Response Blog Post #3
In Lecture 13, an interesting question was
raised when we looked at the critique of failed states: Is it better to be a
failed state or a repressed state? That introduces the related question of,
would you rather live in Somalia or North Korea? It is arguably a lose-lose
situation, because Somalia is a failed (or weak) state and North Korea is a
repressed state. We discussed how we can regard a state as failed when there
are is prevalent human rights abuses, high crime rates, lack of civil rights, lack
of an ability to handle natural disasters, civil war, and many other disastrous
qualities. This leads to a myriad of security, poverty, and human rights
issues. Conversely, we can determine a state as repressed when there is no
choice given to the public on how they live their lives, and the government control
is overreaching. The effects can sometimes be similar to those of a failed or weak
state, such as poverty due to a lack of economic freedom (and many more).
However, the main distinction is clarified as being that a failed state has a
weak/ incompetent government and a repressed state has a government that is
seemingly omnipotent. Both are bad, evidently. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it
would be better to live in a repressed state like North Korea, even if I was surrendering
my freedom to do so, because the former option just seems much more dangerous, unpredictable,
and overall, the worse option.
It is extremely dangerous to live in Somalia
due to the armed conflict between the many warlords and factions against the
government forces. Pirates threaten security. There is ubiquitous terrorist
activities and civil unrest. Recently, because of a dispute between rival clans
over tax collection, “At least 14 people were killed and 20 others injured on
Monday in deadly clashes in central Somalia” (Somalia Clan). Personally, I
would not feel safe in such a country where something as trivial as a tax
conflict leads to over a dozen deaths. Meanwhile, in North Korea, while the
government dictates most of your daily life and there is limited private
ownership, at least it is relatively safe. According to one crime rating, North
Korea has a crime index of 16.90, while Somalia’s crime index skyrockets at
53.77 (Crime Rankings).
Based on current news, I found this failed vs
repressed state question to parallel the situation of the Union Square
Hospitality Group, which has been explained by CEO Danny Meyer that the company is beginning a new program that will eliminate the freedom of restaurant-goers to tip
their waiters (Eliminate Tipping). This is a form of repression on
how people can spend their money. Now the tips are already inherent in the meal
prices as a service charge, which could be seen as repressive to people who may
not want to tip their waiters. According to Meyer, this strategy helps workers
and the restaurant industry, because it is often the case that waiters are paid
less than minimum wage (Eliminate Tipping). This is not fair and can compromise
the livelihood of those working in the dining industry.
Though
on a much less crucial scale, the tipping situation can be seen as an analogy
to the Somalia or North Korea question. Meyers’ proposal of eliminating tips in
place of a service charge can be compared to North Korea, because freedom is
limited. What if the waiter serves very poorly or extremely well? They still
get the standard “tip” that now comes in the form of a service charge. This,
though on a much lighter scale, is repression to the restaurant customers. On
the other hand, by allowing people to tip, a disparity of wealth is formed when
sometimes, the waiters are tipped so much that they earn more than the chef.
Or, they can be paid under minimum wage, which is equally, if not more,
detrimental. When comparing this to the belligerent clans of Somalia, one can
look at this as a conflict between the chef clan and the clan of waiters.
This is
a subjective question, so what would you choose: living in Somalia or North
Korea?
However, what if repression costs you your life or the lives of you loved ones? If the state is coming after you to kill you, then wouldn't anarchy be better?
ReplyDeleteThat's really hard to say. Determining the answers to these questions requires real life experience, and without that, all one can do is speculate. Admittedly though, yes, if a state is coming after you to kill you, then anarchy might be better. However, just because the state won't kill you in anarchy, doesn't mean that someone else won't.
DeleteEssentially the question boils down to "are you content to sacrifice your freedom for a better chance at survival?" In a repressive state, it is easy to take refuge on the good side of the government. But how easy is it to stay on the good side of the government? I think it is probably easier than surviving in a failed state, but if somehow you fall out of their favor, you are likely in more danger than a failed state. Also one must consider the competence of the repressive government when making this decision. In North Korea, a famine could kill a million people due to mismanagement of crops by the government. No individual in this case can do anything to prevent their own death against an incompetent repressive government. At least in a failed state, one could seek isolation and self-reliance. Overall, I do not think that one is preferable to the other for the average person.
ReplyDeleteI understand your point that neither option is truly preferable to the other because obviously the best situation would be to live in a state in between having no government and having an all-powerful government. I'm not quite sure, though, what you are referring to when you say "it is easy to take refuge on the good side of the government." Also, just because a government is repressive, does not necessarily mean that it is incompetent.
DeleteThe question of anarchy or police state seems like an easy answer to me, which is anarchy. When living in anarchy, your biggest threat might be a local crime lord who while certainly is dangerous, has much less oversight than a government who has much more access to information and weapons. When living in a state of anarchy, escaping also is a much larger possibility.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point. A local crime lord will probably not have the extent of oversight that a government does. However, the so called weapons that the government possesses could theoretically all be taken or stolen in an anarchic state, and make their way into the wrong hands. Also, the threat would probably not be so easily traced to one source, so your next door neighbor could possibly be ready to attack you. Information is not transparent in neither situation.
DeleteTo answer your question, I think I would take a similar approach to the situation as Frank. While my personal security would be better protected in a police state, like North Korea, the instant that the government disagrees with any of my actions, I have absolutely no chance of escape and likely no chance of survival. This is a result of the lack of self defense and legal protection I would have with which I could defend myself.
ReplyDeleteIn a state in anarchy, such as Somalia, I at least have two options for survival when my personal security is threatened. First, escaping the country or to another region is much more possible because of the lack of a governing body to patrol the borders. Furthermore, do to the lack of regulation, it would be entirely possible for me to physically defend myself with weapons or other physical means because of the lack of legal consequences for my actions. Finally, the people I would be attempting to evade have much smaller reach than a national government which allows me more freedom.
I totally see your point here in your reasoning of why you would rather live in an anarchic state. However, it goes both ways. Yes, it is true that you could physically defend yourself with weapons due to the lack of legal consequences. Although, doing so would likely invoke retaliation, and there is no higher authority that could hinder others to come and attack you in response. I don't quite understand what you mean in your last sentence, but otherwise I understand your reasoning but don't think it can be qualified as definitive and always true.
DeleteIn Somalia, there are many refugees and criminals who are making the country weaker and poor. Living in Somalia is being run by anarchy, which is not the way to live. If I were to live in Somalia, There would be no strict rules that are enforced which will encourage people to fight each other, and a lot of violence will result in this. North Korea is economically sustainable, and although their ruler is not effective or well-liked by those outside of N. Korea, there is still some order. The only problem with North Korea is that they have a terrible missile crisis whereas Somalia has a civil war that is ongoing, and it is more dangerous to live there. Therefore i would choose to live in North Korea, because at least there i would be safer that Somalia.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. It seems that the rest of our blog group thinks otherwise, but the high crime rate in Somalia would be a factor that would deter me from living there. However, I would caution you to say that "The only problem with North Korea is that they have a terrible missile crisis" because there certainly other issues in North Korea. Nonetheless, I stay with my original belief (and yours) that living in North Korea would be better than living in Somalia.
Delete