I, for one, deal with it by pointing out the following. Are you ready? Here goes…
LOGIC > EMPIRICISM
How about you actually, you know, identify the criteria for us?
Either you have no understanding whatsoever of basic logic or you’re just trolling. I’m not sure which one is worse.
And when asked to explain just how that institutionalized framework actually does imprison “statists”, you have hemmed, hawed, and repeated the bare assertion. It would seem you have no intellectual leg to stand on. Your position is intellectually bankrupt. As you’re fond of saying…
Yes, centuries of slavery and racial marginzalization haven’t occured at all. – Cain
Who said anything about duplication? See again you are talking from a point of ignorance. The Aztecs had enemy tribes around them. The Europeans recruited local tribes to attack the Aztecs because they knew they were the dominate power in the region. - Cain
By definition, an inferior culture is one that is subject to predation and enslavement. In addition, an inferior culture cultivates ill will with contiguous states.
The bottom line is that the native american cultures were vastly inferior in economic, technological, and political terms relative to the European states. This inferiority manifested itself in there immediate collapse.
IN contrast, liberal democracies are pacific toward each other, they have vigorous alliances that deter predation, and they share responsibility for defense production and research thereby increasing productivity through comparative advantage and economies of scale.
Specifically, the Aztecs were led by a monarchial clown whose only justification to the throne was heriditary. Hardly an effective poltical system – see Locke, Paine, Henry and others for confirmation of this truth.
Great job applying a modern style of government to an ancient society. There were just so many liberal democracies floating around Europe. Let us see you have
The Spanish: No wait…they had a king
The English: No
The French: No
The Holy Roman Empire: No
Portugal: No
Russia: No
Italy: No
Are you getting the point yet? – Cain
And this has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Well at least I shut you up on the epidemics portion. Now just need to lock down the extras. – Cain
I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Sharing research and production within the military-industrial complex among liberal democracies is one of the reasons why DPT is valid and reliable.
Namely that liberal democracies share most of the production, research and design within the military-industrial complex creating some benefits, including the following – (1) they are more dependent on each other for defense (2) they gain tremendously from comparative advantage (3) since they share this relationship based on trust and a common bond of respect for life, liberty and private property, they have a shared responsibilty for production and research in the defense industry that further breeds cooperation and trust.
I submit that this whole “Democratic Peace Theory” - why aren’t you calling it “Higher-Order Democratic Peace Theory” yet, Centinel? - is itself a giant red herring to distract people from the 800-lb. gorilla in the room: the US government and its hegemony over most of the rest of the world.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how a decade of no war between democratic states proves that the so-called DPT is correct.–aristippus
Besides the strudy validity and reliability of empirical evidence supporting DPT (no liberal democracies have ever fought a war) the following is a short list of the logical evidence supporting the theory:
Democracies have a culture of peaceful adjudication of disputes Democracies share a common bond of respect and adherence of civil and political rights. Furthermore, democracies have relatively open borders and allow for the free exchange of labor goods and services that breeds familiarity, friendship and trust Democracies are vibrant free traders which undermines the potential benefits of conquest. Democracies have vigorous free speech rights which undermine unjust wars. Democracies have universal sufferage which gives the electoral (particularly the ‘gentle sex’) the power to moderate and remove aggressive politicians. Democracies limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of coercion in society, thereby making it less virulent. Democracies share defense research and production thereby creating trust and mutual dependence.’ The elements of coercion within liberal democracies are limited, balanced, decentralized and transparent further reducing the propensity for violence against like minded free societies Wars are fought primarily to preserve life, liberty and private property for the benefit of society at large and not special interest groups as the case within autocratic and anarchic societies. Within liberal democracies the benefits of war are not realized by those who fight wars hence there is a strong disincentive from the military class to avoid unjust wars against likeminded societies motivated by economic gain. IN addition, since democracies are vigorous free trading nations, the economic gains are lessened by attacking a state that you already have relatively free access to their markets. Note that free trade has increased in parallel with the increase in the number of liberal democracies. IN contrast, monarchial and other autocratic regimes are mercantilist which breeds distrust and friction. Empirically speaking, the evidence is irrefutable. No higher order democracies have ever engaged in war with each other. And the sparse evidence of wars among lesser democracies is significant and further supports the theory. Lastly, I am willing to match rhetoric with substance and challenge any anarchists to a friendly wager ($1000) managed or underwritten by a reputable 3rd party . amusingly no anarchist has the courage or conviction to meet this free market challenge despite the fact that there have been numerous wars and conflicts since the end of WWII AND liberal democracy has proliferated — YET no war between any liberal democracies. |
|---|
Amusingly, anarchists claim that citing the absence of war between liberal democracies is somehow a fallacy a gigantic proportion since they claim that the correlation is fleeting (without any evidence of their own) . However, when you point out to these anarchists that absolutely no anarcho-capitalist society has existed for any length of time in all of recorded history, they claim that this is a fallacy as well. So the absence of empirical evidence is no argument against anarchism YET the presence of overwhelming empirical evidence is a fallacy if it supports a theory?!!
it seems that any empirical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, that debunks anarchist fantasy is conveniently dismissed out of hand as a fallacious argument in the absence of any logical or empirical rebut.
I have noticed that failed ideologies like Marxists and anarchists use this tactic in a futile attempt to defend the indefensible.
-
The fact that you even use phrases like “logical evidence” strongly implies to me that you see no difference between logical reasoning and empirical evidence.
-
Your “short list” is just a bunch of claims, claims, claims without any support. It’s not up to us to refute them - it’s up to you to back them up. The burden of proof strikes again.
Again, logic trumps empiricism. The notion of correlation implies causation, or post hoc ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy per se as there is no necessary logical connection between correlation and causation. One must explain the causation itself.
Where is the “overwhelming empirical evidence”? All I see you doing is claiming that no “democracies” have gone to war with each other since the end of World War II. Wait, no, you meant no “higher-order democracies” have done so, right? Or did you mean no “liberal democracies” have done so? I’m confused - especially since you obstinately refuse to provide your definitions for these terms.
At this point, though, I don’t think you’re trolling - at least not in the traditional sense of trolling as online deception. You seem to honestly believe that you’re making rock-solid logical arguments. However, when I and others point out to you that you’re doing anything but that, you simply deny it, repeat your bare assertions, try to change the subject, and engage in rhetorical tactics intended to shut us up. You’ve gone so far as to ignore me outright, but obviously I don’t care, since I’m responding to you anyway. Even ignoring me won’t shut me up, you see.
There are none so blind…
Centinel,
Bison are held captive today, but are not “domesticated” in the sense that cows are. As I stated native cities were some of the largest in the world at the time, so they certainly had the wherewithal to sustain huge populations.
You gotta read more: Spanish Conquest of Mexico
Yeah, and European cities were squeaky clean, right? Again you gotta read more: Spanish amazed by cleanliness of Tenochitlan
They were not destined to decline, Eurasians got lucky.
I think you are painting with too broad a brush here. Why would the Iriquios and Algonquins, two societies embattled for a bitter struggle for supremacy, ally themselves against some new and seemingly innocuous colonists? That’s like questioning why the English and French wouldn’t ally during the 100 Years War. Your ignorance is astounding.
Surives for how long? Hunter gatherer cultures had been existant much longer than the oldest “Liberal Democracy”. They were much more free as individuals than any Europeans past the Neolithic. Prosperity is a relative measure. What is more peaceful, a tribal raid, or Antietam?
I submit that this whole “Democratic Peace Theory” - why aren’t you calling it “Higher-Order Democratic Peace Theory” yet, Centinel? - is itself a giant red herring to distract people from the 800-lb. gorilla in the room: the US government and its hegemony over most of the rest of the world.
I don’t think he understands that democracy = / = science no matter how many names he wants to throw out - or he has yet to show it does. Markets however are science; and the division of labor is the foundation of civilization, this is an uncontroversial fact. Market action is the unavoidable engine for the human civilized condition
Now if he is saying hegmonies in power usually don’t fight within each other - or the US has a better hegemony than other hegemonies, than he may be stating something… still not a science though. There is no reason to approach this man from an anarchist position, as that would do no good and would put you on equal footing with him - but see him as a man who has a difficult time stating and seeing fact.
+1
Look at those goalposts roll! I bet they could do 60mph on a paved highway!
Clayton -
I never said that - in fact there are different kinds of slavery (even e.g. within the chattel slavery of Ancient Greece). – aristippus
You stated something to the effect that ‘in many ways Athens was more democratic than modern day liberal democracies’ and I challenged this poor attempt at moral equivalency between Athens which practiced slavery and modern day democracies.
Do you know acknowledge that Athens should not be considered a higher order democracy ?
Or do you consider Athens more free and democratic that the USA ?
Several = 2?? --aristippus
Okay, here is the short list of war involving at least on supposedly ‘peaceful’ European nation-state from 1815 to 1914:
· Spanish American wars of independence
· Ecuadorian War of Independence
· Brazilian War of Independence
· Spanish reconquest of Mexico
· Russo-Turkish War (1828–1829)
· Egyptian–Ottoman War (1831–1833)
· Dutch intervention in Northern Bali
· Dutch intervention in Northern Bali
· First Italian War of Independence
· Second Italian War of Independence
· Hispano-Moroccan War (1859–1860)
· Russian Conquests of Central Asia
· French intervention in Mexico
· Third Italian War of Independence
· French Campaign against Korea, 1866
· 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia
· Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)
· French occupation of Tunisia
· Second Madagascar expedition
Kinda debunks your assertion of a pacific Europe and monarchism prior to the emergence of DPT.
As I pointed out, the democratic states have turned to internal war since in modern times it is far less costly and more efficient - this is one major factor in the lack of wars between democratic states. But this is not peace at all - rather the ‘Democratic Peace Theory’ should be called the ‘Democratic Internal War External Peace Theory’.–aristippus
Relative to non-democratic regimes, change within liberal democracy is peaceful. Post war liberal democracies have seen myriad peaceful changes of power via free and fair elections. IN contrast, autocratic and monarchial regimes (what little is left) are incapable of change without violence and instability.
True, in many cases they are stable and peaceful (and poverty stricken), in the same manner that those living under slavery could expect poverty, stability and peace.
But seriously, this is a ridiculous argument. Precious few Americans are victimized by their government and virtually none to the death unless you count the al Qaeda operative who openly declared war on America and thus was an enemy combatant.
In fact, give me some examples of Americans murdered by their government this year.
And are you really living in mortal fear that the Federal government is going to assassinate you for speaking out against it ?
You have to make a distinction between our time tested and vigorous civil and poltiical liberties and the justified reduction of economic freedom.
- The lack of these things under democratic regimes does not mean that democracy was the cause, and 2) Democracy is itself a form of communism, in which there is partial public control of the means of production: abuses existed according to the extent of this.-- aristippus
Come on dude. Are you serious? Communist regimes did not allow basic civil and political rights to ANYONE. To equate this system in any way with the civil and political rights guaranteed Americans exposes you as a unyielding faith-based ideologue. Private property rights are better maintained in the modern day liberal democracies, recent events notwithstanding, than any other nation-state in history.
I am always amused by the anarchist tactic of absolutes, meaning that unless the US is completely a free market society then it must be a ‘form of communism’ – only die hard faith-based ideologues adopt this tact.
- because the USSR was much more of a basketcase than the West and the threat of secession by its vassals was more real and 2) because there was less wealth for the states to exploit through internal war in the Eastern Bloc than in the West and the regimes of these vassals had much less control over the exploitation of their subjects than the western regimes did, thus making secession comparatively advantageous. – aristippus
Wrong.
The soviet military machine was the most formidable in the world. It had nothing to fear from its satellite states. It attacked them because unlike liberal democracies who submit voluntarily to benevolent US hegemony – these states were subjugated by force against their will. Once the Soviets did collapse thanks to pressure from the Reagan Doctrines, these regimes bolted from the Soviet orbit and embraced democracy and free markets.
I don’t follow your 2nd point. Please clarify.
@ Jackson LaRose
I am not making in subjective value judgment regarding the morality of European dominance and destruction of native American civilization.
I am merely stating the fact that European civilization overwhelmed the native American civilizations.
Yet, you state that this occurrance was ‘lucky’ ?!
Luck in one battle maybe, perhaps a small war.
But a complete and total societal collapse extending over several centuries of defeat after defeat after defeat… No,
The advancement of human culture will continue, however at present liberal democracy is in ascendance. That much is guaranteed by any objective and rational analyst. Nonetheless, it is amusing that anarchist are forced to defend the efficacy of failed societal order after failed societal order in a vain attempt to find some substantive fault and criticism of liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy has prevailed over and sent to the dustbin of history monarchism, fascism, communism and in short order political-military Islam. Be grateful that this is occurring since private property rights have their best hope under liberal democracy more than any other system, including anarcho-capitalism which is even more fragile and weak than any now extinct native American culture.
Mind if I share some of that?
It hasn’t rained where I live for 10 days. I guess it’s never going to rain again.
Centinel,
I’m not saying you are making a value judgement. But your argument seems to be centered on some sort of inherent Eurasian “superiority”, which is just not the case.
Where Native Americans stood technologically in 1491, versus where Eurasians stood, is just a coincidence of history, a happy accident for the Eurasians. Nothing more, nothing less. That is my point.
Liberal democracy may be in ascendance, but the causal factor for that ascendancy is certainly still up for debate. This is sort of analagous to the Native American issue, because you seem to look at the result of history as proof of “superiority” without looking at any of the causal factors. I’d say U.S. Military hegemony is a main driver of democracy’s rise as a system of government. Since you are so into “challenges”, I challenge you to name me 10 liberal democracies that have not had overt or clandestine U.S. backed military forces involved in the transition to that system of government. Then name me 10 more that have not received some sort of U.S. foreign aid.
Also, your challenge doesn’t make any sense, since a neutral third party is required to judge what is a “reasonable scenario”. I’ll give it a shot:
Italy defaults and attempts to re-assert their sovereignty. Germany and France invade them. Before you scoff, they were threatining Greece with as much:
Liberal democracy has a big fault I can think of. My neighbor, Ray, has an I.Q. of about 80. He loves professional wrestling. He’s been an unemployed auto detailer for about three years. He keeps calling the town about my yard, so the town threatened to sue me for $120,000. He is in his 40s, so he gets to vote, and since the town agrees with him, he gets to point their really big gun in my face, to force me to do his bidding. Also, since he’s unemployed, my taxes feed him.
That is why democracy is shitty when it’s compulsory. The Rays of the world get to tell me what to do, and I’m forced to support their useless existence.
I would also argue that the United States today is a fscist regime, as are most of the western European states. Command economies controlled by a small cadre of oligarchs.
@ hard rain and any others,
I have repeatedly challenged anarchists to a friendly free market wager ($1000 or $1000 swiss francs if you like) underwritten by a 3rd party of your choice that one of the liberal democracies on this list would engage in a war in the next ten years and none have the courage or conviction to match their rhetoric with the wallet.
Also, for the timid, I have challenged any anarchist to cite a rational and realistic case study in which any of the liberal democracies on my list would engage in conflict any time in the future (dont worry no wager is needed on this challenge)
Come on fellows !!!
Why the intellectual cowardice, step up to the plate and take a swing at liberal democracy with some tried and true anarchist dogma.
I always enjoy a good laugh.
Here is the list again:
### FREE 1.0 Andorra Australia Austria Bahamas Barbados Belgium Canada Cape Verde Chile Costa Rica Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Iceland Ireland Kiribati Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Marshall Islands Micronesia Nauru Netherlands New Zealand Norway Palau Poland Portugal Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia San Marino Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Tuvalu United Kingdom United States Uruguay |
|---|
I am waiting… And please refrain from the ad hominems they reflect more on you, than any shortcoming in me.
Wow
heh, heh, [short]coming in me.
Uh, I gave your challenge a whirl in my last post.
Part of the problem here is the definition of war. I pointed this out earlier. I don’t think any two modern states are going to line up tanks point across each other’s border. It will probably never happen again in history. This doesn’t mean that the world has become peaceful anymore than the end of castle seiges by trebuchet meant that the world had become peaceful. It’s simply an artifact of the progress of the technology of war. It doesn’t make sense to get in your neighbor’s face when you both have nukes and when even your conventional weapons are sufficient to do hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars of economic damage in a matter of days.
The most advanced weapons of modern warfare between states are actually the think-tanks. The Hoover Institution or Brookings Institution or the CFR are far more dangerous to our “allies” than the Pentagon. The purpose of these think-tanks from the perspective of the State is to advance the interests of the State in the most efficient manner possible. The weapons employed under the think-tank system of warfare are political sabotage, social demoralization, propagandization, infiltration, and so on. Of course, it’s not just a purely intellectual game… CIA, JSOC, etc. stand ready to back up the State Dept’s shenanigans with wet-work - all black ops, of course.
So, we don’t line up red-coats versus blue-coats and fire muskets into ranks of infantry while the officers point their sabres skyward on their rearing white horses (in the rear, of course). We don’t dig trenches and gas each other anymore. We don’t send divisions of troops on amphibious landing crafts onto each other’s shores anymore. That just says those are all outmoded military strategies, it doesn’t say that democracies are at peace with one another.
Clayton -