When are we going to stop citing RJ Rummel?

Miscellaneous History
141

I wrote out this long replay then for some reason my shift button got stuck and the page went backward. So I will make it short and sweet.

Spain was a constitutional monarchy

Japan pass the Universal Suffrage act in 1925

Your point on Germany is a point about the effectiveness of a liberal democracy, not on its existence.

I have not misconstrued the definition of liberal democracy. If I have, then prove it. Otherwise I will not be lectured by someone who only considers successful liberal democracies actual liberal democracies while disregarding the ineffective liberal democraies as not being liberal democraies.

Your idiocy over betting 1000 dollars over how cool your style of government is does not validate its “coolness.” I do not have 1000 dollars lying around (something you apparently do not understand) and even if I did, I value investing more then pissing away money on a foolish Nostradomus-type bet.

142

“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”.”

No it is a democracy that does not exist except in his mind. If I were to bring up some point about free/fair elections in the U.S., he would change the definition or chop the country off the list. He propounds an ideology that will gradually get more and more out of touch with the reality around him which will cause him to A.) change his mind B.) desperately cling to a delusion. I am guessing B.

143

Of course it is not ever possible to square the alleged fact that democracies are more hostile to non-democracy and more friendly to democracy with the fact that United States backed anti-democrats against imperfect democrats.

Surely if it is inherently friendly to democracies, the US should nonetheless prefer “low-order democracy” (whatever that is) over outright authoritarianism? We are best buddies for ever with super-duper democracies, but we will squash your proto-democracy in favor of your tin pot dictator and arm your right-wing death squads against your semi-democrats? What the hell is that?

Yes, the US helped overthrow relatively sinless democrats like Mosaddegh and Lumumba, but in addition to that it also became upset over Khomeini overthrowing Reza Pahlavi and backed Somoza and the Contras against the Sandinistas. The Sandinistas were clearly not perfect democratizers, but they were far more democratic than the Somozas or the Contras who the US backed against them. And despite the demonization Khomeinists were far more into democracy than Pahlavi (who was not into it at all) ever was. If it was inherently friendly to democracy the US should have welcomed the 1979 revolutions in Nicaragua and Iran. It didn’t.

144

@ Cain,

It is not your perogative to define ‘liberal democracy’ for democratic peace theorists (DPT) any more than a Marxist can define for you what constitutes a capitalist society.

Women did not gain the right to vote in Japanese national elections in 1925 – check your sources, they and you are wrong.

With respect to Spain, your label of constitutional monarchy does not imply a liberal democracy from the perspective of the democratic peace theorists primarily because the monarchy mandated a rigid change in political power every 4 years irrespective of the will of the people in a fair, regular and free election. By any objective, rational and independent thinking measure having a monarch dictate when and who assumes power is not the example of a liberal democracy per DPT criteria.

And lastly, it is manifestly absurd that you have the temerity to define dictatorial and militaristic Germany as a liberal democracy. For a laugh — google ‘silent dictatorship’ and you will get 3,000,000 hits and (if you have an open mind) an education at the same time.

And here is the clincher that you will surely run and hide from behind a heavy veil of fallacies and diversions:

Since it is your opinion that liberal democracies are not peaceful with each other then I challenge you to cite an objective and realistic hypothetical case study in which ANY of these higher order democracies might engage in conflict against each other:


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 will eagerly await your response, after all I enjoy a good laugh. Remember, this is a simple challenge, and it doesn’t require that you risk and ultimately lose $1000 in a bet. It is an exercise in futility that will no doubt be avoid at all costs.

145

@ Marko

Lets review your assertions:

  1. The Sandinistas are democratic when they utterly rejected private property rights and routinely enslaved and murdered tens of thousands of innocents, mostly Indians?! Of course, they were actively supported by the Soviet Union another stalwart ‘democracy’ favored by all objective, rational and independent thinking anarchist haters of America.

  2. Mosaddegh assumed dictatorial power in order to undermine the civil and political rights of rivals supported by the USA.

  3. Congo was an anarchist society in which all order had collapsed similar to Somalia (a favorite of anarchists). Amusingly, it appears that the Soviet Union was a big defender of Lumumba. I would like to remind anarchists that the USSR was responsible for the murder of over 20,000,000 innocents during their short lived hell from 1917 to the 1990s.

I think your defense of these socialist regimes speaks volumes – more than any counter-argument that I could offer. Amusingly and contradictorially, it appears that anarchists will defend the most oppressive socialist regimes as fodder against hated liberal democracies like the USA. They even stoop to defend Gaddafi and Saddam who they disturbingly try to minimize the gross human rights violations these brutal dictators have committed during their rule.

LIke I said, this warped ideological contradictorially double-speak is as telling as it is bizarre and disturbing.

146

I’m sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone who thinks you’re worth talking to.

147

“It is not your perogative to define ‘liberal democracy’ for democratic peace theorists (DPT) any more than a Marxist can define for you what constitutes a capitalist society.”

I have presented the definition of a liberal democracy in my previous post. This nonsense that only a DPT can define a liberal democracy is pretty childish especially when you change it to fit your argument. Define or be defined.

Concerning your comment on Japan, I never stated that women were allowed to vote in 1925. If you would actually read my post I said universal male suffrage. Women were not allowed to vote in the US until the 1920’s. Blacks did not get fair elections until the 60’s and today ex-felons are not allowed to vote. If your claim is that a liberal democracy allows free and fair voting of the people then you should knock some countries off that list of yours specifically the US

On the topic of Spain, if the US, assuming you still actually consider it a liberal democracy, were to institute term limits then would it stop being a liberal democracy?

Concerning your point of Germany, you are making a point about the expansion of executive power. A simple question, were people allowed to vote and was there a constitution? That is all that matters. After that it is a matter of how effective it is, the principle is already there.

And I see my bet comment still has not gotten through. Honestly, how surprising!

148

Since it is your opinion that liberal democracies are not peaceful with each other then I challenge you to cite an objective and realistic hypothetical case study in which ANY of these higher order democracies might engage in conflict against each other:

Funny, it looks like this is less a list of “liberal democracies” and more a list of “countries that are unlikely to, in their current state, go to war”. Notably, Italy and Greece are both missing.

But okay, I’ll shoot.

Belgium defaults on its debts and collapses. France and/or Germany occupies Belgium. War.

OR

Spain is taken over by angry communists (either through revolution or election). Spain doesn’t pay its debts. France attacks. War.

That was awfully easy. Now, allow me to make a counter theory, called the “Higher Order Authoritarian Theory”. Give me a scenario in which the following countries will find themselves at war:

People’s Republic of China

Russian Federation

Kyrgyzstan

Cuba

Peru

Kazakhstan

Turkmenistan

Mongolia

North Korea.

Therefore, fascist nations are less likely to go to war. Problem RJ Rummel?

149

@My Buddy

your post is not flawed logic, it is the absence of logic and intellectually dishonest.

However, it is unlikely that your fantasy will occur because Greece has basically defaulted and despite the fact that they are not a higher order democracy like Belguim, they were not attacked, nor did France or Germany even contemplate the mobilization of their armed forces.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any objective, rational and independent thinking source that would support your fantasy of war between Spain, Belguim, France or Germany. But if you are really confident then you should be chomping at the bit to earn double the interest and your principle on a $1000 bet. Since your an anarchist I will have to explain that to you – you will be earning interest income on $2000 while only putting up $1000 of your own money + you will double the principle, ANd the kicker is that this is guaranteed! Absolutely no risk cuz you are confident that liberal democracies fight wars against each other.

However, you seemed to have missed the slight contradication in your fantasy regarding imminent war in Spain and Belgium – you stated that Belguim collapses which would imply anarchism, no longer a liberal democracy. Also, you stated that Spain becomes communist, no longer a liberal democracy.

That was easy.

Nonetheless, I will accept your wager regarding Belguim, Spain and any other ‘war mongering’ liberal democracies on my list. Put your rhetoric where you mouth is and lets find a reputable 3rd party broker to hold our $1000 for a decade (with interest).

WIth respect to your intellectually dishonest list of selective “higher order authoritarian” nation-states. I have a few questions:

what is your criteria for a higher order authoritarian regime? And where are the data, methodology and results ? Has your list been peer reviewed? Has it passed any academic rigor ?

Maybe I am a little bias but It appears that your list is highly arbitrary and subjective and dishonestly designed to buttress a weak argument.

In contrast, my list regarding higher order democracies comes from a private civil 3rd party source who has been in the business for over 70 years identifying higher order liberal democracies (Freedom House) who has conducted extensive peer reviewed research and the methodology and results is open for all to examine. If you have a problem with the methodology or the analysis and you believe that you are a better authority on liberal democracy, provide your argument.

Hence my list is not arbitrary or selective or designed by democratic peace theorists.

I am eagerly awaiting war between Belguim, Spain, France and Germany. If you like you can find a broker for the wager yourself, if not let me know I will give you a list to examine and choose.

Btw, I am a gambling man, go ahead and add Italy, Greece, Croatia, Ghana, Belize, Grenada and for a kicker I will even throw in Israel since Freedom House gives them a rating slightly lower (1.5 vs 1.0 for higher order democracies) than those on the initial list I provided.

I love painting anarchists in the corner with substantive free market challenges and watching them run and hide for cover. The free market does indeed expose the frailties and hypocrisies of failed ideological systems.

That was awfully easy.

150

I have presented the definition of a liberal democracy in my previous post. This nonsense that only a DPT can define a liberal democracy is pretty childish especially when you change it to fit your argument. Define or be defined. – Cain

It is not my list.

It comes from a private civil 3rd party NGO that has been doing this for over 70 years.

Freedom House.

Here is the link regarding the methodology used by the researchers at Freedom.org.

Its all there dude, if you have a problem with it let me know. Btw, they are not affliated with any democratic peace theorists.

If you think you are a better judge of what constitutes a liberal democracy, then have at it and provide your own objective data, methodology and results.

And I see my bet comment still has not gotten through. Honestly, how surprising! – Cain

How can anyone ‘not have the time’ to be guaranteed to double their principle and double their interest income on an investment of $1000 in ten years?!

And of course, I dont trust you either. Thats why YOU find a reputable 3rd party to underwrite the wager. And seriously dude, you dont have $1000 bucks ?

Aren’t you anarchists suppose to understand market mechanisms and how the government manipulates these mechanisms ??

If your dogma is sound, shouldn’t you be able to translate all of this ‘logic’ into action ? It seems like every anarchist gets a paycheck that has ‘government’ or public ‘university’ printed on it somewhere.

Hell, didn’t you buy gold ?

Why aren’t you buying depressed properties in Detroit for a song and dance, fixing them up and renting them out ?

At least buy a cabin somewhere up in the mountains and stock it up with ammo, water and beef jerky as insurance. If nothing happens, at least you got a cool place to camp out with the kids

151

"It is not my list.

It comes from a private civil 3rd party NGO that has been doing this for over 70 years.

Freedom House.

Here is the link regarding the methodology used by the researchers at Freedom.org.

Its all there dude, if you have a problem with it let me know. Btw, they are not affliated with any democratic peace theorists.

If you think you are a better judge of what constitutes a liberal democracy, then have at it and provide your own objective data, methodology and results."

You are the one advocating it, so you must know something about it and on some level agree with it. Is this too much to assume?

“How can anyone ‘not have the time’ to be guaranteed to double their principle and double their interest income on an investment of $1000 in ten years?!”

You are assuming that in 10 years it will still be worth the actual 1000 in purchasing power. ZOMG EconOMICZ!

"And of course, I dont trust you either. Thats why YOU find a reputable 3rd party to underwrite the wager. And seriously dude, you dont have $1000 bucks ? "

No I do not have 1000 bucks. I am a graduate student.

“Aren’t you anarchists suppose to understand market mechanisms and how the government manipulates these mechanisms ??”

I am a historian with an interest in economics. I do not play the market.

“If your dogma is sound, shouldn’t you be able to translate all of this ‘logic’ into action ? It seems like every anarchist gets a paycheck that has ‘government’ or public ‘university’ printed on it somewhere.”

Yes, but action to what end. We do not all have the same exact end. My eudiamonia is a intellectual life, it does not have to be monetarily prosperous.

“Hell, didn’t you buy gold ?”

Not right now. It is too pricey for me. I am thinking about trying silver though.

“Why aren’t you buying depressed properties in Detroit for a song and dance, fixing them up and renting them out ?”

I do not live near Detroit, nor would I invest in a market that is still being inflated.

“At least buy a cabin somewhere up in the mountains and stock it up with ammo, water and beef jerky as insurance. If nothing happens, at least you got a cool place to camp out with the kids”

Well I do like Alaska.

152

how can anyone be too dimwitted to understand that tying up a stack for 10 years is an idiotic investment? Admit it, youre ben bernanke’s son and you know dad is going to inflate your college debt away along with any other idiot gambles you lost.

Here we go! Seriously? You found a person on mises.org forums who doesnt have $1000 available for gambling? And a college student no less? I am sure you have money falling out of your ass (:eye roll:) especially considering your barely-literate screeds against “inferior” races and emotional appeals to stalin.

well enough to get better roi than your bet, absolutely. In fact, you are an idiot for trying to tie up $1000 for 10 years. Just pointing that out.

lol what do you do for living, dig ditches? We know it doesnt require advanced cognitive skills, so fess up.

didnt you? Or are you a “dollar theorist” too?

you have so many good ideas for how to spend other people’s money, but I bet when you spend other people’s money its on modern warfare sequels and 2 liter bottles of surge (or whatever neocons drink these days).

153

That’s its methodology for its Freedom of the Press report. It’s not its methodology for its Freedom in the World report. Are you using Freedom House’s methodology for its Freedom of the Press report as your methodology for determining “higher-order democracies”? That is, is freedom of the press, or freedom of expression, your sole criteria there?

154

Here are the checklist questions for Freedom House’s 2010 Freedon in the World report. I’ll simply note that I’d answer many, if not most, of those questions differently from Freedom House regarding the United States and other countries in the Western world.

155

@ my buddy,

Amusingly, you made arguments confirming DPT without knowing it.

Your words in a previous post:

But okay, I’ll shoot.

Belgium defaults on its debts and collapses. France and/or Germany occupies Belgium. War.

OR

Spain is taken over by angry communists (either through revolution or election). Spain doesn’t pay its debts. France attacks. War.

I added the emphasis to expose your unintentional illogic against DPT.

Note that Belgium’s liberal democracy must collapse before war.

Note that Spain’s liberal democracy is overrun by communists before war.

Your aim resulted in friendly fire.

Checkmate.

That was easy.

Nonetheless, I have always touted the relative stability of liberal democracies, hence my challenge and wager remain in tact irrespective of a change in government among any of the liberal democracies on the list. While DPT does not specifically argue the stability of liberal democracies, it would be unethical to renig on the bet because of a change in government that results in war.

@ anarchists in general

The list of contiguous liberal democracies in Europe is extensive. MOst notably because they include virtually all of these states engaged in at least two destructive wars in the last century. Yet, incredibly these nations today are utterly peaceful toward each other.

Can the anarchist fringe be so clueless and/or faith-based to deny the efficacy of liberal peace based on this preponderence of empirical evidence and logic that I provided in previous posts?

could it be that your ideological beliefs are built on a house of cards of hope and change vs. reality ?

INdeed, the Marxists and statists build their house of cards ideology on egalitarian utopian that rejects economic reality – similarly, the anarchist model is built on an equally shaky ideological foundation based on peace that rejects the utility of coercion to achieve and preserve desired ends.

NOnetheless, if any of the anarchist faithful wish to match money with rhetoric, I am happy to take your $1000.

You find a reputable free market broker to manage the funds until the expiration period. In addition, you find a reputable arbiter to determine whether war has occurred.

156

However, it is unlikely that your fantasy will occur because Greece has basically defaulted and despite the fact that they are not a higher order democracy like Belguim, they were not attacked, nor did France or Germany even contemplate the mobilization of their armed forces.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any objective, rational and independent thinking source that would support your fantasy of war between Spain, Belguim, France or Germany. But if you are really confident then you should be chomping at the bit to earn double the interest and your principle on a $1000 bet. Since your an anarchist I will have to explain that to you – you will be earning interest income on $2000 while only putting up $1000 of your own money + you will double the principle, ANd the kicker is that this is guaranteed! Absolutely no risk cuz you are confident that liberal democracies fight wars against each other.

(A) “Greece isn’t a higher order democracy because we say so!”

(B) “France and Germany haven’t mobilized their forces, therefore it CANNOT happen!”

(C) Certainly. I agree to your bet. At about the time I die, (since you didn’t outline any specific time when it expires) I will pay you $1000 had there been no war before the aforementioned countries.

However, you seemed to have missed the slight contradication in your fantasy regarding imminent war in Spain and Belgium – you stated that Belguim collapses which would imply anarchism, no longer a liberal democracy. Also, you stated that Spain becomes communist, no longer a liberal democracy.

“collapse = anarchism”

400×300 41.5 KB

“Communism isn’t Democracy”

Way to move the goalposts there, pal. If a Communist government is DEMOCRATICALLY elected, it is no longer a higher order democracy? I was unaware that specific political parties had to win elections for a country to be considered democratic.

what is your criteria for a higher order authoritarian regime? And where are the data, methodology and results ? Has your list been peer reviewed? Has it passed any academic rigor ?

Maybe I am a little bias but It appears that your list is highly arbitrary and subjective and dishonestly designed to buttress a weak argument.

In contrast, my list regarding higher order democracies comes from a private civil 3rd party source who has been in the business for over 70 years identifying higher order liberal democracies (Freedom House) who has conducted extensive peer reviewed research and the methodology and results is open for all to examine. If you have a problem with the methodology or the analysis and you believe that you are a better authority on liberal democracy, provide your argument.\

HA HA HA

“extensive peer reviewed research”

I can imagine a peasant in Soviet Ukraine having a similar argument with an NKVD political officer. “But Comrade, Communism doesn’t work! We’re starving and just three days ago you dragged away an innocent person to shoot!”

“Pfah!” says the political officer, “you just can’t see the big picture! Our great government has engaged in experimentation and used peer review to discover that Communism actually works! If you can provide an alternative source to this, please do so!”

Obviously the peasant can’t provide an alternative source that the NKVD officer will find credible since he will doubletalk his way into claiming it is invalid. Likewise, many people in this thread have already handled this, so I don’t think I need to work hard at it.

Now, back to the main topic, you STILL haven’t found a credible situation in which the Higher Order Authoritarian Nations will find themselves in a state of war. Lets not bandy words here; its no less obviously biased than your silly theory. So, when you give me a credible scenario provided by a credible source in which those countries will wage war in the modern age, please do so. Until then, I can’t take up your bet.

Note that Spain’s liberal democracy is overrun by communists before war.

Again, you selectively quoted that, ignoring the “BY ELECTION” part. But okay. It could occur WITHOUT a significant change in government, if the aforementioned countries pulled an Iceland and provoked invasion by their debtors. Not that farfetched, at least not as farfetched as that recession and economic collapse that these “credible” sources didn’t predict in the slightest.

157

@my buddy,

I guess I should know better than to respond to trolls who intrude in the middle of threads totally devoid of any understanding of what has transpired previously.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and review for your benefit:

  1. I didnt 'cherry pick" the list – it comes from Freedom House.

  2. I did specify a time period – 10 years.

  3. If you think the data, methodology and results offered by Freedom House are arbitrary and bias – then it is common to provide some evidence to support your assertion other than “HAHAHA”

  4. While I have cited Freedom House research on liberal democracy – see link-- you still have not provided any substantive data or methodology to support your arbitrary list of higher order authoritarian regimes. Why isn’t Vietnam considered a ‘higher order authoritarian regime’ and Russia is included on the list ? Why is Sudan omitted and others?

Now that you understand the parameters of my challenge, I will be more than happy to take your $1000.00 if you can match rhetoric with substance.

Otherwise, don’t waste my time trolling with nonsense claiming an equivance between communism and liberal democracy and the absurd notion that Germany, France, Iceland, and Spain are likely to wage war in the next 10 years.

if you believe this nonsense and discount democratic peace theory – accept my free marekt challenge that will guarantee you double your principle and interest in 10 years.

158

Now, back to the main topic, you STILL haven’t found a credible situation in which the Higher Order Authoritarian Nations will find themselves in a state of war. Lets not bandy words here; its no less obviously biased than your silly theory. So, when you give me a credible scenario provided by a credible source in which those countries will wage war in the modern age, please do so. Until then, I can’t take up your bet. – my buddy

every single war in history has involved an autocratic regime as at least one of the participants. The overwhelming majority of conflicts have been between autocratic regimes.

Most recently, China (a nation cited on your bogus list) has attacked or annexed virtually all of its neighbors, including Tibet, Vietnam, Korea, USSR, et al.

Across the globe within the last century, autocratic regimes have engaged in conflict with each othe numerous times, yet not a single incident of conflict or violence between liberal democracies:

Chad and Sudan

Chechnya and Russia

Ethopia and Somalia

Sudan and Eritrea

Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia

Armenia-Azerbaijan war

Iraq-Iran war

Vietnam-China war

Vietnam and Khmer

Pakistan-Bangladesh

Nigeria-Biafra

Mainland China vs Tibet

USSR - Czechslovakia

USSR - Hungary

Which begs the question of what is your criteria and methodology for this ‘amazing’ autocratic peace theory and the short list that you provided.

Why isn’t Vietnam included ? Why not Sudan ?

Would the USSR have been included ? and if so, or if not, Why?

NOw that we have resolved your strawman argument – match your empty rhetoric with cash and accept my free market challenge.