Hacker News Reader

Because people are self-interested to the extreme, and powerful, domineering sociopaths can easily manipulate them by setting up incentive structures that play to that self-interest. Individuals and small groups of North Koreans have certainly tried to subvert the leadership--but they simply ended up in the prison camps that the article describes, because everyone else would rather stab them in the back for a reward than assist them and face certain death or imprisonment. This isn't to say that the North Korean populace is stupid or immoral. They are merely powerless. The rules of the game are so perverse, that the players don't even matter. Put any humans in that society and they will behave the same, because there is no other choice--you either play by the rules or you die.

This incentive structure is so firmly entrenched that the death of Kim Jong-Il did precisely nothing. The hydra simply sprouted a new head. (And I'd argue that a Hitler assassination would likely have had the same outcome.)

There is not going to be a North Korean revolution to overthrow the Kim regime. Even if the younger Kim trips up politically and is backstabbed and supplanted by another ambitious psychopath from among the political elite, he will also find the current structure beneficial. But if that person cannot cement their power and the elite descends into infighting and schism, there could be a reform as the factions compete for power (this is what happened in the USSR and PRC).

The only other way the Kims will ever be deposed is through outside military action, and they know it--that's why they are armed to the teeth.

Well, you put it in a much more succinct and clearer way than i did. Thanks for the clear explanation.

Reading up on the Milgram experiment [1] could provide some insight into how such a social dynamic can be maintained.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most people (most notably the soldiers) probably don't feel like they are being oppressed, or can even identify that they have a "shared enemy", i.e. the state. Revolutions are hard, and it's easy for us from more democratic countries to think of how they all should act united. As an example of that - imagine 300 years from now there are probably a lot of things that will be seen as obviously wrong with the world we are living in right now. Hindsight (or in the case of NK, a different perspective) is 20/20.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiments

The account brought a tear to my eye as I read it. It's very sad.

fail at human rights and people's right to free from an oppressive regime.

You can try to blame the regime; but really, this is the life that the generation in control during the Korean war chose. They fought with their lives to live under tyrannical communist rule.

It's such a shame that their progeny have to live with the consequences of those decisions in perpetuity.

> You can try to blame the regime; but really, this is the life that the generation in control during the Korean war chose

You are contradicting yourself.

How so? The regime that is in place today is a result of all of the decisions that all the actors made before them, particularly during the events leading up to and during the Korean War. The primary actors dictating eventual outcomes were the North Koreans themselves. Their myriad choices led to the prison society they live in today.

Even a cursory Google search shows how false your assumptions are. There were many external factors which regular North Korean citizens had no control over. Most accounts of the 'origin' of North Korea involve to some degree the proxy war between USSR and USA in the aftermath of the Japanese invasion in Asia. I doubt very much that "regular" North Koreans had any say in how some foreign governments decided to divide up and control their land. Follow that up with a great deal of propaganda, and you have a massively uninformed (or misinformed) citizenry controlled by the state.

Sure, there were external forces at play. There always are. That doesn't negate the fact that they made their own decisions on where to take their society and those decisions were poor ones. As a counter example, I'd say that those who fled or chose to fight the Communist forces made good decisions, at least at a societal level.

Let's put it this way. If the Koreans who fought for Communism in the Korean War could see the situation today. If they could see the thriving success of South Korea vs the tyrannical poverty of North Korea.

Do you think they would change their decisions made during the war? Do you think they'd fight against Communism? I think a lot of them would. They had a chance to do something. They had a chance to battle their leaders and those external forces before the door shut on their ability to do much of anything. Now it's mostly too late. A system has been set up that takes all choice from them.

North Korea is the nation most like Oceania in 1984 than any other on Earth. People are hungry and brainwashed from birth to love their leader and the state. That's basically why no one is trying to overthrow their government. US military intervention is sort of out of the question as well due to the immense lose of life involved (mostly in South Korea).

Maybe you're underestimating the pressure society can put on individuals. And overestimating the "freedom of choice" individuals really have.

If you look at it from the outside it's easy to fall in the conclusion that very few people people benefit from the regime (let's say ~0.1%). But that's only looking from a very global perspective. From each individual's perspective, some people have more privileges than others. In that sense, the people on DPRK are really not that different from you and i. We also try to live better in the the way we know and we believe that we can live better. For example, maybe if i lived in a society where the people are used to raise against corrupt governors then i'd believe that that would be the way to live better, and i'd act accordingly; but i don't, so i look for other ways to live better... ways that might not be the best for society as a whole (e.g. try to raise enough money to pay for privileged private education; even though it would be better for the whole t have a good public education system). The circumstances around us and the people at DPRK can vary a lot, but that essence, i think, still holds. We can't choose to do what we don't believe in.

To put things into perspective, imagine what a non-imprisoned person at DPRK knows and what could she believe in. She knows that she is not as bad as the people in the concentration camps, that's for sure. She probably also knows that outside NK people live better, but how could she believe that she could escape, or change the society she lives in? She knows that the government would put her in those concentration camps if she tried to do anything suspicious. Not revealing attempts of escape/treason is considered enough to put you in those concentration camps, and she knows that. So she will act according to her knowledge and what she believes she can do. If she sees someone trying to escape, the best thing to do, for her life, is to tell the authorities about it. And let's go a bit higher in order of thought: she knows that the people around her will probably think the same way, so she knows she has little chances of escaping/changing something without getting caught.

That is, i think, in a very simplified way, the thought process behind those dysfunctional societies. And, sadly, it's, in essence, the same thought process that prevents other (maybe less dysfunctional) societies from doing something to really help.

The people of North Korea have EVERY reason on this planet to overthrow their "government", what's preventing them from doing so?

Communication and organization, I guess?

North Korea is at the end state of socialism. Hayek wrote a famous book called "The road to serfdom", and this prison camp, and the way the rest of NK citizens live is the serfdom he's talking about.

Once you accept that you're owned by "society", and that everyone is "responsible for the greater good" this is inevitably what you end up with.

You ask if they lack critical thinking or a critical mass. Both of these are true, they've been indoctrinated to believe in this system, except maybe the ones like the writer of this story who were born in a camp and got less indoctrination.

The sad thing is, you can see this very same thing play out repeatedly in history. The way the germans let the nazis take over, even after it was clear they were up to no good. The way there was no revolution to overthrow the soviet state in the USSR.

You see these same mechanisms happening here in america today-- people claiming that "health care is a right" which is essentially saying they have the right to enslave everyone else for their own benefit.

And there's the error- they think "the rich" or "everyone else" is going to be forced to pay for their wellbeing, never realizing that they are calling for their own enslavement.

Pair the idea that you have a "right" to make others pay for healthcare (and other things) with the claim by these same people that you don't have a right to self defense (eg: own guns.) The latter is even in the constituttion.

You'd think this would cause a dissonance in their head, but the party ideology is so strong they never connect the two.

And when americans are being herded into camps, long disarmed, and forced to work "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".... they will wish they still had guns.

Schools teach people to be compliant little sheep and have done so for over a century, there's a distinct connection between government control over schools and lack of critical thinking in the populace.

Unless things turn around soon, the US will end up in some sort of terrible state. Not likely like North Korea or Nazi germany or the USSR, but we already are suffering from the economic destruction of these kinds of policies (and like NK citizens told to blame the US for their poverty, we're told to blame wall street, germans were told to blame jews, russians were told to blame "hoarders", etc. etc. etc.)

> people claiming that "health care is a right" which is essentially saying they have the right to enslave everyone else for their own benefit.

No, it's saying that as a society we're not going to let people suffer and die in the street when we have the technology and resources to help them. Probably you'll believe in society a bit more if you're ever in a position where you can't solve your problems yourself.

I don't think that we can classify government programs as being charities. Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our money and time freely to organizations that address certain issues. Governments take your money by force, and spend it on things for which you have no say. It isn't "society" doing it.

> "spend it on things for which you have no say"

Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work).

If you really had "no say" then that would be a dictatorship?

And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already.

This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff.

>Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work).

The latter part of your statement is what I agree with. We all know the theory, but we live the practice of democracy. And some of us have gradually quit buying into it.

>And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already.

I'd agree that it is essentially how things are already. The state-corporate partnership is quite a beast. Political influence is bought and sold as easily as stocks are.

>This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff.

The left/right thing breaks down pretty quickly if you find that you loathe all of the major political parties our time. If you're a classical libertarian (or anarchist, depending on the term one prefers), for instance, there isn't a major party for you almost by definition.

> Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our money and time freely to organizations that address certain issues.

The whole reason gov't programs targeting social issues is because private charity failed to address them adequately or at all.

> Governments take your money by force, and spend it on things for which you have no say.

Governments do not take your money by force. People are not born in a vacuum and the services and programs you and your family take advantage of shape the experience of your life. That you yourself will pay into that system and its programs does not mean your money is taken by force, but rather you are contributing in the same way as others before you.

This of course doesn't mean that governments cannot spend money wrongly or enact policies that are destructive towards people, but you are not being unfairly deprived just because you have to pay into services that you yourself will have benefited from, either directly or indirectly.

>Governments do not take your money by force.

So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous.

Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity. That is the difference between force/coercion, and voluntary action.

> So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous.

I'll retract what I said earlier, governments do employ force to collect various taxes (for those governments that collect taxes at all).

> Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity.

I'm not really sure that this is even possible. This implies that there is already material wealth or skills available to be contributed, but it sounds as though that kind of organization isn't collectivist and control is routed through some subset of a population. That social structure sounds really unstable, as its unlikely that the most established and wealthy will continue to ignore other members of society (as they do now).

we're not going to let people suffer and die in the street

It's funny how people are going to die in the street when they're arguing for nationalized healthcare, but the healthcare laws somehow need to cover free contraception, abortions, and breast pumps.

When taxes need to be raised, it's because children are starving in poverty, cops are being fired, and single mothers are being turned out into the streets. Yet, we're wasting billions in foreign aid, sponsoring an Indian reality show for hundreds of millions[1], and wasting billions on obvious avoidable failures like Solyndra.

How can we have an honest dialogue about where we've been, where we are, and how we should proceed when this kind of extreme rhetoric/propaganda is so commonplace?

[1] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/top-10-examples-of-waste...

> It's funny how people are going to die in the street when they're arguing for nationalized healthcare, but the healthcare laws somehow need to cover free contraception, abortions, and breast pumps.

Giving birth can be deadly, but more importantly providing those things helps to reduce the suffering and negative impact on society when people have children, planned or not.

> When taxes need to be raised, it's because children are starving in poverty, cops are being fired, and single mothers are being turned out into the streets.

Taxes aren't raised for any of those things in particular. They are raised increase gov't revenue and that revenue may or may not be allocated to programs to tackle those issues.

> Yet, we're wasting billions in foreign aid, sponsoring an Indian reality show for hundreds of millions[1], and wasting billions on obvious avoidable failures like Solyndra.

The TV show you refer to didn't receive hundreds of millions of dollars. Rather, the Dept. of Agriculture runs a program at a cost of $200 million, part of which went to that show. Note that the heritage foundation (yuck) link you posted makes no mention of the actual amount of money allocated to that TV show and what it was actually for.

As for Solyndra, they received a loan of $535 million from the Dept. of Energy, of which the govt can recoup up to 19% of $142.8 million of that loan (the rest is a loss). To claims billions in losses, you will have to prove that other companies that took loans under that DoE program have all failed and will not repay any part of their loans.

There is waste in gov't spending, for sure, but specifics are needed if we are going be even close to accurate about what is a loss and what is a gain, both in the short and long term.

Giving birth can be deadly

If the whole contraceptive/abortion debate were about saving lives, then I wouldn't even be arguing with you... but it's not is it?

but more importantly providing those things helps to reduce the suffering and negative impact on society when people have children, planned or not.

Okay, now you're a lot more in line with the truth -- the masterminds in charge feel they have license to prevent "negative impact on society". Doesn't that scare you? The people in charge are no better than you or I... in fact I'd say they're mostly worse. They're mostly power hungry and good enough liars to get elected.

Taxes aren't raised for any of those things in particular.

I've heard both Biden and Obama use those EXACT reasons for why we need to raise revenues/taxes.

makes no mention of the actual amount of money allocated to that TV show and what it was actually for.

You're going to split hairs and worry about exactly how much of our tax dollars were spent on an Indian reality show? Who cares? Those people are abusing their trust to reduce "negative impact on society" and should be booted.

As for Solyndra

I didn't say Solyndra was the only loss. Once again, though, you're splitting hairs on how many million it was when the real answer should have been: No, we don't use BORROWED money to fund corporations for industries that are pet projects.

If you doubt that billions have been wasted, you haven't been paying attention. You must not have noticed TARP, large portions of which went to save the money and jobs of wealthy bankers. yay.

> If the whole contraceptive/abortion debate were about saving lives, then I wouldn't even be arguing with you... but it's not is it?

I know this is getting a bit off topic from what you originally were talking about, but abortion and contraception absolutely are about saving lives just as much as giving people control over there lives. In particular, when abortion is not available, people will seek out services from those who know nothing about actually performing an abortion or will attempt to self induce an abortion, which can be devastating in an environment where information is not available.

> Okay, now you're a lot more in line with the truth -- the masterminds in charge feel they have license to prevent "negative impact on society". Doesn't that scare you? The people in charge are no better than you or I... in fact I'd say they're mostly worse. They're mostly power hungry and good enough liars to get elected.

The purpose of organizing via a government in the first place is to prevent negative impact on society, so it really comes down to specifics. Providing health care access is a net gain for everybody and can be done reasonably, but policies like wars of aggression and police militarization are a huge drain on our society and others around the world. Again, it comes down to specifics.

> I've heard both Biden and Obama use those EXACT reasons for why we need to raise revenues/taxes.

They would like to use tax revenue increases to be spent on domestic social programs, but they really can't say it will be used that way, it will all come down to actually passing some kind of legislation to raise revenue and then legislation to spend it. In the current political climate in the US, that's a tall order.

> You're going to split hairs and worry about exactly how much of our tax dollars were spent on an Indian reality show? Who cares? Those people are abusing their trust to reduce "negative impact on society" and should be booted.

I think it matters because its not really clear if the Dept. of Agriculture's program is useful without specific information and details about it.

> I didn't say Solyndra was the only loss. Once again, though, you're splitting hairs on how many million it was when the real answer should have been: No, we don't use BORROWED money to fund corporations for industries that are pet projects.

Solyndra was supposed to be making an improved form of photo volatic solar panels for use in residential construction. While Solyndra was a bust, government spending to advance practical applications of alternative energy technology is definitely a good idea, as we will require better technology of that kind in the future as fossil fuel extraction gets more expensive. To that end, I wouldn't call this a pet project.

Also, the money was a loan that was to be repaid. The bankruptcy restructuring going on now means that the loan originator (the Dept. of Energy) will lose out on some amount of that loan, but the DoE felt is was worth the risk.

As for using tax money (borrowed or not) to spend on corporations through loan or subsidy programs, whether or not it is a waste really depends on the specifics of what that spending seeks to accomplish and what actual results occur. Funding alternative energy research has a strong value, even if it means that sometimes the programs will lose out. Also, the DoE's loan program is not a major source of financial pressure on gov't revenues: military spending and the increasing cost of medicare/medicaid due to lack of health care reform are the two biggest pressures right now.

> If you doubt that billions have been wasted, you haven't been paying attention. You must not have noticed TARP, large portions of which went to save the money and jobs of wealthy bankers. yay.

While I don't agree with the TARP program, billions were not wasted, as the vast majority of TARP funds have been completely repaid[1]:

As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

> North Korea is at the end state of socialism.

North Korea isn't even close to socialist. Workers in NK do not have control over their output and the gov't is controlled by a core group of insiders.

> Once you accept that you're owned by "society", and that everyone is "responsible for the greater good" this is inevitably what you end up with.

Socialism doesn't say that you are owned by society at large and stating there is a responsibility for individuals to their society does not mean that you end up with a totalitarian police state.

> You see these same mechanisms happening here in america today-- people claiming that "health care is a right" which is essentially saying they have the right to enslave everyone else for their own benefit.

This makes no sense, no advocate for health care reform, even universal health care advocates, are saying that people should be enslaved.

> Pair the idea that you have a "right" to make others pay for healthcare (and other things) with the claim by these same people that you don't have a right to self defense (eg: own guns.) The latter is even in the constituttion.

Gun control advocates do not argue that you do not have a right to self defense or even gun ownership, but rather that there can be reasonable regulation on gun ownership.

> And when americans are being herded into camps, long disarmed, and forced to work "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".... they will wish they still had guns.

I'm assuming the americans you are referring to are white americans, considering the history of herding people of other races into camps and removing their rights to self determination.

> Schools teach people to be compliant little sheep and have done so for over a century, there's a distinct connection between government control over schools and lack of critical thinking in the populace.

While I agree that public school systems in the US have issues with being politicized and propagandist, some people from the school system do learn critical thinking skills or have those skills enhanced from going to school, so you'll need to offer more argument/evidence to say there is a direct link.

> Unless things turn around soon, the US will end up in some sort of terrible state. Not likely like North Korea or Nazi germany or the USSR, but we already are suffering from the economic destruction of these kinds of policies (and like NK citizens told to blame the US for their poverty, we're told to blame wall street, germans were told to blame jews, russians were told to blame "hoarders", etc. etc. etc.)

The US is suffering economic destruction not from socialist policies, but rather capitalistic policies that seek to dismantle social safety nets and increase wealth disparity. That those policies are now affecting the (mostly) white middle class more compared to people of color (who have been affected by these policies for decades, if not centuries) doesn't mean that we've taken the same path to ruin as NK or the USSR.