Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> my debate partner was expecting him to get away scot-free, impeached at worst, arguing that no laws were broken in the President's attempt

I never said this. What I may have argued is folks in the military following orders (note: not top brass) were not clearly breaking any laws so long as parliament hadn't overturned the martial law order.

> a person in power defacto declaring themselves dictator was sufficient to enact such, regardless of their popularity, particularly when reasonably enabled by law

Out of order, but I would have never said this either. No man rules alone is like rule one of politics. Rule two is the law flows from power; being legally correct and politically wrong is a historical footnote to losing power.

View on HN

Interesting, especially as I'd have to say that events have proven both of you right from my perspective:

- soldiers gladly obeyed orders to essentially end all democracy

- soldiers mostly seemed to stop obeying their dictator's orders when they got confused about who's even in charge and what was legally standing rather than the public will.

- Yoon is not dead, not even imprisoned

Given all that mess, I can see aspects of both of your claims being true. It's quite interesting!

Fwiw his not being arrested is probably something of a technicality at this point. The government tried to serve an arrest warrant on him but it resulted in a stand of between large numbers of police and large numbers of his entourage, some military, and so on. In the end the police backed down and the drama is only escalating.

Here is the link - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42307147

I don't think my paraphrasing was inaccurate.

The only part accurately summarised is the arrest bit. On that, there is no “told ya.” Yoon has not been arrested. (The chances he may be have gone up. The chances he will be imprisoned have not, in my view, as have those that trying to force his arrest precipitates a halting political crisis.)

This bit, on the other hand, is totally unsubstantiated: “a person in power defacto declaring themselves dictator was sufficient to enact such, regardless of their popularity.” Nobody argued that.

Also: “I was arguing that autocracy, in spite of lack of accountability, generally cannot sustain itself without relatively broad support.” <— You never said this. The closest we came to this was in what adversarial states would want.

You literally quoted me saying as much in the other thread, then tried to mock it:

[me, quoted by you] maintaining power without relatively widespread support is quite difficult

[you] Strange claim in a thread about the Korean peninsula.

I'm sure you know that Yoon was/is extremely unpopular. This was the crux of the issue. If Yoon had an 80% approval, I believe he would be the dictator of South Korea today instead of impeached and with a warrant out for his arrest.

Now obviously you agree with that as well. So where did we disagree? Right, on what happens when an unpopular man tries to declare himself dictator.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com