Pecin once said that the view

Pecin once said that the view of the rule of law and democracy as opposed to each other came from Hayek's later writings (Law, Legislation, and Freedom). When I looked it up, it turned out that you really didn't. I guess I didn't read many books by classical liberals like Hayek and Friedmann. (I've probably read more "Left.")

In any case, I believe that Yoon Suk Yeol is a "confident criminal" and that his ideas will have a significant impact on conservative political circles in Korea. As Chen Kwan-yul put it well yesterday...

Frankly, "trumpism," the tip of conservative right-wing ideology in the 21st century, is far from the liberalism of Hayek/Friedmann in the late 20th century and the neoliberalism that inherited it, although it may be said that fascism or the re-emergence of great power hegemony in the late 19th century.

It's well known that Hayek, who saw the rule of law and democracy as opposition, supported the military coup in Pinochet, Chile. Perhaps Yoon Suk Yeol knew this, because it was a rare moment of liberalism and military dictatorship.

The irony is that one of the core elements of Xi Jinping's ideology and socialism with Chinese characteristics, which is dominated by "Seokyeolism," is the rule of law. China has a political system far from majority rule. By swearing in the Chinese air, you become more like the Chinese air.

I've seen some Pechin argue that the core of democracy is not majority rule. I don't know. I think the core of democracy is majority rule anyway, which is realized by regular election change of political leaders/leaders.

In fact, I started writing on Facebook with this idea because it was influenced by Adam Schevorsky's book "Democracy, What Can't Do and Can Do," which I read a while ago. I looked it up and found out that the same author also wrote a book called "Democracy and the Rule of the Law." I'm going to read it right away. I don't think there's a clean conclusion like cutting radish with a knife, but...

(I'm thinking a lot about different things at the end of my career by reading, exercising, and making travel plans. I'm going to go on that trip to China this year.) The rule of law is a means of realizing democracy. Of course, totalitarianism has the rule of law, which means the rule of law that follows the constitutionalism that sets the basic liberal democratic order.

The reason why Yoon Suk Yeol confronted the rule of law and democracy is that it used democracy in the meaning of people's democracy.

Originally, democracy is consideration for minorities and the weak, but people's democracy is a totalitarian political ideology based on the principle of majority vote.

So, I have no problem with logic that Yoon Suk Yeol confronted the rule of law and democracy, which is people's democracy (the democracy claimed by North Korea or communist countries is people's democracy)

However, seeing the Democratic Party of Korea and opposition forces now as people's democracies or relying on fraudulent election conspiracy theories is a psychotic perception that the Yoon Suk Yeol's perception of reality is very wrong.

For your information, the view of the opposition's democracy as a people's democracy is not completely groundless. Understanding the majority vote as the basis of democracy is a people's democratic and totalitarian view, but there are many people who link the majority vote with democracy. Choi Byung-cheon also said that the majority vote is the essence of democracy while talking about the 'page theory'... It is a wrong idea.  

And neoliberalism didn't succeed and develop Hayek/Friedmann

It's neoliberalism that originally came out against Hayek, and liberalism and neoliberalism in Hayek are very different.

Neoliberalism is similar to socialism. The distinction between socialism and neoliberalism cannot be seen at first glance. This is due to the idea of considering the weak in minorities. However, there is a critical difference between neoliberalism and the pursuit of equality by means of freedom, and socialism does not use freedom by means of freedom.

Friedmann is not a person who represents the political and economic ideology of neoliberalism, he is just a person who represents the economic theory of monetaryism.

Neoliberalism and Friedmann's approach only has a point of contact in that they pursue a small and efficient government. For your information, neoliberalism does not always seek small and efficient government. There are times when a large government is good for the weak of minorities, but in that case, a large government is taken.

Neoliberalism and Hayek liberalism have only a point of contact in that they use freedom as a means of historical development...

The point of contact between neoliberalism and Rolls-Flow's contractual progressive liberalism is that it is for the minority and aims for equality, but Rolls-Flow's liberalism, which understands freedom contractually, and neoliberalism, which understands non-contractualism, are completely different ideas

Neoliberalism, Hayek liberalism, Rolls' contractual equilibrium liberalism, and Labor liberalism are all completely different ideas and ideologies.

Margaret Thatcher's liberalism is contractual will-based liberalism of Nozik.