Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 8

Poetical testament

I stubbed this entry for the DYK of Testament mój. The phrase appears to be used in English, but perhaps there's a better one? I cannot find any good sources to expand this tiny stub through my searchers for this term (Polish ones, which I know do define it this genra, known in Polish language as testament poetycki, are rarely previewable on Google due to copyright outside of tiny snippets). Would be nice to turn Template:Did you know nominations/Testament mój into a double DYK, if somebody could help find better sources (or tell me a better name for this genra in English). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't help much, but I'll throw out a couple random thoughts, in case they're helpful. I immediately think of François Villon's Le Testament (that should tell you how strongly this registers as a genre in English -- I first think of a medieval French poem!); although this is clearly of a different character than Testament mój, it might be easier to find information about this type of poem by looking up what people have said about this or other specific examples, rather than trying to search on the genre (or sub-sub-genre?) itself. Other possible analogues that come to mind are Chaucer's Retraction and other similar works... sort of the opposite of a testament: "how I do not want to be remembered". Chaucer's Retraction is in fact in prose, but is by a poet about poetry and ending an almost-all-verse work. Good luck! Phil wink (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Causing death maliciously and legally?

In the TV series Dexter, in season 7, Dexter lures a mob boss to a bar of a rivaling gang, where the boss finds himself in a shoot-out, trying to save his own life. Had he died as a result, would Dexter be legally responsible? The mob boss stalked him there of his own will, so it seems he didn't technically brake any law. Thanks, 84.109.248.221 (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In Florida, definitely. See Ryan Holle for a real-life example of a murder conviction based on a far more tenuous connection with the death. See also the general murder article. Tevildo (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

They would have to prove it, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ryan Holle Case is not strange, he supposedly knowingly lent the getaway vehicle in a robbery gone bad. That's run-of-the-mill felony murder. Felony murder wouldn't apply in Dexter's case unless he was involved in some crime in cooperation with the shooter which led to the boss's death. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The key in the Dexter case might be whether anyone knew what he was up to, i.e. if he told anyone in advance - or if he came up with this in his own head and kept it there. If the latter, then he shouldn't be legally responsible, even if he is morally responsible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You are suggesting conspiracy, Bugs? I don't watch the show, so speculating as to what's going on is a little difficult from my end. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen the show, nor even heard of it until the OP's question. I'm just saying, given the OP's scenario, how Dexter might or might not be legally culpable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A good DA may be able to cobble together a case of reckless endangerment or maybe depraved indifference. Whether a jury would convict...that's a whole different question.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are civil law, not necessarily criminal standards, and they apply when there is some duty of care. Unless Dexter were the owner of the property or he was the boss's physician or acting as some sort of licensed agent, as opposed to a bystander, there would be no case. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are most definitely criminal law terms and are defined as such by statute in most jurisdictions (see, for one quick example, here) and "duty of care" can be a consideration, but is not a required element. But, again, that's why I say a case could be cobbled together, didn't say it would be a good case...but in states with Grand Jury indictments, who knows what would fly.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

So your point is there is such a thing as criminal negligence? μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as a case of negligence. From the description, it sounds like Dexter intended for the mob boss to find himself in a dangerous situation. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that would qualify as malice aforethought and first-degree murder, with no need to invoke "wanton indifference" or felony murder (not sure what the predicate felony would be in any case).

On the other hand the Holle case is truly shocking. If the felony-murder rule leads to that result, it's a good argument for changing it somehow. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP and/or someone familiar with the show and that episode, needs to inform us whether anyone besides Dexter and the TV audience for this fictional presentation knew what Dexter was up to, or could somehow find out what Dexter was up to. If not, I don't see how he could be charged with anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The question was whether he was legally responsible, not whether he could get caught. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dexter knew that the mob boss will try to stalk him and searched online for a bar of the rivaling gang, in hope that the boss would get killed (he survived, but let's assume he hadn't). However, the police in the series has no way to prove any malice aforethought (although the audience knows there was). 84.109.248.221 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Malice aforethought is the difference between first and second degree murder, not second-degree murder and felony homicide per se. If Dexter lured the guy into danger without either committing some crime in doing so or some crime in causing the danger he has no criminal culpability I can think of. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, Medeis. If you lure someone into danger with the intent that he be injured, as I say I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that is in itself a crime, and if he dies it's probably murder one, with the malice aforethought being there directly and not having to be imputed to anything (so the felony-murder rule in particular is irrelevant). --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

But with no evidence, how would you prove it in court? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely separate question, irrelevant. --Trovatore (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you can't be charged with a crime, how can you be considered criminally responsible? Like if the speed limit is 70 and I hit an open stretch and push the speed up to 95, and then slow back down, have I committed a traffic violation? Technically, yes. But unless someone caught me, legally speaking it didn't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, you're mixing up epistemology with reality. The question here is just what's true, not what can be proved. --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And you're mixing me up further with every response. Explain to dumb li'l ol' me, in single-syllable words that I can understand, how the guy is legally culpable for anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Because I keep thinking back to this comment in a movie, about a guy arrested for no good reason: "He might beat his mother every day and twice on Sunday, but as far as the law is concerned, he hasn't done a thing." Why is that incorrect? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That's probably about the presumption of innocence. The law treats you as innocent assuming your guilt has not been proved. But that's a different question from the actual definition of what it means to be factually guilty. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP asked if he was "legally responsible". Maybe he was, in some theoretical way. But if no one else knew what he was up to, and if no one else could know (no comments to others about his plan, no record of such a plan), then as a practical matter, he can't be charged - unless he decides to confess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Trovatore, there are indeed certain civil law concepts like attractive nuisance which might be applicable depending on circumstances, but you'd have to come up with an example and a name of a crime to convince me there was a criminal charge that could be brought. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Attractive nuisance is about accidents. This is not an accident. If you arrange circumstances intending for someone to get killed, and he gets killed in those circumstances, in my non-expert understanding, that's murder, regardless of whether you pulled the trigger. (Well, it could also be self-defense, I suppose, depending, but that's justification, not absence of malice.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

When I take the time to say "concepts like", "which might be applicable", and "depending on circumstances" you can be assured I have done so for a purpose. The example given here essentially of inviting someone to a bad neighborhood has nothing to do with the accused physically acting to cause a death in the way putting poison in his food or digging a mantrap would. You could probably sue Dexter for wrongful death, which, yet again, is a civil charge. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What if you know someone wants a showdown with you, so you drive past his car, then lead him up a winding unlit mountain road where you know there's a a bridge out (you should be driving a 1947 Cadillac, with ominous music playing on your radio). Then at the last minute you turn hard out of the way and let him go over the cliff. Is that murder (assuming it's not self-defense)? I bet it is. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In other words, what if someone who wants to kill you drives recklessly enough that he is killed by road conditions you didn't cause? μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That you didn't cause, but that you did know about, and that you deliberately led him to, yes. Pretty sure that's murder (again, assuming it's not self-defense). --Trovatore (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, again, that might be a civil matter if it could be shown you had a duty of care. This has gotten bizarre when you are aruguing tha escaping from someone who wants to kill you amounts to murder. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, unless it's self-defense. That's the only relevance of the "wants to kill you" part. Duty of care is irrelevant — you are working actively to get him killed, not merely failing to prevent it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If evolution doesn't exist ...

Moved from the Moved to the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science

... and Adam and Eve are the origin of everything: how do races exist? Shouldn't we be all the same? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That question is more appropriate for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, since there is obviously no scientific answer to a question that involves Adam and Eve. Surtsicna (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

From a scientific (evolutionary) point of view, there is some evidence that we are all descended from an "Adam" and an "Eve" (but the problem is that they didn't live at the same time). See Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. It takes many, many thousands of years of separate development without interbreeding for people with common ancestors to accumulate sufficient random genetic differences to be regarded as different "races" (if that concept has any scientific validity), but if you don't believe in evolution, I suppose you can claim that the genetic differences were not random, so separation of races occurred much more rapidly (not in 6000 years, though). There are many different viewpoints on this topic, so please don't take my observations as the start of an argument or long discussion. I expect that you've read more of our article on Intelligent design than I have. Dbfirs 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If the OP is asking about the biblical Adam and Eve, there's an "explanation" in Genesis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, how does the bible explain the existence of different races? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The story of the Tower of Babel explains it. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It explain how humanity got divided in nations, but, if you don't believe in evolution, how does it come that people look different? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article about race from Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races. Surprising to me that they take the view that mainstream scholars take: the concept of race is not scientifically well-defined and the genetic differences between races are so small as to be meaningless in any moral sense. Lucky for them, downplaying the differences between races makes it seem more plausible that they could've developed over a period of only a few thousand years. (Or all at once in a miracle after the tower of babel.) Staecker (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger, but look at some interpretations of the Mark of Cain. Mingmingla (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also see the story of Noah and the flood. After the flood, Noah's sons go off and settle in different parts of the world... the implication is that each of the various races are descended from a different son. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! And how do they explain that descendants of different sons look so different? Did they evolved to adapt to a new environment, or did god send them exotic looking wifes?OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that a serious, or an unserious challenge to what you imply is nonsense? μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a challenge. I was just asking for clarification. Having three sons and each looking so different, implies that the mothers would look different. The bible is full of inconsistencies, so I won't be surprised if there is no further explanation about this.OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• According to the Bible, the three races of Africa, Asia and Europe originated from the three sons of Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. These would be the Blacks, the Semites, and the Non-Semite Whites. This classification survived into the Enlightenment. It gives rise to the Afroasiatic language family's traditional name, Hamito-Semitic which (invalidly) grouped white speakers under Semitic and black under Hamitic. Of course there are other stories like the mark of Cain and more Greco-Roman influenced classifications where the blacks are the Nubians and central Asian people whom we might call Mongoloid are broadly termed the Scythians. Before Columbus, focus seems to have been on "nations" like the Blemmyes which evolved in myth to Blemmyes (legendary creatures). Race in the modern sense became the matter of innocent natural historical observation, but led to theories of supremacy that were blended with justifications for slavery and colonization. These developments are quite remote from the original biblical notions. See also, Japhetic. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989257 and http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006325?q=microevolution&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wavelength, the Amish, is posting again links to the Mormons. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there some law against being Amish or Mormon? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, but spam is certainly not welcome everywhere. Sometimes Wavelength is pushy, not being always on topic. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

He's not being pushy. He's providing references to a certain point of view, and giving a clear indication as to the source of the point of view, and he's keeping it low key and certainly not being argumentative or forceful. --Jayron32 01:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• To take this from a different angle, creationists generally don't say that evolution doesn't exist at all -- the ability to breed altered varieties of dogs or plants is undeniable. What they say is that evolution is incapable of creating a new species. I believe they would consider different races of people to be on the same level as different breeds of dogs. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

They are on the same level, scientifically, aren't they? ( ... except that there is probably less difference between races than between breeds, and breeds have taken less than 35,000 years to diverge -- some only a hundred years!) Dbfirs 08:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Looie still has a point. Scientifically the mechanism might be the same (mutation and selection) in both cases (create different breeds or different species). However, creationists are not a part of science nor they seem to react to it (it was wrong once, it could be wrong again; god wants you to think this way; accept what's mysterious; whatever). Evolution is restricted for the creationists, so there is nothing to explain regarding my question. OsmanRF34 (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I read your question as why did dogs change rapidly but humans not so much in the last period X. On the one hand, as a non-expert, I would think Humans are relatively well adapted for living in most places, so one would expect only minor evolutionary changes over time and also humans are rarely geographically fragmented since humans have always travelled far and wide. For example, the vikings in constantinople. On the other hand I don't consider it that surprising that Dogs changed quite rapidly. To contrast with Humans, dogs had an intelligent designer: Us to pick for specific purposes and to remove obstacles like scarcity of food or the disadvantage of certain variations and to also artificially separate the different breeds from interbreeding. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

For dogs, see Origin of the domestic dog#Neoteny in the rapid evolution of diverse dog breeds. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

---

By the way, the ancient Israelites or Jews of Biblical times simply didn't have a concept of race in any quasi-modern sense. They were aware of the existence of black people (in remote areas at the edge of the world as known to the Israelites), but non-travelers rarely came into direct contact with them. The Table of Nations of the Book of Genesis (chapter 10), in the form that we have it today is basically a tabulation of the peoples known to the ancient Israelites ca. the 7th century B.C. It is organized into descendants of Shem (broadly speaking those who had somewhat similar cultural/linguistic origins to the Israelites), descendants of Japheth (culturally exotic types at the far north of the world as known to the Israelites, living in areas such as Anatolia), and descendants of Ham (culturally exotic types living in areas significantly to the west of the Israelites, and also some disliked/despised peoples living near the Israelites, who were assigned to Ham in order to distance them from Israelites). None of these subgroupings was intended to be racial in nature. Some of the logic involved in expressing social and geographical distance by means of genealogies is the same as in a high-level Segmentary lineage system (not explained very well in the article on the subject)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect people are projecting modern biases onto the ancient world here. Simple Darwinism is that change in pigmentation has to be the result of random mutations, but long before Lamarck and Lysenko there were surely laymen who simply assumed that Africans had been darkened by countless generations of suntanning. (In truth, there may well be more of a role of epigenetics, especially inheritance of acquired characteristics, than we realize, even in the fixation of mutations at methylated sites - I ought to check back on how deeply people have gone into the population biology of skin color by now. There certainly are biological mechanisms by which melanocyte stimulating hormone sites in the gonads could become the target of alterations that last for generations in response to tanning) Wnt (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is North Korea so poor and under-developed because of communism?

^Topic. ScienceApe (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That depends on how you define communism. But it is poor because it is a dictatorially run centrally controlled economy, and it is poorer than it was before the current "communist" rule, and poorer than it would have been with the same rule as the South. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Or speculation or alternative history. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there has never been a communist country.
211.30.157.65 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretty textbook case of a controlled experiment. What, besides "communist" (Kim) rule, explains the difference? μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference between what and what? There is no 'control' here whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have the non-communist South and the communist North Korea. However, there are other variables, besides being communist that are also relevant to the comparison. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'non-communist South' isn't a 'control'. It's history (including its economic and political development) has clearly been affected by what went on in the north. There is simply no way to ascertain what 'would have happened' in an alternate history. This can only ever be speculation - and this isn't a forum for speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't grump at me. I agree that it's not a control, but people will use it as a kinda scientific proof about why communism doesn't work. You could also have used West/East Germany or Cuba/some prosperous Caribbean country. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Compare living standards in Cuba with Haiti and Dominican Republic, and the picture becomes more complex. There are tons of people wanting to leave those places to migrate to the US, the difference lies in that Cubans don't get deported. --Soman (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there any significant effort made to stop someone from leaving the DR if they want to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No true communist...? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Being a dictatorship? Being completed disconnected from almost all the rest of the world? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you ignorant of the meaning of my scare quotes around "communism" and my reference to Kim rule, Osman? Please say something actually relevant to the issue. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would that quotes have a random meaning that you want to attach them? Admit your mistakes Merdeis. OsmanRF34 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The South was a dictatorship too for a fair amount of time, so being one of those isn't the determining factor. Mingmingla (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The South was authoritarian, and has evolved into a democracy. The north was and has stayed a totalitarian state. See the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. Not only is it bizarre to deny this is not a textbook political experiment, it behooves the skeptics to explain how the North's self-imposed starvation helps the trade-partner seeking south. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read in a number of news articles that North Korea was more or less on an even level of development with South Korea (or sometimes even ahead) until at least the early 1970s. During the 1970s, presumably, South Korea started to take off as an "Asian tiger", while North Korea relatively stagnated because most of the work of recovery and reconstruction after the War was done, and most of the low-hanging fruit that could be achieved by means of a Stalin-style centrally-planned economy with emphasis on heavy industry (accompanied by inefficient agriculture and semi-neglected consumer industries) had already been accomplished. By the way, the original poster may not be aware that North Korea hasn't really been "communist" in any conventional way for a long time. For a number of decades, Juche has overshadowed Marxism-Leninism, while more recently Songun seems to be overshadowing Juche. The most recent version of the North Korean constitution reportedly doesn't mention communism at all... AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a historical speculation on a (pathetically framed) single analytical point of causation, there will be no answer. Historiography repeatedly demonstrates plurality of causes, and the need to analyse actual historical societies in the context of multiple forms of simultaneous causation. A start in reading might be Simon Pirani, Vladimir Andrle, Sheila Fitzpatrick for their recent work on a broadly similar society, where popular and mass proletarian revolution was destroyed by a bureaucratic party run by intellectuals and bourgeois; and the Korean Institute of Military History's section on the causes of the Korean War in particular on the internal elimination of pluralist Stalinism / Maoism in the Korean party in favour of the Juche idea. So the answer is a resounding "no." to the question, amplified with a "this question is bad, and worse, wrong." Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

North Korea was certainly underdeveloped as of 1945, and until the 1980s the country experienced considerable advances. Comparisons with South Korea are debatable, but an important factor to the South's economic progress is that since South Korea were such a crucial point in the Cold War the U.S. allowed a degree of protectionism of national industries (hardly a neoliberal doctrine). So, one could say that the prosperity of the south is partly explained by communist rule in the north. However, the point is that the economy of North Korea pretty much collapsed at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union. No country, regardless of the political doctrine of its leadership, would have passed untouched by such an event. --Soman (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NK vs SK and East Germany vs West Germany are both good comparisons, but Cuba vs some other Carribean island is not, since there are many islands with completely different cultures, histories, etc., to choose from, so everyone will pick the one that demonstrates whatever they want to show. StuRat (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that Cuba and DR is pretty much comparable in terms of culture, history (similar in size, economic structure, colonial history), probably more similar than say Prussia and Bavaria. Comparing Cuba with Cayman Islands, on the other hand, would be a flawed comparison. --Soman (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Have there been any countries in recent memory where you have to get permission to leave, besides the so-called communist countries? (USSR and its satellites, China, North Korea, Cuba) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Every time I've exited Australia I've needed permission from the state by filling out a form. The fact that this permission was readily given pro-forma on a document I completed in 30 seconds at the airport doesn't change that. Maybe you mean, "Where permission to leave is often denied; or perceived by the population or world community for good cause as likely to be denied"? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, the only way you can leave a place like Cuba is by defecting or otherwise escaping. In Australia, obviously it's a rubber-stamp situation. Huge difference. My guess is that they want to make sure you're not a fugitive from justice. In repressive states, in effect everyone is a fugitive. The reason they won't let people leave is because they would most likely not want to come back to their "people's republic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's not quite as simple as that, ScienceApe.

For the first twenty years or so after the Korean War, North Korea was actually even more developed than its southern counterpart. The former had a strong industrial base (although it was at least partially based on forced labour), whereas the latter's economy relied almost exclusively on agriculture. This gradually began to change from the 1960s through to the 1990s due to several different factors. Firstly, South Korea had an economic miracle of sorts. Dictator Park Chung-hee diversified the South Korean economy through government cooperation with the private sector and increased revenue from exports, inducing massive GDP growth on all fronts. By contrast, Kim Il-sung's regime up north was working to further isolate itself from the outside world through it's policy of self-reliance, known as Juche. However, this was not sustainable in its own right, and North Korea was left depending on massive subsidies from the Soviet Union to maintain a stable economy. This also came at a time when the government was increasingly focused on military spending, largely due to the growing influence of heir apparent Kim Jong-il. After the fall of communism and the dissolution of the USSR, North Korea was left almost entirely without any sort of financial aid. Kim Il-sung died in 1994 and Kim Jong-il officially took the reigns. He quickly shifted his focus onto expanding the country's military.

Two things happened that caused the catastrophic famine of 1994-1998:

1. China began facing grain shortages and had to cut subsidies to North Korea.
2. North Korea experienced massive flooding which destroyed acres of arable land and tonnes of underground emergency supplies.

Up to 3,000,000 died of starvation during this four-year period. But even now, despite large financial aid from China and other countries, the majority of North Koreans suffer from malnourishment and are left fending for themselves while the government focuses most of its energy on an unpredictable foreign policy. South Korea, on the other hand, has become a democratic society with a highly developed economy.

So in a sense, communism has factored into the destitute living conditions of North Korea. But what it really boils down to is the fact that they are almost completely isolated from the outside world. Aside from their own unwillingness to make contact with other nations, the North Korean government has been placed under strict sanctions by the UN, the United States, and several other international bodies for their numerous provocative activities, not least of which is their nuclear weapons program. Their purported communist ideology is irrelevant; any government can be responsible for such economic mismanagement on a grand scale. They don't have enough money to support their people, and the funding they do get is diverted to arms and munitions.

Basically, the reason North Korea is so poor is because the government doesn't care about its people. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this couldn't happen to the same degree in a democratic nation, because those who caused the problem would soon be voted out of office. It also couldn't happen to the same degree with open borders, as there would be a mass migration of the starving to other nations, as in the Irish Potato Famine. Capitalism would also limit such an event, as so many starving people, willing to trade all they had for food, would provide overwhelming financial incentives to produce or obtain food. So, it has to be a totalitarian, centrally-controlled economy with closed borders. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Capitalist democracy with open borders: Bengal famine of 1943; part of a known system of famine and neglect, btw. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)