2 ms·

In the original post you state > For now, it seems like DEMOCRACY is the best thing to prevent wars. I'm not interested in throwing punches, however I don't t

In the original post you state > For now, it seems like DEMOCRACY is the best thing to prevent wars. I'm not interested in throwing punches, however I don't think your claim is coherent Twice now you respond with a loosely related objection about the definitions of terms used to describe 20th century philosophy and geopolitics You claim a certain locus of power is best able to prevent war- I point out that this same power has been at war across the globe, in some form or another, for almost a century- is this not a contradiction you see fit to address?

dragontamer 5y ago
I've twice clarified what the central thesis of my post was, and you've now twice ignored my clarifications. The democracy point is a side-point. But if you're interested in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory My main point is: 1. Trade is NOT a useful deterrent for war. 2. We have a (seemingly) superior recipe for peace: the Democracy Peace Theory. I don't think its perfect, but its a superior theory to the Trade-Peace Theory. If you disagree with #2, that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that its a well regarded theory of peace. Either way, it doesn't really change my #1 point about the Trade-Peace Theory seemingly being busted. ------------- The point is that democracies do not go to war WITH OTHER DEMOCRACIES. That's the democracy peace theory, and so far it has held true.
- walleeee 5y ago
  I don't dispute your point about the Trade-Peace theory, friend. Respectfully, since you affirm your convictions re: #2, my goal here is to get you to think critically about why "democratic" nations do not go to war with one another, and whether it may be helpful to consider theories of war which do not so transparently "take a side" in present-day geopolitics, and which can account for decades of warfare waged by democracies If a "recipe for peace" permits its favored system of governance to war with rival systems for political and economic dominance, perhaps it's not really a comprehensive theory of war and peace Perhaps it's more about justifying "democracy"

dragontamer 5y ago

I've twice clarified what the central thesis of my post was, and you've now twice ignored my clarifications. The democracy point is a side-point. But if you're interested in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory My main point is: 1. Trade is NOT a useful deterrent for war. 2. We have a (seemingly) superior recipe for peace: the Democracy Peace Theory. I don't think its perfect, but its a superior theory to the Trade-Peace Theory. If you disagree with #2, that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that its a well regarded theory of peace. Either way, it doesn't really change my #1 point about the Trade-Peace Theory seemingly being busted. ------------- The point is that democracies do not go to war WITH OTHER DEMOCRACIES. That's the democracy peace theory, and so far it has held true.

walleeee 5y ago
I don't dispute your point about the Trade-Peace theory, friend. Respectfully, since you affirm your convictions re: #2, my goal here is to get you to think critically about why "democratic" nations do not go to war with one another, and whether it may be helpful to consider theories of war which do not so transparently "take a side" in present-day geopolitics, and which can account for decades of warfare waged by democracies If a "recipe for peace" permits its favored system of governance to war with rival systems for political and economic dominance, perhaps it's not really a comprehensive theory of war and peace Perhaps it's more about justifying "democracy"