When are we going to stop citing RJ Rummel?

Miscellaneous History
121

LOGIC > EMPIRICISM

since this is mises.org:

Experience is always experience of past happenings. It refers to what has been and is no longer, to events sunk forever in the flux of time.

The awareness of regularity in the concatenation and sequence of many phenomena does not affect this reference of experience to something that occurred once in the past at a definite place and time under the circumstances prevailing there and then. The cognition of regularity too refers exclusively to past events. The most experience can teach us is: in all cases observed in the past there was an ascertainable regularity.

From time immemorial all men of all races and civilizations have taken it for granted that the regularity observed in the past will also prevail in the future. The category of causality and the idea that natural events will in the future follow the same pattern they showed in the past are fundamental principles of human thought as well as of human action. Our material civilization is the product of conduct guided by them. Any doubt concerning their validity within the sphere of past human action is dispelled by the results of technological designing. History teaches us irrefutably that our forefathers and we ourselves up to this very moment have acted wisely in adopting them. They are true in the sense that pragmatism attaches to the concept of truth. They work, or, more precisely, they have worked in the past.

Leaving aside the problem of causality with its metaphysical implications, we have to realize that the natural sciences are based entirely on the assumption that a regular conjunction of phenomena prevails in the realm they investigate. They do not search merely for frequent conjunction but for a regularity that prevailed without exception in all cases observed in the past and is expected to prevail in the same way in all cases to be observed in the future. Where they can discover only a frequent conjunction-as is often the case in biology, for example-they assume that it is solely the inadequacy of our methods of inquiry that prevents us temporarily from discovering strict regularity.

The two concepts of invariable and of frequent conjunction must not be confused. In referring to invariable conjunction people mean that no deviation from the regular pattern-the law-of conjunction has ever been observed and that they are certain, as far as men can be certain about anything, that no such deviation is possible and will ever happen. The best elucidation of the idea of inexorable regularity in the concatenation of natural phenomena is provided by the concept of miracles. A miraculous event is something that simply cannot happen in the normal course of world affairs as we know it, because its happening could not be accounted for by the laws of nature. If nonetheless the occurrence of such an event is reported, two different interpretations are provided, both of which, however, fully agree in taking for granted tile inexorability of the laws of nature. The devout say: “This could not happen in the normal course of affairs. It came to pass only because the Lord has the power to act without being restricted by the laws of nature. It is an event incomprehensible and inexplicable for the human mind, it is a mystery, a miracle.” The rationalists say: “It could not happen and therefore it did not happen. The reporters were either liars or victims of a delusion.” If the concept of laws of nature were to mean not inexorable regularity but merely frequent connection, the notion of miracles would never have been conceived. One would simply say: A is frequently followed by B, but in some instances this effect failed to appear.

Nobody says that stones thrown into the air at an angle of 45 degrees will frequently fall down to earth or that a human limb lost by an accident frequently does not grow again. All our thinking and all our actions are guided by the knowledge that in such cases we are not faced with frequent repetition of the same connection, but with regular repetition.

Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History

122

ok, since instead of responding to arguments in cogent fashion or defining your terms as we have asked you to do, you seem to want to explain to us why is was fair and good and righteous for the commander in chief to order that three american citizens be assassinated in direct violation of the constitution, let’s hear it. Why was it right to execute anwar al-alwaki, samir khan, and abdulrahman al-awlaki? How come the constitution did not afford these three american citizens the right to due process? What threat did they pose, in order to justify the willful and deliberate assassination facilitated by the use of a flying killer robot?

123

@Jackson Larose

Check my list, Greece is not considered a higher order democracy, hence they are not included on my list.

However, for you I will make an exception – since you posit that war is a distinct possibility between Germany France and Greece – put your money where your ideology is and accept my generous wager of $1000 that these three nations will not engage in war in the next decade.

You can find a mutually agreed upon 3rd party to underwrite this wager.

Note that I am allowing you to add a nation not on my list, however I believe that an flawed democracy like Greece still supports DPT.

I am waiting for you to match rhetoric and ideology with substantive action.

124

God, those goalposts not only have wheels, they’ve got a V-8 motor and overdrive transmission!

Clayton -

125

@ Centinel,

Check my scenario,

[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
Italy defaults and attempts to re-assert their sovereignty. Germany and France invade them.
[/quote]

[quoteuser=“Centinel”]
I am waiting for you to match rhetoric and ideology with substantive action.
[/quote]

You might be waiting a while. Just because you turned this,

[quoteuser=“Centinel”]
Of course if anyone would like to provide a hypothetical scenario in which 2 or more of these nations would go to war, then have at it.
[/quote]

Into some machismo wager, doesn’t mean I am confident enough, or have enough money lying around to engage in some enormous bet. I could $1 if you’re interested, but even so, the shadow EU government really begs the whole question of whether or not France, Germany or Italy can even be considered “sovereign” anymore.

126

@vive la insurrection

DPT is supported by logic and overwhelming empiricial evidence.

Logically:

Democracies have open borders which reduce uncertainty and increase familiarity between subject nations and peoples.

Democracies are free traders which reduces friction and increase mutual interests between subject nations.

Democracies have a common bond of respect for life, liberty and private property.

Leaders within democracies are subject to sanction when engaging in reckless and costly wars not based on the preservation of life and liberty.

Democracies have transparent military establishments that reduce tensions and uncertainty between subject nations.

Democracies have decentralized elements of coercion that further reduces tensions, reckless policy and uncertainty between subject nations.

Democracies have an institutionalized balance of power that further reduces tensions, reckless policy and uncertainty between subject nations.

Democracies generally have much smaller military expenditures than statist regimes further reducing tensions, reckless policy and uncertainty between subject nations.

Higher order democracies engage in extensive sharing of military research, development and production among subject nations increasing shared risk, increasing trust and reducing tensions between subject nations.

Of course, when has logic swayed faith-based adherents to failed systems that are neither supported by logic or empirical evidence?

And I am greatly amused by the intellectual capitulation of anarchists who fail to match rhetoric and ideology with substantive risk. There are several reputable free market brokers whose job it is to adjudicate and oversee wagers of the type I am issuing.

Any anarchist with the ideological backbone or intellectual will to engage in this friendly wager, contact me personally from my profile page.

127

128

“Democracies have open borders which reduce uncertainty and increase familiarity between subject nations and peoples.”

Tell that to the Californians with their Mexicans, the British with their Pakistanis, the French with their Algerians and Romani, the Germans with their Turks, the Italians with their Albanians, the Spanish with their Moroccans, the Australians with their goodness-knows-what, Torontans with their Somalis, the Dutch with their Arabs… need I go on?

“Democracies are free traders which reduces friction and increase mutual interests between subject nations.”

Do they? Being a democracy sure didn’t stop the good ol’ US of A from passing the Smoot-Hawley tariff, nor the Cuban embargo, nor the North Korean embargo, nor did being monarchies stop the nations of the industrial era from trading with each other.

“Democracies have a common bond of respect for life, liberty and private property.”

You mean when they are aborting, euthanizing (and I don’t just mean in the Kevorkian sense, either), regulating, micromanaging and taxing their citizens at levels unprecedented in human history? You mean when getting through the airport in the United States requires individuals to go through measures that would have been considered excessive by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? You mean when government is consuming anywhere from 5-10 times as much of GDP as a percentage than it did in the time of the medieval era?

“Leaders within democracies are subject to sanction when engaging in reckless and costly wars not based on the preservation of life and liberty.”

562×437 40.6 KB

I really don’t have to explain this one, do I?

“Democracies have decentralized elements of coercion that further reduces tensions, reckless policy and uncertainty between subject nations.”

Like Britain, with it’s one-size-fits-all police force? Like the US, with it’s alphabet soup of federal agencies? Like the EU, with it’s “directives” and “human rights” courts?

“Democracies generally have much smaller military expenditures than statist regimes further reducing tensions, reckless policy and uncertainty between subject nations.”

Err… what?

129

@ praetyre

Tell that to the Californians with their Mexicans, the British with their Pakistanis, the French with their Algerians and Romani, the Germans with their Turks, the Italians with their Albanians, the Spanish with their Moroccans, the Australians with their goodness-knows-what, Torontans with their Somalis, the Dutch with their Arabs… need I go on?

Open borders and a liberal immigration policy does not imply gross violations of private property and national soveriengty.

Or do you advocate the unrestricted trepass of national borders, and hence private property ?

Also, your one dimensional analysis does not address the differences between democracies and autocratic regimes in which autocratic regimes imprison or assassinate those who trepass. Also, autocratic regimes DO NOT welcome extensive interaction with the outside world for obvious economic and political reasons.

Hence your argument is misplaced and jaded. It is argument by extremes, meaning that you seek to use ‘disprove’ a position in social science because it is not 100% true. Yes, of course the borders of liberal democracies are not 100% open – however relative to autocratic regimes they are significantly more open.

Do they? Being a democracy sure didn’t stop the good ol’ US of A from passing the Smoot-Hawley tariff, nor the Cuban embargo, nor the North Korean embargo, nor did being monarchies stop the nations of the industrial era from trading with each other. – praetyre

Again argument by extreme or absolutes. Of course liberal democracies are not 100% free traders, however relative to autocratic nations that are unquestionably more free trading.

Also, it is true that liberal democracies do not trade extensively with autocratic regimes that represent a threat to life, liberty and private property. However, the fundamental point of DPT is the relationship that democracies have with EACH OTHER, not autocratic regimes.

You mean when they are aborting, euthanizing (and I don’t just mean in the Kevorkian sense, either), regulating, micromanaging and taxing their citizens at levels unprecedented in human history? You mean when getting through the airport in the United States requires individuals to go through measures that would have been considered excessive by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? You mean when government is consuming anywhere from 5-10 times as much of GDP as a percentage than it did in the time of the medieval era?

Relative other systems and ideologies in play, liberal democracies offer far more civil and political rights than the alternatives. Of course, economic coercion exist because our founding fathers were remiss in not adding an economic bill of rights to complement our political and civil bill of rights.

That is a temporary shortcoming within representative government that the statist has exploited. However, with the advent of electronic communications this shortcoming has been identified and will be corrected in time.

Also, the levels of security encountered at many private venues is more restrictive than at many government venues I frequent. This is not a function of a police state, but the desire of the citizenry to feel safe. And to equate the USA with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both of whom enslaved, tortured and murdered tens of millions of innocents by citing some mildly restrictive security measures taken at airports is the epitome of faith-based ideological hubris.

I really don’t have to explain this one, do I? – praetyre

Elective leaders who engage in unpopular wars are at risk of being removed from office in short order, most recently see Johnson and the democrats in 1968, Bush and the republicans in 2006, tony blair in 2007, et al.

However, autocrats are far more difficult to remove from power even when engaged in destructive wars. In addition, these regimes are generally incapable of standing down from destructive wars and this results in their eventual collapse.

Err… what? – praetyre

Examine your own source:

Of the top 50 nations in military spending as a % of GDP, only the USA, Chile and the UK are included among liberal democracies.

130

Since you’re in the business of empiricism…

0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3
0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3370×250 2.06 KB

Well, I guess constitutional republics are officially the most war-like states.

131

Actually, the point I was making by citing these areas was that unrestricted immigration under social democratic regimes leads to civil disorder, demographic breakup and massive surges in crime. You yourself acknowledged the negative nature of Muslim immigration into Europe. This is more a problem with multiculturalism than with social democracy per se, but the “liberal” in liberal democracy tends to mean socially democratic and multicultural humanist.

In regards to tariffs; what evidence do you have that democratic regimes are freer traders than non-democratic ones? You still haven’t answered my inquiry about the industrial-era monarchies, nor have you taken a look at what I said about the Smoot-Hawley tariff.

I wouldn’t necessarily agree democratic regimes offer more liberty than non-democratic ones even compared to other modern regimes. This is especially murky when you consider different categories of freedom, where Singapore, Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates are ahead of the US and Europe in many ways economically. Even in civil liberties, you can find examples of this; Turkey isn’t nearly as restrictive of free speech as Canada, few nations are as bad as the US when it comes to airport security and the ridiculous copyright lawsuits that impede YouTube are rare to nonexistant in Russia and China. Like the Gottfried article I linked notes, though, with one freedom you might get one restriction, so most countries would probably fall somewhere arounda middling mush in the freedom rankings.

When speaking of airport security, I was not stating that the US is morally equivalent to the USSR or Nazi Germany, nor that such security measures make them so. I was simply pointing out that even these regimes, as far as I know, did not grope and irradiate their citizens at every airport. Security at private venues is a red herring, since we’re discussing political policy. Neither New Zealand nor Australia nor most of Europe do such things to their people, and it’s not like Europe isn’t a big target for Islamic fanatics.

Bush was still reelected a year after the war began, and Blair’s party still retained control over Britain until 2010. Furthermore, Obama and Cameron, respectively Bush and Blair/Brown’s successors, have led their nations to war on far more flimsy pretexts than Bush did with Iraq. I could go back and cite the many Presidents who presided over Vietnam or go Pat Buchanan on you with Roosevelt, but I figure it’d be best to keep things current.

Also, despite being autocracies, I don’t see much evidence that Angola, China, Syria, Turkmenistan or Venezuela (just to name a few) are going to be doing a Danzig Jig anytime soon. The wars under democratic regimes have been far more bloody and far more total than any in the Renaissance era; there, wars were fought largely between professional soldiers on open battlefields, rather than in the streets, villages and jungles characteristic of the 20th-21st century.

As for the chart; the point I was making was that numerous African and South American nations are about equal to European ones in terms of military spending as percentage of GDP, and that some “higher order” democracies, like France, Britain and to a much greater extent, the US have higher percentages than these nations. Part of this can be put down to the US effectively subsidizing European defense, but even if you spread the US’s percentage out across all of the EU, you’d still probably get a darker shade in these nations than in Argentina or Zimbabwe.

132

Since you’re in the business of empiricism…

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3.png

Well, I guess constitutional republics are officially the most war-like states. – Jargon

Yours is a highly base and primitive analysis.

The US is the richest nation on the planet so naturally we would spend more on DEFENSE. Also, much of the expenditure is for weapon systems that are specifically designed to limit enemy combatant and civilian casualties. We could easily accomplish our missions with vastly less costly ‘dumb’ bombs, yet we spend tens of billions on R&D to save lives.

Also, we value life and liberty – what is your price tag for these ?

also I have pointed out that liberal democracies spend more on defense because we have larger economies – however when considering military spending as a percentage of GDP the liberal democracies spend significantly less than autocratic regimes.

Lastly, we have used defense spending to preserve life and liberty from expansionist, destablizing and brutal autocratic regimes. In conclusion the USA has never attacked a liberal democracy in its history and it probably never will.

Hence, I challenge you to a wager of $1000 – if any of the ‘warlike’ democratic nations in the list I provided go to war against each other in the next ten years – you get the cash. However, if they remain peaceful to each other – I get the cash.

Put your rhetoric where you mouth is and accept this friendly free market wager.

133

" In conclusion the USA has never attacked a liberal democracy in its history and it probably never will."

Right,

Just the Mexican government in 1846

The Spanish government in 1898

The German empire in 1917

The Japanese government in in 1941

Need I go on? Honestly, what are you still doing here? If it were me the shame of being so blantantly wrong would cause me to detract from the scene.

134

@ Cain,

No you dont need to go on if you believe that 1846 Mexico under the despot Santa Ana was a liberal democracy?!

or the Spanish oligarchy in 1898 in which the monarch forced a change in government between only two different political groups was a liberal democracy ?!

or that the German empire (military/monarchial dictatorship) of 1917 was a liberal democracy ?!

or that the military dictatorship of Japan in 1941 was a liberal democracy ??!!

NO, you prove my point very succinctly regarding anarchist dogma.

Indeed, no need to go on Cain.

Thanks, I am going to save your post for future citations on other blogs and forums.

btw Cain, I am extending this friendly challenge to you since you are so staunch a believer that liberal democracies wage war against each other on a regular basis.

Review my list of over 50+ higher order liberal democracies and if any of these nations fight a war against each other in the next decade --then you win $1000 – however if they remain peaceful – then I pocket your $1000.

Match your anarchist rhetoric and dogma with substantive action — I am challenging you in a friendly free market wager.

You find a reputable 3rd party broker to manage the funds and you identify a rational and objective criteria for war and an free market arbiter and lets have at it !!

come on man !

put you money where your mouth is !!!

135

Let’s see; critics of the war continued to hold their seats in the Reichstag in the German Empire. Critics of the war in Wilson’s America were imprisoned, including Eugene Debs himself, Wilson’s primary political opponent. Which sounds more like something you’d read about in, say, Liberia or Zimbabwe?

136

“No you dont need to go on if you believe that 1846 Mexico under the despot Santa Ana was a liberal democracy?!”

Santa Anna was thrown out. The war still continued under a constitutional government, meaning they had a chance to announce surrender/sue for peace yet they did not. Checkmate.

“or the Spanish oligarchy in 1898 in which the monarch forced a change in government between only two different political groups was a liberal democracy ?!”

A constitutional monarchy is possible and is under the definition of a liberal democracy. Your point of there being only two different political groups is moot because only two political parties are effective in U.S. politics and you considered the U.S. a liberal democracy. Checkmate.

“or that the German empire (military/monarchial dictatorship) of 1917 was a liberal democracy ?!”

Again, constitutional monarchy. The extension of executive power does not constitute whether a country fits in the category of a liberal democracy. It had a constitution, it had a legislative branch, it was a democracy. Checkmate.

“or that the military dictatorship of Japan in 1941 was a liberal democracy ??!!”

Again, the Japanese had a constitution since the Meiji Restoration. Having a emperor does not exclude you from being a liberal democracy. They had universal male sufferage after 1925. They had a diet (parliament). Checkmate.

Liberal Democracy

By the way, you have the United Kingdom and Canada under your little list of “higher order democracy” and the UK is a constitutional monarchy and Canada itself is still under British rule so I do not want to hear any nonsense about monarchs.

Concerning your 1000 dollar bet. I do not have 1000 dollars sitting around to bet with and if I did, I would not trust you or anyone you trust to follow through with it because you have obviously shown lying and subterfuge does not affect you.

137

Plus for every time the US has actually gone to war with a democracy you can probably find a dozen examples where the US subverted an existing democracy, or helped check the rise of democratic movements in a country in favour of right-wing authoritarians. In the Cold War the US pretty much acted as a fireman putting out sparks of government more responsible to the locals throughout the 3rd world. It is historically by far the most hostile to democracy of any power.

138

Andrew Cain, I think it’s clear to us now that Centinel’s implicit definition of “higher-order democracy” is “a democracy that is under the hegemony of the United States”.

139

Ah, but those democracies (e.g. Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973) aren’t “higher-order democracies”! Presumably this is because they weren’t yet under the hegemony of the United States!

140

@Cain

Like the Soviet Union, Mexico, Spain, et al all had Constitutions also all had token legislatures-- however the citizenry were denied basic civil and political rights.

One of the tenets of a liberal democracy is free and fair elections – these autocracies had none. The leadership was assured by mechanisms other than free, regular, and fair elections.

Your ‘checkmate’ regarding Spain assumes that monarchial dictate that forces a switch in rule between two distinct parties as a ‘democracy’ is absurd.

Your ‘checkmate’ claiming that Imperial Japan was a democracy when it denied over 50% of the population the right to vote is absurd.

Your ‘checkmate’ that the military dictatorship of Germany that had assumed absolute control over all aspects of civil society is equally absurd.

Basically, you have jaded the argument by defining what a liberal democracy is instead of those who propose the theory. Please allow democratic peace theorists to identify the criteria of what constitutes a liberal democracy and I will not define what constitutes a private-property society.

An example of this nonsense is when statists claim that capitalism has been disproven based on the recent financial collapse that we all know was caused by anything but a free market.

Lastly, if you doubt the efficacy of democratic peace theory – put your rhetoric where you mouth is and accept my friendly $1000 wager outlined in previous posts on this thread.

I am eagerly awaiting your recommendations on reputable and objective free market brokers who can hold our cash until one of us is proven wrong.

Again, you can’t run and hide based on a lack of trust – of course I don’t trust you either – however there are brokers for these kind of wagers, I will allow you to find one that is acceptable to you.

The bottom line is that when put to the test with a free market capitalist oriented challenge – the anarchist will run and hide from his dogma because he and I both know that liberal democracy peace trumps.