Korean Hugfest

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK.
User avatar
Physiocrat
Site Admin
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:25 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Physiocrat » Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:43 pm

William wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:46 pm
Physiocrat wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:01 am
. A unified democratic Korea is a just asking for the Northerners to vote for a Bernie/Corbyn figure who will give them free stuff at the expense of the South Koreans.
Is that the trend in East/West Germany and other similar countries. I was talking to a German, he said that to this day East Germany is underdeveloped
I don't know too much of the specifics in particular countries it would be interesting to see the voting patterns in East Germany. Also though the effect on voting patterns may not be that obvious. It could just change the content of mainstream parties slightly further left rather than immediately producing a maverick candidate. It's not surprising in either event that East Germany is still relatively undeveloped given its history. My main point is just the standard smaller countries and decentralisation one. Absent communism small countries have the economic incentives to enact liberal economic policies.

I'm with Jon, if I was South Korean I would never agree to any form of unification.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

User avatar
FvS
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:03 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by FvS » Tue May 01, 2018 1:09 am

What would you guys do if you were president of the U.S.? Immediate withdrawal? If North Korea then preceded to invade South Korea, would you intervene? Do you believe North Korea actually would invade? Should North Korea be made to give up their nukes, if possible? Should South Korea be given nukes? I'm torn on the issue. On the one hand, I'm relatively fond of South Korea and would be sad to see them conquered. On the other hand, I am a non-interventionist. Raimondo had a good article on who really started the Korean War.

As far as reunification goes, there's the traditional libertarian argument that decentralization and smaller states are better for various reasons. I tend to be in favor of this approach. There's also the argument that true peace can only be achieved through centralization. It's sort of the same argument for world government or the various Unions. Mises himself argued for an Eastern Democratic Union. One difference is that we're talking about the unification of a nation state that had existed for hundreds of years with a racially and ethnically homogeneous population.
"Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group." - Jared Taylor

User avatar
Neodoxy
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:05 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Neodoxy » Tue May 01, 2018 2:25 am

I don't believe that North Korea can conquer South Korea unless China helped. I do think that NK could cause A LOT of damage. Until recently I was kind of hoping for a joint assault on NK by the United States, SK, and China. I don't care who you are you don't want NK having ICBM's, and after they have a stockpile there's no reason for one missile NOT to be pointed at Beijing. How long would you trust NK systems not to misfire?

Under the current situation, however, withdrawal might be in order. The biggest problem that I see is the potential for rising conflict between Japan and China in the event that United States does so. There are a number of reasons why I'm really not happy with China's rise.

User avatar
Merlin
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:48 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Merlin » Tue May 01, 2018 7:12 am

William wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:44 pm
But intuitively I would think there would at least at first have to be a kind of "Korean Confederacy" or "Two Crown" system because the two countries are so dramatically different
If full (or nearly full) freedom of movement was instituted or even tolerated (i.e. by refusing to use deadly force in the border) between the two “de jure” independent Koreas, the point of having two nominally independent countries would be lost, with the south suffering almost the full range of ills that full reunification would bring, without accessing any of the benefits.

If two countries are to survive as independent (be it for a few decades) entities after some dramatic liberalization in the north, a very string border will have to be retained. And since no one will have the stomach to shoot poor northerners trekking south an masse to void starvation, there is no practical prospect of two separate but liberal Koreas. They will be unified or stay as they are. If the southeners are not readdy to foot the massive bill, than therein lies the greates foe to liberalisation in the north.

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Tom Rogers » Thu May 03, 2018 5:21 pm

A view on North Korea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fb2infH3PE

I disagree with the general line. As stated in my earlier post on this threat, I think reunification would be the apotheosis of American failure on the Peninsula.
Last edited by Tom Rogers on Mon May 07, 2018 9:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
FvS
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:03 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by FvS » Sat May 05, 2018 12:42 am

Neodoxy wrote:How long would you trust NK systems not to misfire?
Is that the primary reason why you don't think they should be allowed to have them?

Image
"Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group." - Jared Taylor

User avatar
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:43 pm

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Nyarlathotep » Sun May 06, 2018 9:06 am

William wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:46 pm
Physiocrat wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:01 am
. A unified democratic Korea is a just asking for the Northerners to vote for a Bernie/Corbyn figure who will give them free stuff at the expense of the South Koreans.
Is that the trend in East/West Germany and other similar countries. I was talking to a German, he said that to this day East Germany is underdeveloped
East Germany is underdeveloped thanks to policy choices made during and after reunification including but not limited to: The deliberate deindustrialisation of the East, the fast integration of Ex-Communist elites and functionairies and not returning nationalised property to still living owners or their heirs. It's close to the model of economic colonisation also seen in most of Eastern Europe.

User avatar
Neodoxy
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:05 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Neodoxy » Fri May 11, 2018 8:54 am

FvS wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 12:42 am
Neodoxy wrote:How long would you trust NK systems not to misfire?
Is that the primary reason why you don't think they should be allowed to have them?

Image
It is a sufficient reason, which is how I feel about the entire system of MAD. Nuclear weapons do have advantages from a humanitarian point of view (they seem to have greatly discouraged direct conflict), but the whole damn system is far, far, far too fragile.

User avatar
FvS
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:03 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by FvS » Sun May 13, 2018 3:59 am

Neodoxy wrote:It is a sufficient reason, which is how I feel about the entire system of MAD. Nuclear weapons do have advantages from a humanitarian point of view (they seem to have greatly discouraged direct conflict), but the whole damn system is far, far, far too fragile.
I guess I just kind of assumed they (or China) would implement the necessary safeguards given the stakes. But you never know.
"Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group." - Jared Taylor

User avatar
Neodoxy
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:05 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Neodoxy » Sun May 13, 2018 6:31 am

FvS wrote:
Sun May 13, 2018 3:59 am
Neodoxy wrote:It is a sufficient reason, which is how I feel about the entire system of MAD. Nuclear weapons do have advantages from a humanitarian point of view (they seem to have greatly discouraged direct conflict), but the whole damn system is far, far, far too fragile.
I guess I just kind of assumed they (or China) would implement the necessary safeguards given the stakes. But you never know.
I mean, you would have thought that about the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sovi ... m_incident

And there were other false alarms too. There is no such thing as a fool proof human system, that is an illusion, and I definitely don't trust NK to implement necessary failsafes.

Post Reply