't be here talking with you without General Park. Most likely I'd be working in a coal mine, or a factory, or perhaps even under communist rule.

Also, note that the government that you trust with unquestionable power is also "currently retarded".

Administration =/= goverment.

Goverment = Military, Dept of Manpower, Dept of Public Safety, Dept of Justice, Dept of Social Welfare ECT.

The evil is in pretending that those are the the only two options.
You can have liberty and have a strong economy.

Of course, but you were comparing.

Who gives a damn if you can become rich quick when you're corrupt as Kim Jong?
A corrupt capitalist government is still corrupt, just like a corrupt communist one is.
You've bribed yourself into complacency.

Yeah, we're so corrupt that in the year 2001 the UN had a symposium on our corruption eliminating policies. In Seoul.

Oh, we're so corrupt that we tried to impeach our current retard of a president for corruption.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Uh, ours is free and we know that there exists other countries outside of our country, and that this is not a heaven on earth? But they don't."

You aren't more free because you've deliberately abandonned your civil liberties. As for not being ignorant, you've been taught to consider liberty and freedom to be the same thing, along with other stupid things.
Some minor details are different, but those are trivial objections.

"No they aren't..... -_-;;

The problem is, it is impossible that we would have been the initial aggressor because we had massive social turmoil, with communist riots and so on at that time. Our military (if you can call it that, it was actually a police force at the time) used ancient type 99 bolt action rifles, while the North received machine guns and tanks from the soviet union."

Welcome to a what-if scenario.
It's not my problem your economy sucked ass.
The point is what you would do, and you've made it repeatedly clear that you would destroy communism at all costs.

Unless you're saying that you would be completely okay with a non-agressive communist country (like, say, Cuba)?

"I'm concerned about people not starving to death."

You keep saying that, but it's not getting any smarter.
You would be okay with communism if their citizens were fed (which, of course, the vast majority are)?
Food does not prevent corruption.

"We can vote -_-;;"

You can vote for an authoritarian leader who curtails your freedoms.
Are you saying you would support communism if they had elections? (Like with Chavez?)
Voting for corrupt people does not remove corruption.

"Our military is almost independant of the administration, as it is the supporter of the State and the Goverment.

Therfore the leadership does not have any power to veto a vote, but rather the established laws and our constitution can."

And who ultimately enforces the law?
The military does.
As a result, the leadership doesn't need to veto votes because an inherent aspect of your government is to automatically abolish "dissent".

If your constituation automatically makes votes obsolete,

"I'm not for a totalitarian state, just a state with authoritive tendencies that can effectively block threats to the safety of the nation and the people."

You are a totalitarian in what is essentially a totalitarian state.

"Common to all definitions [of Totalitarianism] is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, non-sanctioned churches or opposition political parties."

So let's see:

-You were taught to revere the state since the age of five.
-You're indifferent/proud that you're a dictatorship.
-You're almost violently anti-communist, pro fascist in accordance with your dictatorial government's will.
-You're in direct support of abolishing free votes and civil liberties that conflict with your government's singular goal of destroying communism.

Mao destroyed Communist China.

That's obviously untrue, given that he established the People's Republic of China, and that China remains basically communist to this day.
So, why don't you support china?

"You have to understand. 45 years ago, GDP per capita = $60"

And you have to understand that I don't give a shit about how economically successful your corrupt dictatorship is.

"He got rid of starvation. Have you ever starved for weeks living on almost nothing, waiting for the harvest? I haven't. But from what my grandmothers and grandfathers tell me, it is horrible."

No, I haven't starved for weeks - yet somehow my nation isn't a dictatorship.
Obviously "not starving" isn't all that difficult.
It certainly doesn't require an anti-freedom military dictatorship to acheive.

Like I said, would you support communism if it had food?
(Which it does.)
Obviously the starvation thing doesn't make any sense at all as an argument in support of a totalitarian dictatorship.

"Really, to be honest, I wouldn't be here talking with you without General Park."

You make that sound like a bad thing.

"Administration =/= goverment."

Your administration can only be elected if the government allows them to be. Pretending that your administration has no power over government (and the other way around) is duplicitous.

Also, I've already made it clear that your government is far more retarded than your shitsack administration.

"Of course, but you were comparing."
Like I said: being slightly better than shit doesn't make you a rose.

If the only real difference between you and communist North Korea is that you have food.

"Oh, we're so corrupt that we tried to impeach our current retard of a president for corruption."

Um, the fact that you are trying so hard to eliminate corruption would imply that you are corrupt.

I'm not talking about simple financial nonsense though.

I am talking about the fact that your entire ideology is based on being a totalitarian dictatorship. That's inherently corrupt.


So, in the end, it would appear that you should support any communist state that has elections, adequate food supply and which doesn't attack other countries.
So why don't you?

 

[Ennui]

i haven't read any of this thread, and i'm sure this has been said already, but numbers himself is a case of ideology gone too far.

 

[15357]

You aren't more free because you've deliberately abandonned your civil liberties. As for not being ignorant, you've been taught to consider liberty and freedom to be the same thing, along with other stupid things.
Some minor details are different, but those are trivial objections.

There is no different word for liberty than freedom here... :/

Welcome to a what-if scenario.
It's not my problem your economy sucked ass.
The point is what you would do, and you've made it repeatedly clear that you would destroy communism at all costs.

Unless you're saying that you would be completely okay with a non-agressive communist country (like, say, Cuba)?

You were telling me to uh... think something that is completely chimerical.

You keep saying that, but it's not getting any smarter.
You would be okay with communism if their citizens were fed (which, of course, the vast majority are)?
Food does not prevent corruption.

You were asking me what I was concerned with, and I answered your question. Of course I'm concerned with other things.

You can vote for an authoritarian leader who curtails your freedoms.
Are you saying you would support communism if they had elections? (Like with Chavez?)
Voting for corrupt people does not remove corruption.

You were making a mistake in thinking that we cannot vote, I corrected it.

And who ultimately enforces the law?
The military does.
As a result, the leadership doesn't need to veto votes because an inherent aspect of your government is to automatically abolish "dissent".

No, the department of Justice and the National Assembly with its elected representitives does.

That's obviously untrue, given that he established the People's Republic of China, and that China remains basically communist to this day.
So, why don't you support china?

I meant economically and socially.

And you have to understand that I don't give a shit about how economically successful your corrupt dictatorship is.

#1. Not corrupt.

#2. That was what we were arguing about. The ability to save people.

No, I haven't starved for weeks - yet somehow my nation isn't a dictatorship.
Obviously "not starving" isn't all that difficult.
It certainly doesn't require an anti-freedom military dictatorship to acheive.

But in our case, it did. So I support it.

Like I said, would you support communism if it had food?
(Which it does.)
Obviously the starvation thing doesn't make any sense at all as an argument in support of a totalitarian dictatorship.

Hell no. Communism's theory I disagree almost violently with.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

Your administration can only be elected if the government allows them to be. Pretending that your administration has no power over government (and the other way around) is duplicitous.

Also, I've already made it clear that your government is far more retarded than your shitsack administration.

Correction: If the constitution allows them to be.

No you haven't.

Like I said: being slightly better than shit doesn't make you a rose.

If the only real difference between you and communist North Korea is that you have food.

We have the freedom to go anywhere we want, we have our constitutional rights, we have the freedom to do whatever that isn't illegal without interference from the State. And not many things are illegal.

Um, the fact that you are trying so hard to eliminate corruption would imply that you are corrupt.

I'm not talking about simple financial nonsense though.

I am talking about the fact that your entire ideology is based on being a totalitarian dictatorship. That's inherently corrupt.

You just went over my statement of the UN trying to make a model of our policies.

So, in the end, it would appear that you should support any communist state that has elections, adequate food supply and which doesn't attack other countries.
So why don't you?

For gods sake, I was pointing out some of the advantages that our 1970s Military goverment had. Not in any sense was I supporting communism. Stop misinterpreting me.

 

[Ennui]

15357, you are not free.

The fact that you are not allowed to be a communist is evidence of this.

In America, even if you are an anarchist who marches about your beliefs, you're free to do so.

We are [mostly] free. You are not. You have some freedoms, but many essential liberties are lacking.

 

[repiV]

I'm no fan of Korea, and especially not numbers, but in all fairness I think you're being a little too harsh on South Korea. It's not a totalitarian country, nor is it a dictatorship.
There is probably more freedom in SK than in Singapore.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The whole concept of fairness and balance is a crock.


In the case of numbers, he's defending an inherently corrupt country (as, so far, he has traced all its flaws back to the constitution) because it has paid favors to him ("I have food so I don't question things." Talk about low standards).
As for it not being a dictatorship, Numbers brags that he considers it to be one. And, as an avowed fascist, he likes dictatorship.

"There is no different word for liberty than freedom here... :/"

That was a typo on my part. There was supposed to be a "not" in my sentence.

Only a few posts ago, you declared that CIVIL LIBERTY and FREEDOM are not the same thing.

"We have the freedom to do whatever that isn't illegal without interference from the State."

You're allowed to do anything that isn't illegal, but the state makes it illegal to be truly free. And I don't mean in the anarchist sense. I mean basic things like being able to vote for what you want.

"Stop misinterpreting me."

I'm not.
You've listed your problems with communism.

They are:

-Inadequate food supply.
-Inbility to leave the country.
-Inability to own property.
-Military Aggression.
-No elections
-No document called a constitution.

So it obviously stands to reason that you should support any communist nation that does not have those problems.
China fits that description, except for elections.

If you don't support China, then your arguments make no sense.

I'm not saying communism is good. I'm saying you have put forward no good argument for why it is bad.

Since your entire life is based on opposing communism, this would seem to be a massive failure.

 

[repiV]

The whole concept of fairness and balance is a crock.


In the case of numbers, he's defending an inherently corrupt country (as, so far, he has traced all its flaws back to the constitution) because it has paid favors to him ("I have food so I don't question things." Talk about low standards).
As for it not being a dictatorship, Numbers brags that he considers it to be one. And, as an avowed fascist, he likes dictatorship.

Oh, don't let me stop you gunning for numbers by any means. I just think you're over the top about South Korea. I'd rather live there than Singapore. Well, perhaps. The xenophobia and nationalistic, dogmatic thinking of Koreans might sway me towards choosing Singapore - but from a liberty point of view, definitely South Korea.

"There is no different word for liberty than freedom here... :/"

That was a typo on my part. There was supposed to be a "not" in my sentence.

Only a few posts ago, you declared that CIVIL LIBERTY and FREEDOM are not the same thing.

"We have the freedom to do whatever that isn't illegal without interference from the State."

You're allowed to do anything that isn't illegal, but the state makes it illegal to be truly free. And I don't mean in the anarchist sense. I mean basic things like being able to vote for what you want.

"Stop misinterpreting me."

I'm not.
You've listed your problems with communism.

They are:

-Inadequate food supply.
-Inbility to leave the country.
-Inability to own property.
-Military Aggression.
-No elections
-No document called a constitution.

So it obviously stands to reason that you should support any communist nation that does not have those problems.
China fits that description, except for elections.

If you don't support China, then your arguments make no sense.

China is not really a communist country anymore. The economy is the most important measure of that and it is most definitely capitalist.

I'm not saying communism is good. I'm saying you have put forward no good argument for why it is bad.

Since your entire life is based on opposing communism, this would seem to be a massive failure.

 

[delusional]

singapore does have the second most economic freedom.

 

[repiV]

Yes, but there are tight restrictions on civil liberties. Dissent is suppressed and the media is heavily censored. It is also under a de-facto one party system.
There are also more executions per capita in Singapore than in any other country in the world.

 

[15357]

Oh, don't let me stop you gunning for numbers by any means. I just think you're over the top about South Korea. I'd rather live there than Singapore. Well, perhaps. The xenophobia and nationalistic, dogmatic thinking of Koreans might sway me towards choosing Singapore - but from a liberty point of view, definitely South Korea.

Ever been here? At all? Only a tiny minority of commie retards are like that. Only a tiny amount of retards go around protesting on US bases, ect.

As for it not being a dictatorship, Numbers brags that he considers it to be one. And, as an avowed fascist, he likes dictatorship.

No, and I support dictatorships that actually help the people.

That was a typo on my part. There was supposed to be a "not" in my sentence.

Only a few posts ago, you declared that CIVIL LIBERTY and FREEDOM are not the same thing.

I meant Social.

You've listed your problems with communism.

Nope.

And military aggression isn't something I have a problem with, otherwise I'd hate the US as well. Its against our country that I have a problem wiht.

If our country was aggressive, I'd love it more.

So it obviously stands to reason that you should support any communist nation that does not have those problems.
China fits that description, except for elections.

Again, you are thinking in only one dimension of political thought.

Besides, China is aggressive, and to quote: "Communist China is your enemy!"

I'm not saying communism is good. I'm saying you have put forward no good argument for why it is bad.

Since your entire life is based on opposing communism, this would seem to be a massive failure.

#1. No communist country has not gone to complete utter shit.

#2. Its against our basic instincts.

#3. Communists want to kill us. And have done so, many many times, almost every 3 years since 1949.

#4. The economical system, like a leftist one, has the serious disadvantage of lack of competence and competition, and therefore is inherently flawed in the system itself, and not just because people are human.

#5. The ideology calls for a nonstop massive world revolution which seriously undermines the stability of society and the economy as well as endangering the public and the people themselves.

15357, you are not free.

The fact that you are not allowed to be a communist is evidence of this.

In America, even if you are an anarchist who marches about your beliefs, you're free to do so.

We are [mostly] free. You are not. You have some freedoms, but many essential liberties are lacking.

In America, people may kill you for saying something, like hate crimes.

In Korea, you can get jailed for 6 months, but you won't get killed.


Not being able to supproty the enemy which has killed 4 million of your citizens is not exactly a essential liberty.

 

[delusional]

but then other citizens are supposedly killing you the government isnt involved. and anyway most people set up counter protests

 

[kirovman]

SK is a bit tricky to judge.

Since they're technically still at war, the state of civil liberties reflects this.

It's a hangover from the Cold War, where in America you'd get prosecuted for being a communist back then too.