|
Post by Moose on Aug 15, 2017 23:33:39 GMT
Society at the time would not have dared. But this is not the sixteenth century so why would Kim's uncle have been any better than him?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 16, 2017 13:11:28 GMT
You're setting the bar for despot far too low. According to the dictionary definition, a despot is "a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way." The Magna Carta removed the possibility of absolute power in 1215 and since then cruel, oppressive actions on behalf of kings and queens have been limited to isolated events. One would hardly call the governor of Texas a despot, for example, because he has executed hundreds of convicted murderers. A despot is much more than isolated cruel actions.
But let me come back to my original statement about Kim Jong-un's uncle, Jang Song-thaek, and what sort of ruler he would have been. We can never be sure whether he would have been a good ruler or a bad one. What we know about him is that he quickly became very powerful, second in command to Kim Jong-un and that he worked closely with China to develop the economy. At one meeting with China, he is reported to have said, "The DPRK is willing to closely cooperate with China to accelerate relevant efforts and push forward cooperation in developing economic zones." (Wikipedia)
He also managed to obtain a position as commander of the military, and this may have ultimately led to his downfall. He failed to attend a key meeting with China in January 2013 (because he had been demoted) and an analyst noted that Jang's glaring absence at the meeting "signaled the emergence of a possible crack in the senior leadership, especially in the relationship between Kim and his all-powerful uncle, raising the possibility of divergent approaches between Kim and Jang" on North Korea foreign policy. (Wikipedia)
Clearly Kim Jong-un's uncle was more interested in building up the economy than going to war with his neighbours. All of this suggests to me that he would have been a moderate ruler and not a ruthless one. It wouldn't have surprised me, from what I read about him in 2012, that North Korea's foreign policy would have been much less severe if he had been in charge.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 16, 2017 14:34:38 GMT
Society, at the time, would not have judged him a despot. The people with their heads lobbed off would have. Bingo. Steve...History is written by the winners. I think you entered a perspective sinkhole when you tossed in the term 'despot' without defining it or its use. I tend to see all royal lines as established by asshole despots. They are basically the people who used violence and intimidation to take what they wanted from those they dispossessed and then imposed a 'law' that ensured that they, and their descendants, maintained that possession and reaped the king's share of all benefits thereafter, in perpetuity. An ongoing despotic parasite on the body politic. I would suggest that EVERY royal is a despot, as is every aristocrat. They are all thugs and predatory parasites. Heed the words of Dennis.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Aug 16, 2017 14:44:02 GMT
Not to mention the financial oligarchy that's ruling over the Western world at the moment...
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 16, 2017 14:53:54 GMT
You're setting the bar for despot far too low. According to the dictionary definition, a despot is "a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way." The Magna Carta removed the possibility of absolute power in 1215 and since then cruel, oppressive actions on behalf of kings and queens have been limited to isolated events. One would hardly call the governor of Texas a despot, for example, because he has executed hundreds of convicted murderers. A despot is much more than isolated cruel actions. I don't think 'absolute power' exists. But, let's just allow it to mean 'tyrannical power' or 'unchallenged power'. To me, this would make George W. Bush a 'despot'. And, as Farther Kye rightfully points out, the despot is now not necessarily an individual, but a system, or structure of systematic abuse of power and influence. I could probably, list any number of incidents which point to the United States, as a nation, and an influence on global affairs, as a 'despot' or imposing 'despotic rule' upon much of the world. And it, as a nation, purports to be a democratic republic. Of course, the US is merely walking in the shoes of its predecessor, the great British Empire. Talk about despotic rule.... And...The Magna Carta did not remove any absolute power. It merely redistributed power amongst key players. The same players, just who got what out of the deal changed. If you think anybody other than the thugs involved on both 'sides' materially gained from the readjustment of the Magna Carta, then you are jumping the gun (halberd?) by generations.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 16, 2017 14:54:49 GMT
I think you entered a perspective sinkhole when you tossed in the term 'despot' without defining it or its use. I didn't toss in the term 'despot', Jo did. And I did define it. Whether all royal lines are established by asshole despots is a mute point but I was talking about the suitability of Kim Jong-un's uncle as a potential ruler. The term 'despot' is somewhat of a red herring.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 16, 2017 15:01:45 GMT
I don't think 'absolute power' exists. But, let's just allow it to mean 'tyrannical power' or 'unchallenged power'. Changing the definition of 'despot' from the generally accepted meaning is unhelpful. Please can we stick to the dictionary definition? You can talk of a 'despotic system' or a 'despotic rule', which is fair enough, but it doesn't relate to the question in hand, "Would Kim Jong-un's uncle have been a good or bad ruler?"
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 16, 2017 15:03:58 GMT
I think you entered a perspective sinkhole when you tossed in the term 'despot' without defining it or its use. I didn't toss in the term 'despot', Jo did. And I did define it. Whether all royal lines are established by asshole despots is a mute point but I was talking about the suitability of Kim Jong-un's uncle as a potential ruler. The term 'despot' is somewhat of a red herring.Yep.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 16, 2017 15:33:43 GMT
I don't think 'absolute power' exists. But, let's just allow it to mean 'tyrannical power' or 'unchallenged power'. Changing the definition of 'despot' from the generally accepted meaning is unhelpful. Please can we stick to the dictionary definition? You can talk of a 'despotic system' or a 'despotic rule', which is fair enough, but it doesn't relate to the question in hand, "Would Kim Jong-un's uncle have been a good or bad ruler?" Actually, I think it exceedingly helpful. I thought your dictionary definition to be inadequate. 'Good or bad' seems rather simplistic. I suspect that uncle might well have been better in some aspects and worse in others (if that is possible). So what? The thing is, that question is as pointless as the squabbling over the meaning of 'despot'. It is like saying that Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, would have handled this differently if they were president of the US. Yeah....and?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 16, 2017 17:25:29 GMT
Changing the definition of 'despot' from the generally accepted meaning is unhelpful. Please can we stick to the dictionary definition? You can talk of a 'despotic system' or a 'despotic rule', which is fair enough, but it doesn't relate to the question in hand, "Would Kim Jong-un's uncle have been a good or bad ruler?" Actually, I think it exceedingly helpful. I thought your dictionary definition to be inadequate. What I meant was the normal dictionary definition, such as you get when you type 'despot definition' into Google. I didn't intend to be disparaging, merely clarifying what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 16, 2017 18:05:18 GMT
despot - a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way. I didn't intend to be disparaging, merely clarifying what I meant. And I disagreed. I thought it should be expressed thus: despot - a ruler or other person who holds power and typically exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way. syn. 'tyrant'
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 16, 2017 18:05:46 GMT
The point I was trying to make, albeit apparently rather badly, was that there is nothing good about an undemocratic system. To my mind, any unelected leader who has power to affect the lives of ordinary people is a despot. I don't see why coming out of a certain vagina rather than a different one automatically allows a person to a life of leadership and privilege to which they have no right and have not been elected .
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 16, 2017 19:14:18 GMT
Nevertheless, I would rather have Emperor Augustus Caesar, who was appointed, than Donald Trump, who was elected. Augustus Caesar ruled as the Emperor of Rome for 41 years. He improved the infrastructure and military capability of Rome, he reformed the taxation process and his reign was known as Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, because diplomacy flourished. But if you think he was a tyrant, then fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 16, 2017 19:17:09 GMT
Just because you can name one non elected ruler who was better than one elected ruler does not mean that the system was acceptable (or is).
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Aug 16, 2017 19:26:38 GMT
My problem with elected rulers is that you need money to be elected and the ones who give you money want to be able to influence you once you're in power.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 16, 2017 19:37:12 GMT
There is that too - the system is unfortunately far from perfect But it's an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 6, 2017 6:44:33 GMT
Putin (who claims he is elected) says that sanctions won't work because North Korea would rather eat grass than give up their nuclear weapons. We need Jean Luc Picard to zap them (the weapons) with a disruptor or something.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Sept 6, 2017 16:38:07 GMT
I think Putin is sounding far more sensible than Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Sept 6, 2017 16:40:18 GMT
Yes... which only shows how insane Kim Jung Un and Trump are...
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Sept 6, 2017 22:24:37 GMT
We are expecting "gift packages."
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 7, 2017 21:18:27 GMT
What sort of gift packages?
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Sept 7, 2017 22:40:04 GMT
Surprises from Mr. Kim.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 7, 2017 22:50:12 GMT
I hope that it doesn't come to that. He must know that if it does, he is a dead man. Surely even China would not support him if he nukes the US.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 7, 2017 22:53:11 GMT
One thing that has been frightening me a great deal - what would happen if both China and Russia decided that they were NOT going to be allied with the US anymore - even in a very nominal fashion - and that they were going to support NK? It's one thing to wage war against a tiny rogue nation with a mad bloke in charge. It's quite another to wage war against two of the biggest military powers in the world. I do not think that the US could win, in that case.
|
|