tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/23/86)
In article <7801138@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > [ ... ] Here is a test which >democracies pass but authoritarian and aristocratic systems fail. >Hardly obvious a priori - but it is a FACT ! > >Democracies are not warlike. If they were, they'd sometimes fight >each other. By implication, if they fight someone else - or have >an arms race with someone else - the OTHER side's the problem. Well, I claim it is or should be obvious a priori. In a democracy power is divided among the people so that no one group becomes dominant. The people are kept busy struggling amongst themselves for wealth, power, etc. It is very difficult to get a large number of people to agree on anything, especially initiating a war, hence war for a democracy is usually a last resort. On the other hand, in a society where one group does gain control of the balance of power, the next natural step is to extend that power.
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/25/86)
> Democracies are not warlike. If they were, they'd sometimes fight > each other. By implication, if they fight someone else - or have > an arms race with someone else - the OTHER side's the problem. > > > In history, there is a counterexample for *almost* everything. > Rarely a clear, unequivocal rule emerges. When it *does*, it > shouldn't be passed by. > > This is such a case: a huge sample, no exceptions. (Well, just to > help you out: there have been two *very* marginal cases: the "Cod > War" between Britain and Iceland; and accidental sinking by Isra- > el of an American ship. That's *all*). > > Jan Wasilewsky Jan, you don't know your history very well at all. As I have pointed out before, the history of Imperialism by democracies goes all the way back to ancient Athens, which had as democratic a government as one could find in the Ancient World. It continued with the early Roman Republic, which had a nominal degree of democracy, and onto modern times with the British, French, Dutch, and other European empires. One must distinguish between *internal* stability and peace, which *HAS* been the undeniable product of national democracies and *external* relations with other states, be they democratic or otherwise. I make this important point *NOT* to criticize democratic government within nation-states but to point out that such is no guarantee of peace *between* states. The point then is to try to extend the internal peace and stability enjoyed by democratic nation-states to the world as a whole. The best way to do that I believe is to extend the principles of representation and compromise which achieve domestic peace in democracies to the whole world. This means establishing a framework of international law enforced by international agencies just as domestic laws and constitutions provide a rule of law rather than the jungle for democratic nation-states. I suppose I shall have to provide lengthy quotations from historical sources to back up my claims, since you do not seem to have the most basic understanding of history. tim sevener whuxn!orb
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (03/27/86)
In article <593@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > Jan, you don't know your history very well at all. Tim, why don't you just take your superior intellect, which is obviously being wasted in these paltry net.arguments, and share your wisdom with those who are on your level and can really *appreciate* it. Or, as an alternative, you could learn the fine art of disagreeing with people without insulting their intellect. > As I have pointed out before, the history of Imperialism by democracies Tim, don't you know English well enough to tell the difference between the words "war between democracies" and "Imperialism by democracies"? It seems very clear to me... > goes all the way back to ancient Athens, which had as democratic > a government as one could find in the Ancient World. And could not, therefore, have gone to war with another democracy, n'est pas?? > One must distinguish between *internal* stability and peace, which > *HAS* been the undeniable product of national democracies and > *external* relations with other states, be they democratic or > otherwise. Again, the question we (but apparently not you, Tim) were concerned with, based upon my interpretation of Jan's article, was of war betweeen democracies, not of the "relations with other states" of democracies. You have "disproved" NOTHING. You have PROVEN, however, that you are a pompous, patronizing FOOL who reads in whatever he wants to read into an article. BTW, I wouldn't go off like this if this was the *first* time you'd done this. > I make this important point *NOT* to criticize democratic government > within nation-states but to point out that such is no guarantee > of peace *between* states. Tim, where in your article did you refute anything Jan actually SAID?? > I suppose I shall have to provide lengthy quotations from historical > sources to back up my claims, since you do not seem to have the > most basic understanding of history. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Have patience with us, Tim. We're only mortals, but we're LEARNING. I for one, have LEARNED that I should use the dreaded 'n' key to blip past any article you've written which is a response to someone else's, since your article will almost certainly have nothing to do with the article responded to. Michael Lewis @ Purdue University